Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Religion as progressive as Science?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is sort of in response to a recent British program called "The Root of All Evil?" by Richard Dawkins.

Scientists, such as Dawkins, claim (with a degree of truth) that science is better than religion because of how it is grounds everything on evidence; theories may exist and be accepted but if new evidence comes to suggest their wrong these theories will go and be replaced by new ones.

Scientists say that religion is worse because it is inflexible: despite the over-whelming degree of evidence suggesting parts of religion are wrong the religion will not change and will not ground itself in fact or reason.

However I say RUBBISH! Religion has in fact changed huge amounts over time, in the same way as science; to show you what I mean here's an example of how Christianity has changed:

1) In the beginning there was no concept of anything other than the existence of God who made everything.
There was no reason to believe in his existence, other than that no other reason could be found.
Moses came with laws from God, after which people had to either obey these laws or be killed (either by your own people or by God)
This was the only reason for obeying God; non-believers will be killed.

2) Then things changed; skip foward to the Middle Ages say. Now the existence of God was starting to be grounded in some reason (the First Cause argument.)
There was now much more than just Moses' laws to be obeyed but also all of Jesus' & St.Paul's... teachings.
There was now a new reason to believe and do what the bible says: if you do good you'll be rewarded in heaven, if you don't you'll be punished in hell. And this is why you obey him.

3) Then there was another progression: the Protestant movement arrived. Now the existence of God began to have much better arguments (the Design argument, the Moral argument.)
The new thing to be obeyed was not neccesairly any laws written down in a book (though they can guide you: especially Jesus' teachings) but your sense of right & wrong/ your conscience/ the holy spirit: a part of God within us that tells us what's right (selflessness) from what's wrong (selfishness.)
The new reason to obey is in payment to God: he gave you life, now you give him service, and to establish a perfect world.

Religions (especially Christianity) have progressed huge amounts over time: just because we tend to focus on those who are v.backward (thing you should kill doctors who do abortions) doesn't mean the religion itself isn't potentially more foward than science.
After all, there are many backward members of the scientific community as well; ones that still believe in outdated theories: but I wouldn't say science is inflexible and backward because of it.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 709 • Replies: 13

No top replies

Re: Religion as progressive as Science?

Decisively_Doubtful wrote:

Scientists say that religion is worse because it is inflexible: despite the over-whelming degree of evidence suggesting parts of religion are wrong the religion will not change and will not ground itself in fact or reason.

Well, Dawkin's is over-generalising (way too much) but in a way, so are you. To take the exact opposite stance is rubbish. There are those who haven't progressed at all (see fundamentalists). Yet there are those who have.

Quote:

However I say RUBBISH! Religion has in fact changed huge amounts over time, in the same way as science; to show you what I mean here's an example of how Christianity has changed:

1) In the beginning there was no concept of anything other than the existence of God who made everything.
There was no reason to believe in his existence, other than that no other reason could be found.
Moses came with laws from God, after which people had to either obey these laws or be killed (either by your own people or by God)
This was the only reason for obeying God; non-believers will be killed.

Non-believers can still be killed in some places. So, in some places, religion hasn't changed at all. Quite a few times, religion had to be forced to be more accepting, like for example when the US Supreme Court found the religious Anti-Evolution Laws un-Constitutional.

Quote:

2) Then things changed; skip foward to the Middle Ages say. Now the existence of God was starting to be grounded in some reason (the First Cause argument.)

This was thanks to scientific findings by the monks of that age. They were the only ones with enough time on their hands to do scientific research.

Quote:

There was now much more than just Moses' laws to be obeyed but also all of Jesus' & St.Paul's... teachings.

Jesus and St. Paul's teachings came from the Middle Ages? That's a new one on me.

Quote:

There was now a new reason to believe and do what the bible says: if you do good you'll be rewarded in heaven, if you don't you'll be punished in hell. And this is why you obey him.

How is this different from the first point? It's still, if you don't believe, you're going to be punished.

I'm not going to argue the rest of your points, because they're poorly presented. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but none of your arguments are very convincing. For each of the three points, the argument is still, religion states that you must believe in God or be punished.

Over time, that stance has not changed very much. I would argue that the Christians here in the UK no longer take that stance, but it is because of multi-culturalism and the progress of science.

Quote:

Religions (especially Christianity) have progressed huge amounts over time: just because we tend to focus on those who are v.backward (thing you should kill doctors who do abortions) doesn't mean the religion itself isn't potentially more foward than science.

Now you're beginning to make sense and tell the truth.

Thing is, much of religion's progress cannot have happened without science and multiculturalism. If it weren't for these two things, religion wouldn't have progressed at all.

It doesn't progress on its own and that is why science is better, because science progresses on its own. Religion has to be forced to progress through outside forces, much like the strange belief that some Christians have that all good and evil acts come from without (i.e. God and the Devil).

0 Replies

Decisively_Doubtful

Comparing the "progress" of religion with that of science implies we have a common measure of success for the two. What is it ?

