Religion and Technology?

[Diuretic]

1. We have developed standardized research methods that are superior to the chaotic research of the pre-enlightenment world.

This innovation can also be attributed to followers of religion.

1. Observation
2. Statement of problem
3. Formulation of hypothesis
4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5. Analysis of experimental results
6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7. Publication of findings​

- Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039 AD)

And Roger Bacon! (who followed the Islamic scientists of course).

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry, KK, but what I said is fact. God can no longer hide in the sun, in the rain, in the eclipse. The stars no longer belong to god, but can be explained.

No, what you said is opinion and belief ...

Like all, you are welcome to it, but nothing science does can get rid of the possibility of any creator or god, all it does it make our physical universe less mystical. Hell, most of science does enforce the possibility of a more powerful being.

That's the beauty of science! Not that I know anything about it, I'm just a lay observer who needs things explained to him slooooooooowly (and with pics).
Science isn't closed minded, heck for all I know it could be a path to ultimate truth (that being my reference to a creator/supernatural entity etc) but the exciting bit is finding stuff out along the way. I just get a bit annoyed with those who want to conflate science and religion because science threatens their fundamentalist, literalist view of religion. Religion would be a lot more attractive if it were a bit more subtle

I recommend that you then look into the more ancient religions ... many of which were altered based on scientific advances at the time ... and can still be modified based on newer ones. One such religion is Ancient Egyptian pantheonism ... it's a wonderful belief system, very simplistic yet with a colorful mythology that changed with the times. For instance, the greatest scientist of the time, Imhotep, was elevated to godhood when he died. He was the true father of medicine.

 

[JBeukema]

To say that religion has brought change because a certain person who believed also happened to adhere to or developed naturalistic methodology is fallacious.It is the naturalistic approach that brought development. This is why it would br fallacious to say that Aryanism brought about treatment for hypothermia and pressure sickness, although this knowledge grew out of experiments performed in the concentration camps of the Thidr Reich.

it was the individual and the approach they developed in accordance with naturalistic, reasonable, scientific principles that is worthy of credit, not whatever mythology or fairy tales they told their children.

 

[Diuretic]

No, what you said is opinion and belief ...

Like all, you are welcome to it, but nothing science does can get rid of the possibility of any creator or god, all it does it make our physical universe less mystical. Hell, most of science does enforce the possibility of a more powerful being.

That's the beauty of science! Not that I know anything about it, I'm just a lay observer who needs things explained to him slooooooooowly (and with pics).
Science isn't closed minded, heck for all I know it could be a path to ultimate truth (that being my reference to a creator/supernatural entity etc) but the exciting bit is finding stuff out along the way. I just get a bit annoyed with those who want to conflate science and religion because science threatens their fundamentalist, literalist view of religion. Religion would be a lot more attractive if it were a bit more subtle

I recommend that you then look into the more ancient religions ... many of which were altered based on scientific advances at the time ... and can still be modified based on newer ones. One such religion is Ancient Egyptian pantheonism ... it's a wonderful belief system, very simplistic yet with a colorful mythology that changed with the times. For instance, the greatest scientist of the time, Imhotep, was elevated to godhood when he died. He was the true father of medicine.

Clever little buggers humans

 

[Kalam]

1. We have developed standardized research methods that are superior to the chaotic research of the pre-enlightenment world.

This innovation can also be attributed to followers of religion.

1. Observation
2. Statement of problem
3. Formulation of hypothesis
4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5. Analysis of experimental results
6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7. Publication of findings​

- Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039 AD)

And Roger Bacon! (who followed the Islamic scientists of course).

The scientific method was a series of innovations, IMO. I think it had its roots in Ancient Egyptian medical diagnoses... Ibn al-Haytham was simply the first to formulate a process that could be applied to experimentation in general. Western philosophers like Bacon and Descartes continued to improve this model and shape it into what we have today.

Coincidentally Bacon authored a quote that I like:

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

 

[Diuretic]

To say that religion has brought change because a certain person who believed also happened to adhere to or developed naturalistic methodology is fallacious.It is the naturalistic approach that brought development. This is why it would br fallacious to say that Aryanism brought about treatment for hypothermia and pressure sickness, although this knowledge grew out of experiments performed in the concentration camps of the Thidr Reich.

it was the individual and the approach they developed in accordance with naturalistic, reasonable, scientific principles that is worthy of credit, not whatever mythology or fairy tales they told their children.

