6 ms·

Because the whole premise and foundation of religion is that you ought to believe things absent evidence and without good reasons (that’s what faith is). If you

by Fezzik 4y ago

Because the whole premise and foundation of religion is that you ought to believe things absent evidence and without good reasons (that’s what faith is). If you have good reasons to believe something you give the reason; religion does not and should not, especially with its centuries-long history of malice and suppression towards free and scientific thought, deserve any credibility when it comes to matters of facts.

barrysteve 4y ago
This argument always depends on what kinds of evidence you accept and trust as valid for faith. One big test for that is trusting any of the holy books as evidence for something faithful. It's really weird to watch science and science-like ideas grow out of faith and religion, then the faith be blamed for 'persecuting' science after a certain philosophy took over in the late 19th century.
- e3bc54b2 4y ago
  > It's really weird to watch science and science-like ideas grow out of faith and religion While there are certain events that can be filed under this category, more often than not its the other way around. That is, the ideas come outside the religion, run contradictory until proven unquestionably, and then the religious texts are found to be retroactively always been proving the science that was found later.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    That's not really fair. For example, Galileo is often given as an example of someone who was persecuted by the Church for his ideas - without often mentioning that his ideas were championed by the Pope and the Jesuit order before some misunderstandings. Also, a lot of the basis of science comes from members of the Church, occultists, or others living in deeply fundamentalist environments (Newton being a famous father of science who was deeply occult in his thinking; or Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, the father of algebra and whose name is the basis of the word algorithm, being a court astronomer and the head of an Abbasid Caliph's library).
    - xabotage 4y ago
      Where and when, throughout all human history, have there been significant populations not subject to a religion? It seems strange to suggest that demonstrably unscientific belief systems with incompatible differences tied mainly to geographic location somehow have a unifying impact on scientific progress. It's kind of like saying a person contributed to science because of their hair color while simultaneously conceding that people of all hair colors contribute to science.
      - barrysteve 4y ago
        One would hope your religion has more impact on it's followers than a box of hair dye. The heirarchal ordering of some faiths, the commitment to truth, the belief in the veracity of the written word, the ability to support monastic orders are all functions of a society that believes. The belief that the individual speaks the truth and should be listened to, are the mechanisms that allow science to flourish. Some scientists act as if you can have that without the faith. They focus only on the parts of history which support the contemporary scientist view that if we could just free ourselves from the whacky religionists we could get on with the /real/ science, which is nearly always an idea that reflects a minor variation on what has already come before. If only the scientist knew the history ideas (including faith), could we have new things and not retreads of some millenia-dead philosopher.
        xabotage 4y ago
        Faith is not commitment to "truth," but rather commitment to a belief regardless of its veracity. Science has nothing to do with "believing" something - its a process for determining what actually is true based on evidence. Historically, science has only been allowed to flourish as long as it tiptoed around the religious powers-that-be. If you really think science boils down to a "minor variation on what has come before," I'm curious to know what millenia-dead philosophers managed to launch a JWST equivalent.
        barrysteve 4y ago
  - tsol 4y ago
    This is a totally western-centric view of history. Islam had a golden age during which algebra was created in addition to many other great scientific achievments. And it came it hand in hand with religion. In fact algebra was created to help do the complex math involved in Islamic inheritance laws. And honestly it isn't even very accurate there. The dark ages were called so not because Christianity persecuted science, it was called that because we have few records from that time. The few records we do have, are from the religious clergy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
harshalizee 4y ago
Not really. Non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. Both Hinduism and Buddhism explicitly allows for atheistic sects within the religion. The religions are mostly concerned with philosophies of life and the nature of reality than worship of Gods based on belief and faith.
jackcosgrove 4y ago
Religion equals faith, is very much a Christian idea. There are other religions that are based on ritual and tradition which don't expect such an epistemology from their adherents.
tsol 4y ago
I don't know why people do this so often on the (english)internet. People will write off all religion, while obviously speaking from the perspective of Christianity only. People have bad experiences with Christianity, and then decide that Buddhism, Jainism, Daoism, and Shinto are all a scam. It's a strange fallacy that people should know better by now, it's just straight up a sweeping generalization.
- Fezzik 4y ago
  It’s not writing it off (whatever that means here) but if you’re asserting Buddhism, Daosim, and Shinto do not have many foundational faith-based/supernatural elements you may want to review their sacred texts. Jainism I am less familiar with, but the other three are entirely founded in faith-based tenants that have no supporting evidence. Background: degree in philosophy, focussing on philosophy of religion. I have read all the books. They are all fantasies, many very well written and fun to read, but no more fact-based than The Silmarillion.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Uhm well it's more this part; >religion does not and should not, especially with its centuries-long history of malice and suppression towards free and scientific thought That I was referring to. Show me where Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, and Bahaism are against scientific thought. Being familiar with a smattering of religious texts you learned in University is hardly enough to make such large claims about every single religion in the entire world.

