....
I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".
Which is curiously, why I have emphasized with Dende that he must treat me as Kafir. Not as one of the "people of the book" who may have temporarily gone astray. The arguments must be made from first principles, not cherry picked from some old books.I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".
Note.
At the same time, I don't have any problem with an old historical book such as the Koran or Bible having verses suitable for any and all conditions people might find themselves in, peace or war, famine or times of plenty. These old books existed in societies where few even could read, and they represented something like a "Google" in those times. A place one could go find any answer (of course you had to go through an Important Person usually to get that answer).
We discuss not whether such books were "good" back then, but of what use they may be in the now, and the styles of faith derived there on.
Well said. There is a great deal of useful principles embodied in old religous tomes. But without a very well tuned and tightly focused bullshit filter, those principles get warped and distorted into something evil. And the thing I find amusing is that those useful things are pretty nearly universal betwixt the various religions and secular philosophies. As I said earlier, the core of all religions and successful secular philosophies is the same. It's the things added to those that tear down societies and erect barriers to human progress.
Were it not for religious influence, it is likely that we would have delved much deeper into genetics, have offworld colonies, and any number of things that a FREE society tends to generate. Instead, we've got arguments against scientific reality on religious grounds clogging up the legislature in the more secular nations, and people that haven't yet found the 20th century in many parts of the world. Religion is not solely to blame for this, but they bear a heavy burden.
Agree with the bolded part. I believe Dende pointed out something to that effect, if it was possible to get past his grammatical constructs.
But I have to disagree with your suggestion as to the great accomplishments we may have had if NOT for religion.
Consider genetics. The progressive Eugenics movement, based on science in the first half of the 20th century, was opposed by conservatives. I guess you could say opposed by "religion", although it's a bit more complicated than that. Religions and conservative thought (often but not always aligned) does good in preventing moving in given directions too fast, without due consideration to consequences.
Probably it is correct that any time religion gets intertwined with government - theocracy - the results are bad for scientific and industrial progress. Sharia "law" would certainly come to mind, which means that I would suggest that the concept of such a thing being "good" as viewed in Islam, is simply completely wrong. It would mean there was no way to use clever speech, duplicate meanings of words and sophistry to get around this. It's simply a ridiculous and a medieval concept and needs to go away.
Whether various factions debating and casting for votes within a democracy, some religious, some progressive, is counterproductive over say the course of a hundred years is a completely different matter.
Eugenics was more of a pseudoscience, but I suppose that's a red herring in itself. I concede some of your point.
However, I was thinking of a much longer time line. The Christian persecution of science (while encouraging it in some cases) set humanity back by a great deal (eg. The Dark Ages). To what degree, it's impossible to say. My particular areas of interest, wherein "god" gets called into the argument quite often, are nanotech and genetics. Whenever a scientist proposes a test case, he is likely to be accused of "playing god". My (slightly) tongue in cheek response is usually "who says they're playing? " but more correctly, it's a non issue. Yet it gets thrown in. I've seen it again and again just in my 46 years. Extrapolate that over a few centuries: How much have they managed to suppress? In the modern world the suppression is bad enough, with, as you noted, multiple factions. From 600 AD until not very long ago, the power of information was in the hands of religions who had a vested interest in suppressing science as it tends to contradict their means of power.
As I said, religious organizations are not entirely to blame, they are one factor of many. But the weight of their wrongdoing remains heavy. Just ask Copernicus.