But it could be fair to say that "religion" fostered human knowledge and that's a good thing, if it's so. I'm referring to "religion" almost in a metaphysical sense and not referencing dogma. It would be too easy to present examples of organised religion completely screwing up any pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Witty]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

That generalization demonstrates nothing but ignorance.

religion is nothing but ignorance

Ibn al-Haytham was simply the first to formulate a process that could be applied to experimentation in general

rubbish

in ancient Greece existed much higher developed science, as example we can indicate theory of mechanics of Archimedes, heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos, or foundations of mathematics in Euclid's "Elements"

this what Arabs did in Middle Ages were rinsings after the Greek science (they aped from translations of Greek writings)

 

[KittenKoder]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

That generalization demonstrates nothing but ignorance.

religion is nothing but ignorance

Ibn al-Haytham was simply the first to formulate a process that could be applied to experimentation in general

rubbish

in ancient Greece existed much higher developed science, as example we can indicate theory of mechanics of Archimedes, heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos, or foundations of mathematics in Euclid's "Elements"

this what Arabs did in Middle Ages were rinsings after the Greek science (they aped from translations of Greek writings)

Witty ... you are not ...

 

[AllieBaba]

He has a point, though. Islam acquired science and knowledge from the people they conquered....at least that's what I have gathered from my research.

 

[Kalam]

this what Arabs did in Middle Ages were rinsings after the Greek science (they aped from translations of Greek writings)

Wrong, Dansker.

No Greek developed the scientific method of experimentation. Islamic philosophy and scientific development were built somewhat on Greek innovations, but went far beyond and even directly contradicted the works and discoveries of Greek thinkers. Chalking up centuries of scientific prosperity and development in the Islamic world to mere plagiarism of Greek thought is evidence of ignorance of philosophical history on your part. Your Renaissance occurred largely because we reintroduced you to the Greek philosophers you left behind in your nutty religious fervor and exposed you to around six hundred year's worth of our own inventions and philosophy. Keep that in mind.

 

[KittenKoder]

He has a point, though. Islam acquired science and knowledge from the people they conquered....at least that's what I have gathered from my research.

Look at his first sentence to understand my reply to him ...

 

[Kalam]

He has a point, though. Islam acquired science and knowledge from the people they conquered....at least that's what I have gathered from my research.

Thanks for sharing, Babble. Maybe you'll be taken seriously when you become mature enough to acknowledge that the people you irrationally hate are as capable of contributing to science as anyone else. In fact, they exposed your then-pathetic forebears to innovations that brought you out of centuries of abject poverty and feudal squabbles that resulted from the imposition of your own religion.

 

[Witty]

islamic philosophy and scientific development were built somewhat on Greek innovations, but went far beyond

so read this

He has a point, though. Islam acquired science and knowledge from the people they conquered....at least that's what I have gathered from my research.

Islamic 'science' it was only 'science' of translations from Greek, you should read something about it

 

[Kalam]

Islamic 'science' it was only 'science' of translations from Greek, you should read something about it

No, moron, re-read my last post. Islamic discoveries were often made that contradicted Greek knowledge.

How Islamic inventors changed the world - Science, News - The Independent

 

[AllieBaba]

He has a point, though. Islam acquired science and knowledge from the people they conquered....at least that's what I have gathered from my research.

Thanks for sharing, Babble. Maybe you'll be taken seriously when you become mature enough to acknowledge that the people you irrationally hate are as capable of contributing to science as anyone else. In fact, they exposed your then-pathetic forebears to innovations that brought you out of centuries of abject poverty and feudal squabbles that resulted from the imposition of your own religion.

Er....I don't hate them. That's what I've learned about Islam.

Here, let me quote.

"For the Arabs to have a meterial culture at all, it was necessary for them to borrow from thepeople they conquered. Pre-Islamic Arabia had been culturally barren, except for its lyrical poetry, which emerged from the spirit of the desert itself. But THROUGH THE MUSLIM COQUEST OF BYZANTIUM AND PERSIA, and the establishment of a new Islamic capital, first in Damascus and then in Baghdad, the Arabs became the cultural heirs of those highly civilized states."

p. 101
The Great Ages of Man, A History of t he World's Cultures - EARLY ISLAM
Desmond Steward & The Editors of Time-Life Books

The same is true of science and philosophy. They took from the people they came into contact with, and expanded on them.

If you think such a mild fact is evidence of hatred, you're obviously looking for it.

 

[Kalam]

Er....I don't hate them. That's what I've learned about Islam.

You're downplaying the significance of Islamic contributions to scientific advancement. As I said, it's ridiculous to pretend as if everything produced by Islamic Arabia was simply taken from the Greeks or some conquered group.

Here, let me quote.