0 Replies

Quote:

Jesus and St. Paul's teachings came from the Middle Ages? That's a new one on me.

I meant that as compared with the time before Christ they were 'new'

Quote:

For each of the three points, the argument is still, religion states that you must believe in God or be punished.

No:

In the first you must obey God or you will phyiscally be killed on THIS earth (Deuteronomy states God will physically strike you down and kill you)

In the second you must obey God or you will, after your death that is unaffected by God, live in an eternity of pain/ live in an eternity of bliss if you do

In the third you must obey God simply out of doing what's right: God gave you life: you ought pay him back with your service; you don't have to if you don't want to and you won't be punished, but you won't be able to say "I did what was right" (I wouldn't consider that a punishment)

Quote:

Well, Dawkin's is over-generalising (way too much) but in a way, so are you. To take the exact opposite stance is rubbish. There are those who haven't progressed at all (see fundamentalists). Yet there are those who have.

Quote:

Non-believers can still be killed in some places. So, in some places, religion hasn't changed at all. Quite a few times, religion had to be forced to be more accepting, like for example when the US Supreme Court found the religious Anti-Evolution Laws un-Constitutional.

As I mentioned at the end there will always be some who do not progress; these people may even be the heads of government or may even be the vast majority of Christians (most of the world's billion Catholics would agree with the 2nd, whilst many fundamentalists mix the 1st & 2nd)
But the point is that there have been some progressional trends; in the same way when Darwin's evolution theory came along only a handful of scientists believed him, no-one would now say that wasn't progress though.

Quote:

Thing is, much of religion's progress cannot have happened without science and multiculturalism. If it weren't for these two things, religion wouldn't have progressed at all.

True, some religious progress has happened that way, but some progress has been entirely independent of science (Kant's moral argument for God was not in response to science for example) whilst sometimes the progress of science has relied on religion (such as progresses in architecture, astrology & other instruments etc.)

Sorry you didn't quite understand everything; it's difficult to expound a detailed theory in a few lines.

0 Replies

Decisively_Doubtful wrote:

No:

In the first you must obey God or you will phyiscally be killed on THIS earth (Deuteronomy states God will physically strike you down and kill you)

In the second you must obey God or you will, after your death that is unaffected by God, live in an eternity of pain/ live in an eternity of bliss if you do

In the third you must obey God simply out of doing what's right: God gave you life: you ought pay him back with your service; you don't have to if you don't want to and you won't be punished, but you won't be able to say "I did what was right" (I wouldn't consider that a punishment)

Fair enough, but the underlying message of religion is still, You must obey God. It is either, because we kill you, because you'll be punished for all eternity, or because it's your duty. Frankly, I don't think there's anyone who believes in the third stance, not even those Christians I know here in my country.

Every Christian I know believes in punishment for doing bad things. The definition of what bad things may vary, for example, those who are tolerant of homosexuals, but the view of punishment for not obeying God hasn't changed.

Quote:

As I mentioned at the end there will always be some who do not progress; these people may even be the heads of government or may even be the vast majority of Christians (most of the world's billion Catholics would agree with the 2nd, whilst many fundamentalists mix the 1st & 2nd)

As stated before, I severely doubt any Christian believes in the 3rd. Heck, when I was a Christian, I didn't believe in the 3rd point either and I was pretty liberal.

Quote:

True, some religious progress has happened that way, but some progress has been entirely independent of science (Kant's moral argument for God was not in response to science for example)

Kant's argument was philosophical and secular. It was outside of religion. He was a scientist and philosopher, his arguments primarily came from a philosophical view that was outside of religion. It concerned religion, but he didn't do it as a religious person. He was outside of the religious establishment.

Quote:

Whilst sometimes the progress of science has relied on religion (such as progresses in architecture, astrology & other instruments etc.)

I wouldn't say architecture had any way of helping religion to progress, except to make its Churches and Temples look better. Is that really progress to be proud of, to be able to make the place where people worship look better?

0 Replies

Quote:

Frankly, I don't think there's anyone who believes in the third stance, not even those Christians I know here in my country.

Really?! I was under the impression that the Modern Anglican faith was based on that. I personally believe very strongly in it and (quite clearly) think it's the way foward for Christianity.

Quote:

I wouldn't say architecture had any way of helping religion to progress, except to make its Churches and Temples look better. Is that really progress to be proud of, to be able to make the place where people worship look better?

No, I meant that that through the architecture required by religions new, innovate ways of building came about: which means a progress in science.
Thus religion has progressed science there.

0 Replies

Re: Religion as progressive as Science?

Decisively_Doubtful wrote:

Religions (especially Christianity) have progressed huge amounts over time: just because we tend to focus on those who are v.backward (thing you should kill doctors who do abortions) doesn't mean the religion itself isn't potentially more foward than science.
After all, there are many backward members of the scientific community as well; ones that still believe in outdated theories: but I wouldn't say science is inflexible and backward because of it.

What do you think?

