0
   

Religion and Society

 
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 02:59 am
In your view do you think religion progresses society or does it slow it down?

We all know over the years, all religion done is slow down scientific progess all because in the name of "faith". I hate it when someone stops an idea due to his/her religious beleif.

A perfect example would be the Large Hadron Collider, it was put on hold because of a women who knew nothing of black holes was terrifed that smashing protons so that scientist can move forward in the world by taking a glimpse of what really happended shortly after the big bang.

After a series of trails in court, the party for won and the lady lost.

So what are your thoughts? Is your community backward like mine? Should we promote secular soceity and keep religion out of our soceity so that we can assure well being of everyone?

Thanks Smile
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,277 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:01 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;147018 wrote:
In your view do you think religion progresses society or does it slow it down?

We all know over the years, all religion done is slow down scientific progess all because in the name of "faith". I hate it when someone stops an idea due to his/her religious beleif.

A perfect example would be the Large Hadron Collider, it was put on hold because of a women who knew nothing of black holes was terrifed that smashing protons so that scientist can move forward in the world by taking a glimpse of what really happended shortly after the big bang.

After a series of trails in court, the party for won and the lady lost.

So what are your thoughts? Is your community backward like mine? Should we promote secular soceity and keep religion out of our soceity so that we can assure well being of everyone?

Thanks Smile


Yes, but you are going to get a lot of disagreement from others at this site. Don't let them run you off.
0 Replies
 
1CellOfMany
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 10:26 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;147018 wrote:
In your view do you think religion progresses society or does it slow it down?

We all know over the years, all religion done is slow down scientific progess all because in the name of "faith". I hate it when someone stops an idea due to his/her religious beleif.

A perfect example would be the Large Hadron Collider, it was put on hold because of a women who knew nothing of black holes was terrifed that smashing protons so that scientist can move forward in the world by taking a glimpse of what really happended shortly after the big bang.

After a series of trails in court, the party for won and the lady lost.

So what are your thoughts? Is your community backward like mine? Should we promote secular soceity and keep religion out of our soceity so that we can assure well being of everyone?

Thanks Smile

I am looking for any evidence that the Large Hadron Collider was put on hold for the reason that you mention. All that I can find is several accounts of a magnet failure (superconductiong magnets are cooled by liguid Helium, which leaked into the tunnel) which caused the collider to be shut down. BBC News - Collider halted until next year
What is the source for your information?
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 11:10 am
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;147104 wrote:
I am looking for any evidence that the Large Hadron Collider was put on hold for the reason that you mention. All that I can find is several accounts of a magnet failure (superconductiong magnets are cooled by liguid Helium, which leaked into the tunnel) which caused the collider to be shut down. BBC News - Collider halted until next year
What is the source for your information?


That is a good question, though there were lawsuits about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?_r=1

Atom-smasher fears spark lawsuit - Science- msnbc.com

US lawsuit calls Large Hadron Collider a Doomsday Machine, Higgs boson shrugs -- Engadget

And not just the U.S.:

German court rejects lawsuit against Large Hadron Collider | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 12:00 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;147018 wrote:
In your view do you think religion progresses society or does it slow it down?

We all know over the years, all religion done is slow down scientific progess all because in the name of "faith". I hate it when someone stops an idea due to his/her religious beleif.

A perfect example would be the Large Hadron Collider, it was put on hold because of a women who knew nothing of black holes was terrifed that smashing protons so that scientist can move forward in the world by taking a glimpse of what really happended shortly after the big bang.

After a series of trails in court, the party for won and the lady lost.

So what are your thoughts? Is your community backward like mine? Should we promote secular soceity and keep religion out of our soceity so that we can assure well being of everyone?

Thanks Smile

Religion is the beginning of science, but is hardly the end...
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 01:04 pm
@ikurwa89,
Not to, as Pyrrho puts it, 'run you off':

The notion of progress as it applies to culture is one of complete perspective. Even if we completely dismiss any claims of religion being divine, we run into one of the classic manifestations of conscious self cognition.

We culturally are at a constantly modifying experienctial endpoint of an evolutionary process, much like we are at one of a biological evolutionary process. We apply the word progress to this because we see what is documented historically, and that which was projected to have happened prehistorically. We see a timeline with us at the end, and only having truely experienced us at the end egocentrically project us being the progressive culmination of something, not the evolutionary culmination of something. Thus that which is currently being rejected for whatever cultural reasons seems to be being rejected for an agentive purpose not just a reason.

