Religion and Technology?

[eagleseven]

This was borrowed from another thread, but I believe it deserves its own thread.

What technological advancements have come about because of religion? Here are just a few:

1. Did religion put Man on the Moon? Yes. The physics that NASA used during the Apollo program was initially developed by Muslim scientists studying in Islamic Schools, funded by clerics, during the Middle Ages. In particular, Ibn al-Haytham is the father of modern optics. Thank him the next time you put on a pair of glasses.

2. Did religion bring us modern farming? Yes. All of the benefits gained by modern GMO's can be traced back to Fr. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest who single-handedly invented the field of genetics. Without the Church's support of Mendel, genetics would've been set back a century or more.

3. Did religion ever restore a lost leg? Yes. The Ancient Egyptians pioneered the field of medicine and the study of human body. While developing better methods for embalming corpses for the afterlife, they learned far more about the human body than any other civilization, at the time. Next time you break your leg, remember that bone-setting was developed because of an irrational belief in a physical afterlife.


Even if you are not a believer, you should recognize the important role religion has played in our development as a species.

 

[JBeukema]

The methodology and ideology of approach were scientific. It was science that brought all of those developments, regardless of the what led to the personal or social need for an answer. It doesn't matter why they wanted to set bones, the fact remains that it was as scientists that they approached the problem and furthered human knowledge

 

[eagleseven]

The methodology and ideology of approach were scientific. It was science that brought all of those developments, regardless of the what led to the personal or social need for an answer. It doesn't matter why they wanted to set bones, the fact remains that it was as scientists that they approached the problem and furthered human knowledge

I think you hit on the crux of the issue right there.

It doesn't matter in an esoteric discussion of religion and science, true. But the "whys" do matter in the actual "doing" of science. Historically, religion has been the motivator behind many of our critical discoveries.

And even today, ask any scientist fighting for grant money, the "whys" are still critical. And thus, this thread!

 

[Witty]

Even if you are not a believer, you should recognize the important role religion has played in our development as a species.

do you know this ?:
"
From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions - each branch of our knowledge - passes successively through three different stages: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive.
In other words, the human mind, by its nature, employs in its progress three methods of philosophizing, the character of which is essentially different, and even radically opposed: namely, the theological method, the metaphysical, and the positive. Hence arise three philosophies, or general systems of conceptions on the aggregate of phenomena, each of which excludes the others. The first is the necessary point of departure of the human understanding, and the third is its fixed and definitive state. The second is merely a state of transition.

In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects -- in short, absolute knowledge -- supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.

In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities (that is, personified abstractions) inherent in all beings, and capable of producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its proper entity.

In the final, the positive, state, the mind has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws -- that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance. Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of this knowledge. What is now understood when we speak of an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection between single phenomena and some general facts, the number of which continually diminishes with the progress of science.
"
it wrote some influential philosopher from XIX century

so human knowledge developed from superstitions [religion] to serious knowledge [empirical science], the same technology from backwardness to developed technique

if religion is so good for developement of technology then tell me why
why Islamic countries are most technologically backward and most religious countries in the world ?

 

[JBeukema]

I used to know the name of the man who describes the three stages you speak of. He also described the development of societies from superstitious to polytheists to monotheists, then metaphysics, and then hopefully some day to reasonable and logical

 

[eagleseven]

if religion is so good for developement of technology then tell me why why Islamic countries are most technologically backward and most religious countries in the world ?

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

2. The Islamic world underwent a philosophical reform in the early 1800s which condemned the developments of Islam of 900-1500AD. When Sunnis rejected the very methods (mentioned in #1) that they had originally developed, they rapidly were eclipsed in technology, resulting in the collapse of their empire.

P.S. The US is one of the most religious countries in the world, and has been at the forefront of technology for nearly a decade. If religion is so detrimental to development, how can America be leading the world in technology?

 

[Witty]

I used to know the name of the man who describes the three stages you speak of. He also described the development of societies from superstitious to polytheists to monotheists, then metaphysics, and then hopefully some day to reasonable and logical

so we both know who wrote above-cited words

to eagleseven, I like people which in the discussion try to use arguments and not emotions

Did religion bring us modern farming? Yes. All of the benefits gained by modern GMO's can be traced back to Fr. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest who single-handedly invented the field of genetics.

but you probably don't know that Mendel came from poor family and only way for him to end studies and be a biologist was go to monastery (it was one from examples of harmful religion's influence on social system)

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

but when ?

whether this did not take place within a period of modern time when people began to reject the religion ?

and whether in Middle Ages our level of research methods weren't very similar to level of research methods of today Islam ?

P.S. The US is one of the most religious countries in the world, and has been at the forefront of technology for nearly a decade. If religion is so detrimental to development, how can America be leading the world in technology?

but most of high developed countries are irreligiously - Western Europe, and in Europe again most poor countries are most religious, like Portugal or Poland

the religiousness of americas is an indication of the backwardness - see South America, their religiousness is much stronger then in Europe and most of these countries are very backward (below level of Portugal), Islamic countries are even more religious then in South America so they are also poorer

N.America is less religious so it is richer, and most rich countries (richer then USA) like Norway are irreligious

there exist such rule that
religiousness = indigence, because religiousness = backwardness

if religion isn't harmful for PROGRESS then tell me why religious people in US are attacking some fundamental conceptions of Science like theory of Evolution ? it is the same like somebody started to attack theory of relativity in Physics. These are attacks on Science and if on Science then also on Technology and richness.

