5 ms·

> 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

> 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
        Faith is commitment to truth in Christianity and science has a lot to do with believing. People choose which of their hunches and theories at the edge of their individual knowledge with a leap of faith. I said the Scientist operates on a minor variation on old ideas, not all of science. Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. These conversations aren't really possible anymore, people aren't interested in the meaning of words or meaning at all. They just want to relate to whatever goofball idea their tribe agrees with. >I'm curious to know what millenia-dead philosophers managed to launch a JWST equivalent. Oh so you want me to summarize the history of ideas after all -.-
        eis 4y ago
        Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true. Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to try to experimentaly verify the idea or to for example mathematicaly prove it. It's not about believing something is true and then stopping there. > Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. What's wrong with that? Not every idea can be completely fresh. I am not sure what your point is. > These conversations aren't really possible anymore, people aren't interested in the meaning of words or meaning at all. They just want to relate to whatever goofball idea their tribe agrees with. Sounds a lot like religion? > Oh so you want me to summarize the history of ideas after all -.- I don't see the connection between your answer and his question.
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.

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
      Faith is commitment to truth in Christianity and science has a lot to do with believing. People choose which of their hunches and theories at the edge of their individual knowledge with a leap of faith. I said the Scientist operates on a minor variation on old ideas, not all of science. Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. These conversations aren't really possible anymore, people aren't interested in the meaning of words or meaning at all. They just want to relate to whatever goofball idea their tribe agrees with. >I'm curious to know what millenia-dead philosophers managed to launch a JWST equivalent. Oh so you want me to summarize the history of ideas after all -.-
      - eis 4y ago
        Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true. Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to try to experimentaly verify the idea or to for example mathematicaly prove it. It's not about believing something is true and then stopping there. > Quite frequently even the top echelon scientists are pushing science forwards based on ideas that started well before them. What's wrong with that? Not every idea can be completely fresh. I am not sure what your point is. > These conversations aren't really possible anymore, people aren't interested in the meaning of words or meaning at all. They just want to relate to whatever goofball idea their tribe agrees with. Sounds a lot like religion? > Oh so you want me to summarize the history of ideas after all -.- I don't see the connection between your answer and his question.

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.