Biologically having never been a pre sapien homo or a pre homo paranthrapus, or even having been an insect, we egocentrically presume that in terms of quality of life qua happiness qua whatever we have it better because they are not us, when all it really is is that we exist because we are better equipped to exploit our environment. Culturally much the same thing happens, technology, political structure, environment, charismatic leaders etc... continue to change, thus our general culture and personal interaction changes. Normally a successful cultural component is simply that which evolved to best exploit its environment.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 01:45 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;147150 wrote:
Not to, as Pyrrho puts it, 'run you off':

The notion of progress as it applies to culture is one of complete perspective. Even if we completely dismiss any claims of religion being divine, we run into one of the classic manifestations of conscious self cognition.

We culturally are at a constantly modifying experienctial endpoint of an evolutionary process, much like we are at one of a biological evolutionary process. We apply the word progress to this because we see what is documented historically, and that which was projected to have happened prehistorically. We see a timeline with us at the end, and only having truely experienced us at the end egocentrically project us being the progressive culmination of something, not the evolutionary culmination of something. Thus that which is currently being rejected for whatever cultural reasons seems to be being rejected for an agentive purpose not just a reason.

Biologically having never been a pre sapien homo or a pre homo paranthrapus, or even having been an insect, we egocentrically presume that in terms of quality of life qua happiness qua whatever we have it better because they are not us, when all it really is is that we exist because we are better equipped to exploit our environment. Culturally much the same thing happens, technology, political structure, environment, charismatic leaders etc... continue to change, thus our general culture and personal interaction changes. Normally a successful cultural component is simply that which evolved to best exploit its environment.
Yes, so progress is the idea of moving from a weaker, less developed, lower, poorer, less worthy, maybe evil state to a better one. It means getting better. Whether there really is any getting better is debatable. Maybe every generation goes through the same fundamental things... they're repeating, but they don't fully realize it. I think there are signs that Lincoln believed we're repeating. But it's also said that he was effected by a Christian tradition that says each person is born to do something, and it's up to you to figure out what that is.

Christianity includes the idea of improvement, Jesus was a reformer. It tends to put the power for real improvement in the hands of God, though. It's been animated at times by people losing hope in humanity. They don't give up hope, though. They put their hope in God to one day come and fix everything.

On the other side of it is the Calvinist notion that you don't live to progress. You live only to glorify God. This notion has manifested in selflessness and devotion to helping to raise people up. When Chicago had been rendered a cultural wasteland by capitalism, religion brought the call to look at what we owe each other. Umm.. and I think it was woman.

Long story short: there's a lot of power in religion. When it comes out well, it's awesome. When it comes out badly, it makes people think we'd be better off without religion.

"Oh let's go."
"We can't."
"Why?"
"We're waiting for Godot."
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 03:07 pm
@Arjuna,
Arj:

Yes reformers do just that the re-form, create another morph out of the material that was. The reasons for the new form are various. The ideologies involved just as much so. Pol Pot was a re-former. Kim Jong Il is a re-former. Newt Gingrich is a re-former. Some people made life 'good' other 'bad' all have made culture in general evolve and have been a part of the evolution that is current human culture. If we have 'progressed' all of these figures are components in the progression, as is religion, science, and pretty much every other trend ever introduced into the human experience including natural disasters, famines, arbitrary agricultural gains (al la Guns Germs and Steel) etc...
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 03:45 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;147180 wrote:
Arj:

Yes reformers do just that the re-form, create another morph out of the material that was. The reasons for the new form are various. The ideologies involved just as much so. Pol Pot was a re-former. Kim Jong Il is a re-former. Newt Gingrich is a re-former. Some people made life 'good' other 'bad' all have made culture in general evolve and have been a part of the evolution that is current human culture. If we have 'progressed' all of these figures are components in the progression, as is religion, science, and pretty much every other trend ever introduced into the human experience including natural disasters, famines, arbitrary agricultural gains (al la Guns Germs and Steel) etc...
I think we must have mind-melded. I was going to ask about why cultures ever change in the first place.. and the first thing I thought of was: disruption from outside... disease, famine, war... and hasn't war been pointed to as a biggy in terms of technological progress? Not to pick on the Swiss. Actually, I guess Jung was a reformer.

But I wouldn't say: more war! it's good for progress.
PappasNick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 04:01 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;147195 wrote:
[...] and hasn't war been pointed to as a biggy in terms of technological progress? [...]
But I wouldn't say: more war! it's good for progress.


