Are you religious?

InFront

Right -that's government inhibition - not religious inhibition. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, a Christian scholar proposed the Big Bang Theory for example.
Neither do you have to be religious to be against stem, cell research or genetic engineering. The suggestion that science is being held back by religion is not correct.

Stem Cell Research is pretty obviously not banned in the USA, by the way.

humbert

InFront wrote:

Right -that's government inhibition - not religious inhibition.

the government is the medium, religion is the cause.

InFront

Do you think ethics can exist outside of religion or do you consider atheists to be unethical?

Sangre

So religious people don't have votes, can't lobby politicans or protest outside centres? Of course, anything the Saudi government does isn't religious, its all about the government.

Of course being against those doesn't mean your religious. I never said that was the case. Its just an area a lot theists feel is God's territory (which is always shifting). Also it is the religious who are normally most vocal as they believe there is the most to lose.

True, stem cell research isn't banned but it is heavily legislated.

Edit; since I believe all religion to be the creation of man I believe all ethics and morals are man made. Atheism to me has no bearing on ethics or morality. It is in no way connected.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

So religious people don't have votes, can't lobby politicans or protest outside centres?

What makes you think that? They can, as can atheists with ethical concerns if they have them.
What's to say the scientists "inside" aren't a Christian or whatever?

humbert

InFront wrote:

What makes you think that? They can, as can atheists with ethical concerns if they have them.
What's to say the scientists "inside" aren't a Christian or whatever?

There's a distinction between opposing genetic research on ethical grounds and opposing it for purely religious reasons.

EDIT: this is why I didn't want to debate specific examples, it's taking the thread off topic.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

Religion isn't a physically destructive act itself, so that's an inaccuarte comparison.
You'd be better off comparing it to say, patriotism. Patriotism itself doesn't harm anyone, it's a state of mind. Where are all the anti-patriots?

I would consider myself the opposite of a "patriot", in that I don't think much of it. That's why I tend not to discuss nationalism. I don't understand the evangelical atheists' infatuation with believers and what they believe. Look at the atheist forum - it's all about religion.

Nationalism is often heavily linked to religion. In Ireland, anti-Catholicism would be in a way a form of anti-nationalism. And plenty of people are opposed to Irish being complusory for the LC etc.

For examples of anti-patriots look at the US.

And both religion and patriotism don't hurt anyone until a country's laws are influenced by them and/or they influence societies view of non-conformists negatively.

darkflower

I am a very religious person before until I met this person who gave me doubts we have been discussing about the bible, and that Jesus Christ do not even exist copying and pasting me proofs and links to prove it. I do not know what to believe in now. Im really confused.

InFront

humbert wrote:

There's a distinction between opposing genetic research on ethical grounds and opposing it for purely religious reasons.

I'm not sure that I would agree, haven't really thought about it, because in fact a protestor is a protestor. It doesn't matter if he's opposing you becase he's bored, or because he is religious, or because he's an atheist who doesn't like abortion - whatever. His personal motives don't effect the outcome.

Anyway, what are these examples of religion actively impeding the advancement of science?

Sangre

Locking up Galileo?

Ethics are the study of right and wrong based on logic, reason empathy and humanity.

Religion sets out immovable guidelines stuck in their historical time.

A person who ethically disagrees with something does it because he thinks it is wrong. A religious person disagrees disagrees because he thinks he should think it is wrong.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Locking up Galileo?

It's 2007, we're talking about the suggestion that religion *is* impeding the advancement of science. If you have to go back to Galileo, I think we're safe.

A person who ethically disagrees with something does it because he thinks it is wrong. A religious person disagrees disagrees because he thinks he should think it is wrong.

I think that belongs in the "we're more intelligent/ superior" category.

Aside from that, as I said, the motivation for the opposition doesn't make a difference to the result. The important point is the "ethical" opposition - whether you're an atheist who opposes abortion on ethical grounds, or a christian who opposes it on ethical grounds - is irrelevant to the outcome.

Sangre

If I'm a Muslim and I want to go to heaven I have to follow the Qur'ān. It doesn't matter if some of it disgusts me. It doesn't matter what I think of it ethically. So its hardly the same.