"For the Arabs to have a meterial culture at all, it was necessary for them to borrow from thepeople they conquered. Pre-Islamic Arabia had been culturally barren, except for its lyrical poetry, which emerged from the spirit of the desert itself. But THROUGH THE MUSLIM COQUEST OF BYZANTIUM AND PERSIA, and the establishment of a new Islamic capital, first in Damascus and then in Baghdad, the Arabs became the cultural heirs of those highly civilized states."

p. 101
The Great Ages of Man, A History of t he World's Cultures - EARLY ISLAM
Desmond Steward & The Editors of Time-Life Books

The same is true of science and philosophy. They took from the people they came into contact with, and expanded on them.

That's an arrant understatement. Distillation was not simply the product of a modified Greek or Byzantine process. The scientific method of experimentation was built mostly upon earlier Islamic innovations - controlled experiments, peer review, citation, etc. Jabir (Geber) pioneered chemistry and invented now-basic lab equipment and chemical processes without any significant external influence of which I'm aware. I could go on.

Islamic philosophy is self-evidently original. It's based on the Qur'an, an original text in every sense of the word that was only externally influenced by a handful of Jewish and Christian fables. Aristotelianism and other non-Islamic sources played a peripheral role in shaping Islamic philosophy.

 

[midcan5]

These debates get ridiculous. Western modern society is a product of pluralism, caused by trade, open communications, industrial growth, and competition. Individual freedom as part of enlightenment rationalism led to the liberal, tolerant society that created our complex world with all its problems as well. Tribal, religious, or isolated societies do not offer the opportunity for the changes that go into this mix. Look only at Saudi Arabia, India, or China as study examples of the influx of the modern world. Two work better today, one still doesn't. Is Iran moving forward too? We can hope.

In the world as it exists we see history in the evolution of societies that still represent medieval, primitive intolerance, tribalism, and muse on how we got here and they are still there. We can only hope that while Iraq was a mistake something grows out of that horror.

When you look back at many of the scientific discoveries of more primitive nations/countries/societies those that had no platform for growth did not grow. Ideas need soil. Consider the impact Martin Luther had when he broke with the Catholic theocracy that ruled so much of the world and importantly controlled the world of ideas and thus potential. It isn't in religion or even science, it is in what freedoms and potentials come out of those things that move us forward.

check out Watson some time.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/0060935642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247396072&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud: Peter Watson: Books[/ame]


"It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." Richard Feynman

 

[editec]

What technological advancements have come about because of religion?

Civilization itself?

Religion being the primary tool that lead us to developing into complex civilizations, ya know.

It astounds me that some of you completely lack the understanding that religion wasn't just one aspect of civilization, religion was the unifying tool that was most responsible for the development of complex civilizations..

"But Editec...Religions caused wars" you'll whine.

But, my foolish propeller-headed chums, religions also created the civilizations that made it possible (and necessary?) to have wars to begin with, " is my response.

I know this is hard for some of you hard science guys to understand, but the most important inventions mankind ever made were NOT technical gadgets, but social systems and tools of communications that required no (what you mistakenly think of as) real science!

So what did religions bring us?

The law, philosophy, division of labor, and hundreds (probably thousands) of social systems each taylored to the local needs. Each religion originally helped mankind advance from those hunter-gathering bands of isolated brutes into the highly advanced societies we have today

Religion is, of course, a double edged sword, just like every other invention of mankind.

But that's not the problem of religion. That's the problem of mankind's rapacious nature.

Religion and language are STILL the most fundamental inventions that make us WHO we are, even today.

If you live in the West, even if you are NOT religious, your value system is basically an invention of the Judeao-christian religion that some of think you eschew and loath.

You didn't choose that, you're so immersed in it, that some of you can't see how it sustains you.

Most of you, like it or not, are creatures of the Christian CULTURE.

And culture is still nothing but another example of mankind's amazingly inventive mind.

 

[Witty]

So what did religions bring us?

NOTHING, I REPEAT, NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT SERIOUS PROBLEMS

101. Religion thinks that the world is less than 10,000 years old
100. Religion was created to keep people in control, during the dark ages
97. Religion justified racism
95. Religion justified slavery
94. Religion justified rape
93. Religion justified discrimination of anyone who thought for themselves
92. Religion justified the murder of more people than any other reason for murder
91. Religion causes our schools to teach blatantly untrue information
90. Religion causes people to waste their lives
89. Religion restricts science and stunting society from further knowledge
88. Religion stunts free thought, which should be encouraged
86. Religion is a lie
85. Religion devalues reason.
84. Religion slows sceientific progress.
83. Religion slows social progress.
82. Religion takes the true beauty of the universe and replaces it with an ugly distortion.
80. Religion steals money and manpower that could truely be used to end poverty world wide.

is it enough, or you want more ?

 

[Lawman]

Technological advances are an evolution of science. Since religions don't believe in evolution, claiming that religions brought these advancements is totally hypocritical, or just proof that religions believe in evolution?