Given our current culture I think technology would continue to advance even without what we now think of as war. War might, ironically, be the only thing that could slow it down.
0 Replies
 
Baal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 04:09 pm
@ikurwa89,
This is not to suggest however that cultures do not have their own idea of advancement (though some do not), and that whether change in a culture can even be graded on chronological plane to begin with. When we say advance, we imply a past, a present, and an ideal future - not all cultures have this. Certainly western society which is generally messianic has such -- but not all do. Some consider advancement to be a personal issue - to come to a personal state of perfection; some consider it more fatalistic, and thus advancement does not to justice to that which has been predetermined.

We certainly have our own plane -- I'm sure many people do - but one cannot say that "this other belief system is not advancing because they don't do as we see ideal" -
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 05:06 pm
@Baal,
PappasNick;147199 wrote:
Given our current culture I think technology would continue to advance even without what we now think of as war. War might, ironically, be the only thing that could slow it down.
I see that...yea. Global integration, power, and of course the ever important job of creating a moon colony... just kidding. Technology can come from the darndest places:
http://library.thinkquest.org/23062/mclock.html

Baal;147202 wrote:
This is not to suggest however that cultures do not have their own idea of advancement (though some do not), and that whether change in a culture can even be graded on chronological plane to begin with. When we say advance, we imply a past, a present, and an ideal future - not all cultures have this. Certainly western society which is generally messianic has such -- but not all do. Some consider advancement to be a personal issue - to come to a personal state of perfection; some consider it more fatalistic, and thus advancement does not to justice to that which has been predetermined.

We certainly have our own plane -- I'm sure many people do - but one cannot say that "this other belief system is not advancing because they don't do as we see ideal" -
That's good point.
0 Replies
 
ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 07:08 pm
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;147104 wrote:
I am looking for any evidence that the Large Hadron Collider was put on hold for the reason that you mention. All that I can find is several accounts of a magnet failure (superconductiong magnets are cooled by liguid Helium, which leaked into the tunnel) which caused the collider to be shut down. BBC News - Collider halted until next year
What is the source for your information?



Maybe your not trying hard enough?

German loses court case over atom-smasher Large Hadron Collider doomsday fears | News.com.au

Just google Large Hadron Collider court cases....

This just shows ignorance/fear brings out the best of mankind.

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 12:12 PM ----------

If everyone was satisfied with the answer "godidit" we woudn't of progressed to what we are now?

I can see this clearly in face of soceity today, those who follow a praticular religion(not all but most) don't really care how nature works, how she behaves and what laws govern her etc.. All they care about is their holy book and their weekly practice.

When i asked them, how does such thing work.. the only answer I get is "god".

Religion put this invisible wall to seeking knowledge. Sure some might be lazy and don't care but most of the time it's religion behind the scene!
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:58 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;147261 wrote:

Religion put this invisible wall to seeking knowledge. Sure some might be lazy and don't care but most of the time it's religion behind the scene!


"Religion is..." is nearly always the start of a sweeping generalization. In fact, it is different things to different people.

It is obviously true that religious institutions can be obstacles to research, progress and development. But on the other hand, religions are not always regressive, and also, they can play a role in representing the interests of those who might not have a voice in the corporate, legal or academic worlds.

Why shouldn't there be ethical constraints on seeking knowledge? Is knowledge for its own sake always good? Is the human race better off for having developed weapons which threaten the planet? Sure science can cure diseases but it can also create biological warfare agents. What is the scientific basis for ethics and morality? What scientific value can we ascribe to human life or the meaning of the cosmos?

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 09:03 PM ----------

I also don't see any connection between religion and the lawsuits aimed at stopping the LHC. None of them were launched by religious organisations or mentioned religious motivations, that I am aware of.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 11:40 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;149184 wrote:
"Religion is..." is nearly always the start of a sweeping generalization. In fact, it is different things to different people.

It is obviously true that religious institutions can be obstacles to research, progress and development. But on the other hand, religions are not always regressive, and also, they can play a role in representing the interests of those who might not have a voice in the corporate, legal or academic worlds.

Why shouldn't there be ethical constraints on seeking knowledge? Is knowledge for its own sake always good? Is the human race better off for having developed weapons which threaten the planet? Sure science can cure diseases but it can also create biological warfare agents. What is the scientific basis for ethics and morality? What scientific value can we ascribe to human life or the meaning of the cosmos?

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 09:03 PM ----------

I also don't see any connection between religion and the lawsuits aimed at stopping the LHC. None of them were launched by religious organisations or mentioned religious motivations, that I am aware of.