 

[eagleseven]

to eagleseven, I like people which in the discussion try to use arguments and not emotions

Thank you! I think the same way.

Did religion bring us modern farming? Yes. All of the benefits gained by modern GMO's can be traced back to Fr. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest who single-handedly invented the field of genetics.

but you probably don't know that Mendel came from poor family and only way for him to end studies and be a biologist was go to monastery (it was one from examples of harmful religion's influence on social system)

I would argue that the Church's heirarchy based upon merit, not bloodline, combined with it's preservation of Classical knowledge, enabled Mendel far more than it handicapped him.

but when ?

whether this did not take place within a period of modern time when people began to reject the religion ?

and whether in Middle Ages our level of research methods weren't very similar to level of research methods of today Islam ?

From 800AD to 1600AD, Islamic science far outclassed Western alchemy. From 1600AD to present, Western scientific method far outclassed Islamic science.

We stand on the shoulders of giants, as they say.

the religiousness of americas is an indication of the backwardness - see South America, their religiousness is much stronger then in Europe and most of these countries are very backward (below level of Portugal), Islamic countries are even more religious then in South America so they are also poorer

N.America is less religious so it is richer, and most rich countries (richer then USA) like Norway are irreligious

there exist such rule that
religiousness = indigence, because religiousness = backwardness

I would argue that it is wealth that kills religion, not science. How so? Look at the timeline.

1600-1800AD Christian scientists develop nearly all modern scientific disciplines.

1700-1900AD Industrialists convert this technological development to historically unprecedented wealth.

1800AD-2009AD Philosophers living with these new riches declare "God is Dead!"

1950AD-2009AD The people of Europe, being the objectively richest people who ever lived, agree that "God is Dead!"

if religion isn't harmful for PROGRESS then tell me why religious people in US are attacking some fundamental conceptions of Science like theory of Evolution ? it is the same like somebody started to attack theory of relativity in Physics. These are attacks on Science and if on Science then also on Technology and richness.

Because religion does not respond rapidly to change. Religion was developed during a time of human history when world-changing discoveries were made every few centuries. Thus, religion adapts to changes across generations.

Thanks to our newfound wealth, world-changing discoveries are made every few years. Religion is having a very difficult time keeping up, and so many religious are resisting the changes. Ultimately, this is because humans are not adapted to dealing with continuous, rapid change.

Why do you think nearly 1/3 of Americans are on anti-depressants? Our biology is having a difficult time coping with our modern lifestyle, brought about by abundant wealth.

 

[Witty]

of course, words:

each of our leading conceptions - each branch of our knowledge - passes successively through three different stages: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive.

came from Course of Positive Philosophy (1830-1842) which wrote A.Comte

I would argue that it is wealth that kills religion, not science.

so read again this

each of our leading conceptions - each branch of our knowledge - passes successively through three different stages: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive.

science kills religion and must kill religion because religion contain only superstitions, to believe in god it is the same like to believe that earth is a center of universe

wealth comes from progress, progress from science, so both science and wealth are enemies of religion

GOD IS DEAD BECAUSE SCIENCE AND WEALTH KILLED HIM

your timeline is a little incorrect:

300 BC - 300 AD godless ancient science and technics is developing

500 AD - 1500 AD religion is winning, Dark Ages, development of Science and Technics is blocked (in 800-1000 AD was developing 'Islamic science' but development isn't big and quickly was ended)

1600-1800AD scientists prepared many of modern scientific disciplines
(many of them were chiristians but they had the same reasons like Mendel to be 'christian')

1800AD-2009AD Science comes through period of huge development so religion is slowly daying

Because religion does not respond rapidly to change. Religion was developed during a time of human history when world-changing discoveries were made every few centuries. Thus, religion adapts to changes across generations.

People with open minds react quickly on changes, people with closed-minds don't react at all - religion was, is and will has many against science because religion is irrational and science rational

 

[JBeukema]

I would argue that it is wealth that kills religion, not science.]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

 

[KittenKoder]

I would argue that it is wealth that kills religion, not science.]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

That generalization demonstrates nothing but ignorance.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

I would argue that it is wealth that kills religion, not science.]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

That generalization demonstrates nothing but ignorance.

Not really.

God of the Gaps.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avatar4321]

Science leaves less gaps in which god can hide

What makes you think God is hiding anywhere?

He is in plain sight if you are willing to see.

 

[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.

 

[JBeukema]

The fist sentence is a lie

the rest is a red herring

The last sentence is baseless bullshit


I don't recall the last time you posted anything meaningful, KK

 

[KittenKoder]

The fist sentence is a lie

the rest is a red herring

The last sentence is baseless bullshit


I don't recall the last time you posted anything meaningful, KK

Projecting your own insecurities does not make you right by default.

 

[JBeukema]

The fact remains that your post was baseless and dishonest, KK

 

[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)

 

[Diuretic]

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