Remember How Religion Has Harmed Science

[A Is A]

Galileo.
Darwin.
Turing.

All brilliant scientist hounded and harmed for the reasons of religion. Imagine, for a moment, if Galileo had been free from imprisonment and the Church censor to improve his telescope and publish his writings. Our knowledge of astronomy could have increased greatly.

Imagine if we could have serious discussions into new discoveries in evolution without being hampered by foolish ideologies like in Texas.

Imagine if Turing hadn't been forced into an early grave by the bigotry of the religious government of England. Just imagine how advanced our computers might have been.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I'm just thankful that Aristotle, Plato, Leibniz, Newton, Galileo, Godel, and Cantor were all god believers. Imagine where we would be without them.

It's strange, I couldn't imagine doing science without believing in God.

 

[A Is A]

Well played, Yek. Well played indeed.


Except I'm pretty sure Aristotle and Plato didn't believe in your god.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Except I'm pretty sure Aristotle and Plato didn't believe in your god.

I don't recall saying they did.

 

[A Is A]

My apologies. When most religious people refer to believers, they refer to their gods.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

I'm just thankful that Aristotle, Plato...were...god believers. Imagine where we would be without them.
.

Indeed! HAIL ZEUS!

 

[Douger]

Most religions recognize one supreme God. Calling Him something different doesn't make Him something different.

And let's remember that if it wasn't for a belief in God, many scientists would have never dedicated so much of their lives to research.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Some religious people harmed science. Some religious people helped it. Some religious people did other stuff that has nothing to do with scientific advancement. Same applies to non-religious people.

I don't understand this fixation with generalising everyone you disagree with (i.e. all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians hate science, all atheists are the devil incarnate, and so on). It just makes you look stupid.

 

[Gracchus]

It just makes you look stupid.

Bear in mind that some people who look stupid, really are stupid!

 

[Supreme]

Some religious people harmed science. Some religious people helped it. Some religious people did other stuff that has nothing to do with scientific advancement. Same applies to non-religious people.

I don't understand this fixation with generalising everyone you disagree with (i.e. all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians hate science, all atheists are the devil incarnate, and so on). It just makes you look stupid.

Pretty much agree with this.
Scientific progress is still being hampered today, but it's not religion- it's lack of funding in many areas. Unfortunately, science is not seen as a priority in today's economic climate.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Pretty much agree with this.
Scientific progress is still being hampered today, but it's not religion- it's lack of funding in many areas. Unfortunately, science is not seen as a priority in today's economic climate.

Indeed. That being said, religion does hinder science in some areas (especially within scientific education), we shouldn't ignore that, it's just that religion is not always a problem, and as you said, it's not the only one.

 

[DaisyDay]

Most religions recognize one supreme God.

I don't think that is true. Hinduism, Jainism, Confusionism, Taoism, the Greek, Roman and German pantheons, most Native American animistic religions...I don't think that one supreme God is all that common and the ones who have it seem to be closely related to each other.

Calling Him something different doesn't make Him something different.

Universalist?

And let's remember that if it wasn't for a belief in God, many scientists would have never dedicated so much of their lives to research.

That's not something you could know, one way or the other.

 

[Douger]

I don't think that is true. Hinduism, Jainism, Confusionism, Taoism, the Greek, Roman and German pantheons, most Native American animistic religions...I don't think that one supreme God is all that common and the ones who have it seem to be closely related to each other.

Hindus recognize one supreme God, as did the ancient Romans and Greeks (Father Zeus), I'm not sure about the Germans, I've thought their Pantheon was similar to the rest of the Indo-European ones, but I've not studied it. Confusionism and animism generally go along with or without other religions and don't themselves deal with the concept of God. Many native Americans did have God in their religion before the arrival of European Christianity. And I honestly don't know about Jainism or Taoism.

Universalist?

I don't know much about Universalism, but I bet there's a lot that goes with that label that wouldn't fit me.
My belief is simply that God is God, and the attributes and traits that our different religions assign to him do not change what he really is.

That's not something you could know, one way or the other.

I'm just taking the word of some of these scientists at face value.

 

[Suger is Sweet]

And let's not forget how atheism has harmed science.

quote from Wikipedia article on Trofim Lysenko: Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I suppose as they say.. It is not ideology that harms, it is dogma.

 

[mpok1519]

Im more inclined that religion didnt do it, it was people who had that religion, who did it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Im more inclined that religion didnt do it, it was people who had that religion, who did it.

This. This a million times. Religions can't do anything, it's people that do things.

 

[HappyApostate]

Religion can be a motivator, though. It can lead people to totally abandon their intellect in favor of irrationality, as in the case of Kurt Wise.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Turing.

Imagine if Turing hadn't been forced into an early grave by the bigotry of the religious government of England. Just imagine how advanced our computers might have been.

Turing was not forced into an early grave. He knew what the laws were in Britain at that time and he willingly chose to break them. He couldn't handle the consequences of his actions and he so willingly chose the coward's way out. I firmly believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.

 

[Suger is Sweet]

Was Christianity in fact necessary for the Scientific Revolution？ Is it just a coincidence that almost all of the important scientists of the Scientific Revolution were Christian？

Here's sociologist Rodney Stark: Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise--a pattern that continues today. I find that through the centuries (including right up to the present day), professional scientists have remained about as religious as the rest of the population--and far more religious than their academic colleagues in the arts and social sciences.

LINK

Stark also came up with a list of top scientific contributors during the Scientific Revolution. Of 52 top contributors 50 were Christian. Christians also founded the universities where many of these scientists worked.