Modern example (already listed) - evolution in America.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

Aside from that, as I said, the motivation for the opposition doesn't make a difference to the result. The important point is the "ethical" opposition - whether you're an atheist who opposes abortion on ethical grounds, or a christian who opposes it on ethical grounds - is irrelevant to the outcome.

But Christianity in this case could be viewed as a powerful lobby group against abortion, and that means, therefore, that they are contributing to the denial of the right to have an abortion.

And of course you can apply this to many other issues besides abortion, like stem cell research or sex education.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

If I'm a Muslim and I want to go to heaven I have to follow the Qur'ān. It doesn't matter if some of it disgusts me. It doesn't matter what I think of it ethically. So its hardly the same.

What concern is that of yours? Presumably, being an atheist. The point is that the net outcome is the same - say, for example in a referendum. The vote of an atheist is worth no more and no less than a believer's.

You also seem to overlook the fact that you don't have to be a Muslim. It's very easy for someone to give it up, you can just do it. People who follow a particular faith do so for many reasons, one of these is because it corresponds to their own personal values - ethics.

Modern example (already listed) - evolution in America.

Since when is research on evolution banned in the USA? - it isn't.

InFront

JC 2K3 wrote:

But Christianity in this case could be viewed as a powerful lobby group against abortion, and that means, therefore, that they are contributing to the denial of the right to have an abortion.

So are atheists who are against abortion. The point is that personal motivation in this case, is not an issue.

JC 2K3

Firstly, those who are for abortion don't get an equal say when our countries' school system(especially primary schools) is dominated by the Catholic Church.

And the Catholic Church is an infinately stronger force than atheists against abortion due to its close relationship with the state.

InFront

Yes. It's all a big conspiracy.

You seem to be following the line that atheist=pro-abortion, religious=anti-abortion.

I have read fatwas by Muslim scholars where abortion is permitted when the birth of the child, perhaps due to a genetic defect, would be of distress to the mother. That's not allowed in secular Ireland, it happens Pakistan.

Equally I am friends with an agnostic who is anti-abortion, I'm sure we all know people like this. Sweeping generalisations aren't of much use.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

You seem to be following the line that atheist=pro-abortion, religious=anti-abortion.

Please read my posts properly.

The only things I may have implied in this thread is that the Catholic Church is against abortion - which is true, and that the Catholic Church has a stronger influence than most groups over our government - which is also true.

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

Terry

JC 2K3 wrote:

Firstly, those who are for abortion don't get an equal say when our countries' school system(especially primary schools) is dominated by the Catholic Church.

And the Catholic Church is an infinately stronger force than atheists against abortion due to its close relationship with the state.

Mod Terry: Ok. This is getting too deep for AH.
I have no problem letting it continue. however, You all need to remember the basic rules here: Attact the post and not the poster.

User Terry (feel free to report this if it offends you):
InFront, Are you disputing that, under islam, science has been stunted in its growth? I feel that any religion that tells us god created the earth is stunting scientific growth by telling people (from birth) that the whole universe was created by god.

JC 2K3, I would have to disagree with you there.
The catholic church is in no way infinite in anything.

Zillah

Terry wrote:

If the whole world agreed on everything, we would all die from boredom.

So you're not going to defend your position that the 10 Commandments are a good moral guideline?

InFront wrote:

Since when is research on evolution banned in the USA? - it isn't.

There is a massive, organised and well-funded campaign against the teaching of evolution in American schools. This campaign is being performed by Christian groups who are demanding equal air-time for the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design("Creationism in a cheap suit").

nesf

Terry wrote:

InFront, Are you disputing that, under islam, science has been stunted in its growth?

Islamic scholars were the beacons and holders of science for many centuries and contributed greatly to the preservation and advancement of science, medicine and philosophy. Admittedly it was quite a long time ago but in fairness, under Islam, at least for a time, science flourished. I'm not that up on it's position in more recent times as my interests in the history of science are mostly of a western bent from the middle ages on.