by Fezzik 4y ago

barrysteve 4y ago

This argument always depends on what kinds of evidence you accept and trust as valid for faith. One big test for that is trusting any of the holy books as evidence for something faithful. It's really weird to watch science and science-like ideas grow out of faith and religion, then the faith be blamed for 'persecuting' science after a certain philosophy took over in the late 19th century.

e3bc54b2 4y ago
> It's really weird to watch science and science-like ideas grow out of faith and religion While there are certain events that can be filed under this category, more often than not its the other way around. That is, the ideas come outside the religion, run contradictory until proven unquestionably, and then the religious texts are found to be retroactively always been proving the science that was found later.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's not really fair. For example, Galileo is often given as an example of someone who was persecuted by the Church for his ideas - without often mentioning that his ideas were championed by the Pope and the Jesuit order before some misunderstandings. Also, a lot of the basis of science comes from members of the Church, occultists, or others living in deeply fundamentalist environments (Newton being a famous father of science who was deeply occult in his thinking; or Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, the father of algebra and whose name is the basis of the word algorithm, being a court astronomer and the head of an Abbasid Caliph's library).
  - xabotage 4y ago
    Where and when, throughout all human history, have there been significant populations not subject to a religion? It seems strange to suggest that demonstrably unscientific belief systems with incompatible differences tied mainly to geographic location somehow have a unifying impact on scientific progress. It's kind of like saying a person contributed to science because of their hair color while simultaneously conceding that people of all hair colors contribute to science.
    - barrysteve 4y ago
      One would hope your religion has more impact on it's followers than a box of hair dye. The heirarchal ordering of some faiths, the commitment to truth, the belief in the veracity of the written word, the ability to support monastic orders are all functions of a society that believes. The belief that the individual speaks the truth and should be listened to, are the mechanisms that allow science to flourish. Some scientists act as if you can have that without the faith. They focus only on the parts of history which support the contemporary scientist view that if we could just free ourselves from the whacky religionists we could get on with the /real/ science, which is nearly always an idea that reflects a minor variation on what has already come before. If only the scientist knew the history ideas (including faith), could we have new things and not retreads of some millenia-dead philosopher.
      - xabotage 4y ago
        Faith is not commitment to "truth," but rather commitment to a belief regardless of its veracity. Science has nothing to do with "believing" something - its a process for determining what actually is true based on evidence. Historically, science has only been allowed to flourish as long as it tiptoed around the religious powers-that-be. If you really think science boils down to a "minor variation on what has come before," I'm curious to know what millenia-dead philosophers managed to launch a JWST equivalent.
        barrysteve 4y ago
- tsol 4y ago
  This is a totally western-centric view of history. Islam had a golden age during which algebra was created in addition to many other great scientific achievments. And it came it hand in hand with religion. In fact algebra was created to help do the complex math involved in Islamic inheritance laws. And honestly it isn't even very accurate there. The dark ages were called so not because Christianity persecuted science, it was called that because we have few records from that time. The few records we do have, are from the religious clergy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

harshalizee 4y ago

Not really. Non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. Both Hinduism and Buddhism explicitly allows for atheistic sects within the religion. The religions are mostly concerned with philosophies of life and the nature of reality than worship of Gods based on belief and faith.

jackcosgrove 4y ago

Religion equals faith, is very much a Christian idea. There are other religions that are based on ritual and tradition which don't expect such an epistemology from their adherents.

tsol 4y ago

I don't know why people do this so often on the (english)internet. People will write off all religion, while obviously speaking from the perspective of Christianity only. People have bad experiences with Christianity, and then decide that Buddhism, Jainism, Daoism, and Shinto are all a scam. It's a strange fallacy that people should know better by now, it's just straight up a sweeping generalization.

Fezzik 4y ago
It’s not writing it off (whatever that means here) but if you’re asserting Buddhism, Daosim, and Shinto do not have many foundational faith-based/supernatural elements you may want to review their sacred texts. Jainism I am less familiar with, but the other three are entirely founded in faith-based tenants that have no supporting evidence. Background: degree in philosophy, focussing on philosophy of religion. I have read all the books. They are all fantasies, many very well written and fun to read, but no more fact-based than The Silmarillion.
- tsol 4y ago
  Uhm well it's more this part; >religion does not and should not, especially with its centuries-long history of malice and suppression towards free and scientific thought That I was referring to. Show me where Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, and Bahaism are against scientific thought. Being familiar with a smattering of religious texts you learned in University is hardly enough to make such large claims about every single religion in the entire world.