3 ms·

This argument falls flat because it doesn't show a requirement that the first proceeds the second, and additionally it assumes that "the end justifies the means

by Cogito 8y ago

This argument falls flat because it doesn't show a requirement that the first proceeds the second, and additionally it assumes that "the end justifies the means". It may be true that our current scientific culture arose from religion, but it's easy to imagine it arising separately. There are even countless stories of times when scientific progress was hindered by religious thinking, situations where people tried to fit their ideas to some religious story and in doing so blocked their progress towards truth. In addition to that, even if religion was a necessary prerequisite for modern science and we take that science is 'good', that does not mean religion is good. "The USA came about (in part) due to the use of slaves, take away slavery and we wouldn't have the USA" is not a good argument for slavery. A side note, but the world is not really orderly, though maybe it is understandable. If anything, the world is filled with death, pain, and chaos; if any mind created it, it's a sadistic one.

yters 8y ago
It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much. Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.
- Cogito 8y ago
  > It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much. You claimed that science exists because of religion, but did not show that religion is a requirement (or even catalyst) for science. Organised science definitely requires a society (otherwise it would not be organised) and it so happens that historical societies tended to have some association with religion, but I would claim science arose from these societies despite religion, not because of it. If science was an outworking of religion, rather than the society a religion happens to cohabit, why do we not see more and more science coming from societies with more and more religion? > Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists. Sorry, not sure what the link here is. Atheism is just not believing in gods, in the same way I don't believe we are living in a simulation. Even if the premise is true, as far as we can measure (so far!) there is no impact on us. Not believing in things that we can't experience or measure is the default for us in general. I would go so far as to say that religions themselves only exist because we were trying to explain the world we live in, and were unable to with the tools and ideas available to us throughout history. Over the course of history many people have observed the same phenomena and come up with a multitude of ideas as to what is going on. Many of those ideas go on to form the nexus of a religion, many hundreds or thousands of religions trying to make sense of the world. The ideas that hold up to interrogation, that are testable and can be observed repeatably, they become science. Science reduces the set of possible explanations to the ones that are feasible.

by Cogito 8y ago

yters 8y ago

It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much. Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.

Cogito 8y ago
> It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much. You claimed that science exists because of religion, but did not show that religion is a requirement (or even catalyst) for science. Organised science definitely requires a society (otherwise it would not be organised) and it so happens that historical societies tended to have some association with religion, but I would claim science arose from these societies despite religion, not because of it. If science was an outworking of religion, rather than the society a religion happens to cohabit, why do we not see more and more science coming from societies with more and more religion? > Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists. Sorry, not sure what the link here is. Atheism is just not believing in gods, in the same way I don't believe we are living in a simulation. Even if the premise is true, as far as we can measure (so far!) there is no impact on us. Not believing in things that we can't experience or measure is the default for us in general. I would go so far as to say that religions themselves only exist because we were trying to explain the world we live in, and were unable to with the tools and ideas available to us throughout history. Over the course of history many people have observed the same phenomena and come up with a multitude of ideas as to what is going on. Many of those ideas go on to form the nexus of a religion, many hundreds or thousands of religions trying to make sense of the world. The ideas that hold up to interrogation, that are testable and can be observed repeatably, they become science. Science reduces the set of possible explanations to the ones that are feasible.