Zillah

nesf wrote:

Islamic scholars were the beacons and holders of science for many centuries and contributed greatly to the preservation and advancement of science, medicine and philosophy. Admittedly it was quite a long time ago but in fairness, under Islam, at least for a time, science flourished.

Very true, the Middle East was a few hundred years ahead of Europe for a while.

I'm not that up on it's position in more recent times my interests in scientific research are mostly of a western bent from the middle ages on.

Its gone the absolute opposite direction these days. In the West, the Religious clash with science occasionally because of the results science presents, but there is very little prejudice against science itself.

Not so in the Islamic world. There is a growing trend against the very idea of science. "Why does this burn like that? Because Allah wishes it to burn like that." Thats the impression I've gotten from my readings. Quite an interesting article here actually: http://www.meforum.org/article/306

InFront

Terry wrote:

User Terry (feel free to report this if it offends you):
InFront, Are you disputing that, under islam, science has been stunted in its growth? I feel that any religion that tells us god created the earth is stunting scientific growth by telling people (from birth) that the whole universe was created by god.

No it's a perfectly valid question, but I have to disagree.

Islam has been a significant contributor to advances inscience: medicine, mathematics, natural philosophy and astronomy down the centuries. How has Islam stunted scientific growth?
Islam was a huge contributor to Maths. Islamic religious architectural design is based on geometry, or as it was known to Muslims "sacred geodesy" and was a totally new innovation. Muslims invented Algorithm in Mathematics.

In Muslim Pakistan, logic is a school subject that students get examined on. What could be called "Muslim economies" depend heavily on science and engineering for their growth, not least in the oil-rich states.

There are the examples of Muhammad p. condemning the use of lucky charms and incantations in favour of real medicine. Also, a great many of our own university teachers and researchers here in Ireland and Britain are well-respected experts, usually in scientific fields, who happen to be Muslims.
Science is an essential companion of Islam and for any Muslim. The first word revealed to Muhammad p. was "Read."

There is also the issues of the scientific miracles of the Qur'an, which is probably not for here
But this talk of Islam (or indeed any religion as far as I am aware) being opposed to science just doesn't any make sense.

As for the origin of the universe: Telling someone that the entire universe was created by God is not a scientific opinion - because real science does not - cannot - have an opinion on that. There are too many (an infinite number) of possibilities for science alone to contend with. Pre-big bang time (because there was no 'time') is not science, science doesn't touch or teach it. So this is why there is no conflict of information there, and saying that teaching God's creation is to be stunting scientific growth is incorrect.

nesf

InFront wrote:

Islam was a huge contributor to maths Islamic religious architectural design is based on geometry, or as it was known to Muslims "sacred geodesy" and was a totally new innovation. Muslims invented Algorithm in Mathematics.

I'm not sure if I'd go that far. How much was inherited from the Greeks is open to debate and geometry perfection is found in many ancient architecture, though that's going a bit outside of the scope of this thread, and forum.

No one can/should deny the contributions made to early science by Islamic scholars though. The translation of Islamic texts to Latin was a major catalyst for the rebirth and growth of science in Western Europe. But anyway, yeah outside of the scope of this forum...

Terry

InFront, I unfairly picked on you.
That question goes to all religious people.

Dave!

InFront wrote:

Richard Dawkins devotes a writing career to discussing theology and his own personal beliefs. If I don't like something, I don't devote my career to it. The atheist obsession with religion is something that I don't particularly mind, but can never understand.

That's your own business if you just ignore something you don't like.

But people like Richard Dawkins, when they see something that they don't like or that they think is bullsh*t, then they take a stand against it and write books about it, make documentaries about it, protest about it, lecture about it, debate about it, etc. Especially if that bullsh*t is such a dominant force in the world -- one must feel compelled to point out its fallacies.

Maybe now you can understand better.

InFront wrote:

Since when is research on evolution banned in the USA? - it isn't.

Don't act naive; it's not banned, no, but there are plenty of lobby groups in America who are constantly trying to undermine it by getting creationism taught alongside it "just so the kids know all the options" :rolleyes: They want to have balance in the classroom -- a nice balance between fact and fiction.