Certainly, formal religion, religion with dogma and laws does not, and has not done the good you suggest... All social forms, in time, take the natural inclination of people for stasis, the desire to hold time still, and turn it toward their own benefit and into reaction against all change... It is not the powerful by nature that cling to such forms, but the weakest and those least able to compete...And it is to beat down the naturally strong that most people everywhere organize and unite, but in the process humanity is not made stronger, or even more intelligent because the weak, organized into positions of strength tend to view all, strong and intelligent alike as threats to their privilages...Jesus pointed this out of the priestly classes in Judea, and they sat on their wealth and played footsy with the Romans even while their whole land erupted in violence until even they were dispersed...

It did not have to be that way, but inevitably it is, that social forms reach a point where their whole purpose becomes their continued existence, and then progress means the total destruction of the form...I have nothing against religion, but look at the part the church played in the English Constitution since long before the Vikings or Normans... They were never a force for progress, and were always a force for reaction... So soon as the Magna Charta was signed the church disallowed it...

Did they ever stop on daughter from being sold into prostitution or stop one son from being castrated??? If it went to the glory of God, and they got their cut there was never a protest...And they got their cut...The Catholic church ended up owning a third to a fifth of every kingdom in Europe, but found they could not keep what they could not defend
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:39 pm
@ikurwa89,
I suppose you're right, I don't want to defend the Catholic church. Maybe I am talking about what religion is supposed to do, not what it actually does.

But I still don't see any connection with the lawsuits about the LHC.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:47 pm
@ikurwa89,
I suggest taking a broader view of the concept of religion. A society is held together, I think, by common values. These common values serve as a religion, whether they associated with the secular or the sacred. For instance, the separation of state and religion is itself a central cultural value in the U.S. One might conceive of religious freedom itself as a sort of religion. And it's quite obvious to me that anti-religion functions for many exactly as a religion might. It's a value system.

It may be that the psychiatrist replaces the priest, or that the physicists replaces the priest, but we still have a class of folks who are looked to, by many, for truth.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149359 wrote:
I suggest taking a broader view of the concept of religion. A society is held together, I think, by common values. These common values serve as a religion, whether they associated with the secular or the sacred. For instance, the separation of state and religion is itself a central cultural value in the U.S. One might conceive of religious freedom itself as a sort of religion. And it's quite obvious to me that anti-religion functions for many exactly as a religion might. It's a value system.

It may be that the psychiatrist replaces the priest, or that the physicists replaces the priest, but we still have a class of folks who are looked to, by many, for truth.


I do have to agree that most of us have some sort of religion. We seem to following the herd and the leader of the pack. I like to view all of the churches and all of the herds. [so to speak] So that I can be informed of what is being preached to them. I would like to bring up one that seems to be preaching a philosophy that many think is great. I call this talk radio. There is one that many call "the high preist of the church of the painfull truth" [neal ] and another that some call "the baby jesus" [shawn] and another that some call "god the father" or is that, "the god father" [rush]

Seems almost like a trinity to me. I heard a nun call rush the other day and tell him that it would be a delight if she was able to go on a date with him. I thought that was rather sweet of her.:detective: what are all of your comments on this religion being preached?:listening:
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;149416 wrote:
I do have to agree that most of us have some sort of religion. We seem to following the herd and the leader of the pack. I like to view all of the churches and all of the herds. [so to speak] So that I can be informed of what is being preached to them. I would like to bring up one that seems to be preaching a philosophy that many think is great. I call this talk radio. There is one that many call the high preist of the church of the painfull truth [neal ] and another that some call the baby jesus [shawn] and another that some call god the father or is that the god father [rush]

Seems almost like a trinity to me. I heard a nun call rush the other day and tell him that it would be a delight if she was able to go on a date with him. I thought that was rather sweet of her.:detective: what are all of your comments on this religion being preached?:listening:


It is, in my book, very much a religion. To gather around some values is to form a church, and these radio-mouths are indeed preachers. Big-Daddy Noises. THeir tone annoys me. They are speaking down. In my opinion, the good people want to talk with equals, not those they consider inferiors, or babies to be indoctrinated. I'm not denying the goodness in a sincere teacher, who wants to share the beauty and utility of his subject, of course, but the Rush types are something else. Of course in a way they are indeed just standing up for their values. It's just that they lack an irony that contributes toward decency.
0 Replies
 
johannw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:08 am
@ikurwa89,
Couldn't you say that some cultures that are highly traditional and conservative (for example, the Amish or fundamental Muslim societies) strictly oppose progress? And aren't the driving forces behind those cultures religious? Obviously this can't apply to ALL religions, but it seems to me that the cultures and societies that resist progress the most are fundamentaly religious... And if that is so, then wouldn't you make a connection between religion and anti-progressiveness (if that's even a term...)

but then again, I may be wrong
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Religion and Society
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 08:38:35