Society has progressed. Any progression in religion is due to the progression of societies with religion being dragged along.

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency."

Mark Twain
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm#BIBLE

0 Replies

The thing about religion is : anyone can make up their own mind about what the gods expect of them because nobody actually knows anything.

You wanna be progressive, you choose a nice modern religion that tells you what you want to hear.

You wanna be fundamentalist, well no problem, you have centuries of hardcore base to stand on.

Science however, deals with looking for facts and slowly adding to the pool of human knowledge.....there can't be any real "backwards" steps (long term) unless parts of our sum total of information is lost. Yes, we can stumble up theoretical dead ends for many years, but even that adds to our understanding of the universe.

The two things (science and religion) are so different I don't see why you'd even try to compare them.

If anything, religion has been forced by science to be "progressive" in an attempt to remain credible, which it increasingly is not.

0 Replies

I would say that religions have adapted, but not progressed.

Religions in general have adapted their message fit the needs of the people, but a progression implies that they are systematically making progress toward a goal, and I don't see that happening.

0 Replies

Decisively_Doubtful wrote:

Really?! I was under the impression that the Modern Anglican faith was based on that. I personally believe very strongly in it and (quite clearly) think it's the way foward for Christianity.

Nope. Deep in people's hearts, they presume that people who deliberately do bad things will be punished and get what's coming to them.

Quote:

No, I meant that that through the architecture required by religions new, innovate ways of building came about: which means a progress in science.
Thus religion has progressed science there.

I wouldn't even call architecture a science. I never called it a science. No, that's not an example. The building techniques used in those days were merely an advancement of already existing techniques. Religion didn't advance anything, it has nothing to do with religion, only some person who wants to make their church look better.

That is political, not religious.

The only example I can think up of where religion influences science is the Big Bang Theory. Before the Big Bang, it was Steady state and Christians found that abhorrent because it implied that everything always existed and that God couldn't have created anything. So some Priest came up with the Big Bang.

What I find amusing is those fundamentalists that insist on denying the Big Bang, when it was proposed by a religious Christian.

0 Replies

It is completely antithetical to the ethos of religious dogma that there could ever be any "progress." Religion depends upon the assertion of a revealed truth, usually divinely revealed, usually in the form of a scriptural revelation--which may or may not refer to a putative prophet or set of prophets. The "truth" having been revealed, it is no longer necessary to examine the world for any further "truth," and it is heretical to make assertions which are not consonant with the religious canon. It is oxymoronic to suggest anything like progress in religion.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is completely antithetical to the ethos of religious dogma that there could ever be any "progress." Religion depends upon the assertion of a revealed truth, usually divinely revealed, usually in the form of a scriptural revelation--which may or may not refer to a putative prophet or set of prophets. The "truth" having been revealed, it is no longer necessary to examine the world for any further "truth," and it is heretical to make assertions which are not consonant with the religious canon. It is oxymoronic to suggest anything like progress in religion.

Is Budhism considered a religion?

I'm just wondering how much of the question of religious progress relates to religion in general as opposed to particular religions, like Christianity for example.

0 Replies

Given that i refer to dogmatic religion, i suppose that i ought to have specified organized religion. I do not, however, consider that this excludes Buddhism, which gets a free ride on this issue. The Amida Buddists of China became a sect of assassins, and in Japan, the Buddhists of Mt. Hiei, on the shores of Lake Biwa near Kyoto came to dominate the imperial administration in the Muromachi period, and sent out warrior monks known as sohei--Mount Hiei was a foundation of the Tendai sect of Buddhists. Their power was destroyed by Oda Nobunaga in 1571, and the temple on Mount Hiei razed, but it has been rebuilt and remains the home of the Tendai sect. Another Amida sect was the Ikko-Ikki sect in Kaga in Japan, and their warrior monks fomented riots and opposed western influences--espeically the spread of firearms and christianity--in Japan. Oda Nobunaga finally destroyed the Ikko-Ikki after years of warfare, including the fortress at Ishiyama Honganji near Osaka, and the Kagashima fortress. They had actively fomented rebellion among farmers and other peasants in Kaga, Hida, Mino, Owari and Mikawa, relatively rich provinces in the most agriculturally productive region of Honshu. The survivors of the debacle at the fortified "cathedral" of Ishiyama Honganji then joined Nobunaga in hunting down the other warrior monks of Japan. I don't blame Amida Buddha followers for such enormities, but i don't exculpate an organized religion which in the end is little better for mankind than any other of which i know. I find it ironic when Buddhists i have known defend their confession on exactly the same lines as christians when taxed with christian crimes, saying that those people weren't real Buddhists.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I find it ironic when Buddhists i have known defend their confession on exactly the same lines as christians when taxed with christian crimes, saying that those people weren't real Buddhists.

Religion is a spring of endless rationalization.

0 Replies

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice

Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence

Spirituality - Question by Miller

Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae

give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus

One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus

God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus

The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli

Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo

Forums
» Religion as progressive as Science?

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:27:37

▲ ▼