Examples of how religious beliefs hinder a society's progress

[R_P_A_S]

Hello all! I want to see how many more known examples are out there in which religious belief has hurt society more than helped it. I can think of many but I want to hear new ones or some that I've forgotten about. I want to make the case of science, logic and reason. How thanks to these things we have more answers and understand the complex world around us more.

For example... religious beliefs led us to believe that a person with tourette's syndrome was posses by the devil. Now, thanks to research and science we understand this condition and diagnose it.

People thinking the the earth was the center of the universe.. etc etc etc.

let me hear them!

Thank you!

[Fulanito de Tal]

...Republicans attracted strong majorities from the Evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980.[citation needed] The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as abortion drove many former Democrats into a Republican Party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral realignment. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that George W. Bush led John Kerry 70 percent to 30 percent among whites, who constituted 71 percent of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-percent-to-9-percent lead among the 18 percent of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush, 80 percent to 20 percent.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Real ignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican

[¿Que?]

Yes, religion sucks, but it's ok to have a healthy skepticism of science, logic and reason. The downside is you have to use reason and logic against itself.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Before the rise of the ecclesiastical monarcy, Spain, industrially, was the most advanced country in Europe and held the first place in economic production in almost every field. But a century after the triumph of the Christian monarchy most of its industries had disappeared; what was left of them survived only in the most wretched condition. In most industries they had reverted to the most primitive methods of production. Agriculture collapsed, canals and waterways fell into ruin, and vast stretches of the country were transformed into deserts. Princely absolutism in Europe, with its silly “economic ordinances” and “Industrial Legislation”, which severely punished any deviation from the prescribed methods of production and permitted no new inventions, blocked industrial progress in European countries for centuries, and prevented its natural development. And even now after the horrible experiences of two world wars, the power policy of the larger national states proves to be the greatest obstacle to the reconstruction of European economy.

Make of that what you will.

[Klaatu]

Yes, religion sucks, but it's ok to have a healthy skepticism of science, logic and reason. The downside is you have to use reason and logic against itself.

Yes I agree. Religion ought to be open to healthy debate, just the way science is. Debate makes good science. Perhaps debate can make for better religion. For example, religion needs to drop this stupid idea that homosexuals are somehow less deserving citizens than everyone else. And leave "The Bible" out of it, because all you do when you argue from the Bible is perpetuate prejudices which have been embedded in society since antiquity. It's a kind of circular reasoning to say "homosexuality is bad" WHY? "Because the Bible says so..." That doesn't prove anything. Same thing with embroynic stem cell research, which I think is a good thing, as it helps people with uncurable diseases. Yet, the "holy" church says it is bad (how the hell is helping a sick person get better a BAD thing???) :confused:

[bcbm]

stem cell research

[NGNM85]

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF2C7.jpg
http://www.displaysforschools.com/images/kkk.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nWpwm6lhWUs/SLaCeelycNI/AAAAAAAADxc/7tNPTx1mDt8/s400/WEst+Boro+Baptist+Church+1.jpg
http://www.sehadetzamani.com/resimler/ittehad2.jpg

[Invincible Summer]

I want to make the case of science, logic and reason. How thanks to these things we have more answers and understand the complex world around us more.

For example... religious beliefs led us to believe that a person with tourette's syndrome was posses by the devil. Now, thanks to research and science we understand this condition and diagnose it.

People thinking the the earth was the center of the universe.. etc etc etc.


Funny thing is, science has also made claims that eventually turned out to be wrong. I mean, negative eugenics (or dysgenics if you will), measuring people's skulls to determine race, intelligence, etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry), believing that all combustible matter had some weird energy in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory), the list goes on.

And it was lone scientists (Copernicus in particular) that postulated the earth was the centre of the universe, and the idea was somehow taken up by the Church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Sun revolves around the earth.

I don't disagree that some religious beliefs can hinder aspects of life (e.g. not "believing" in blood transfusions or psychiatric help) but I think upholding science as the bastion of "reason" can be just as foolish. I mean, think about it - the science that was accepted 50-100 yrs ago is considered obsolete. So the claims that we make about science today may very well be just the same.



Sensationalist pictures

So these fringe groups represent how religion is practiced on a whole? I mean, no doubt they are fucked, but I don't think using outliers is a "rational, logical, scientific" way of debating religion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't disagree that some religious beliefs can hinder aspects of life (e.g. not "believing" in blood transfusions or psychiatric help) but I think upholding science as the bastion of "reason" can be just as foolish. I mean, think about it - the science that was accepted 50-100 yrs ago is considered obsolete. So the claims that we make about science today may very well be just the same.

I don't think that anyone really supports "SCIENCE" in the abstract. What people support is the scientific method, which helped prove outdated scientific beliefs false.

[graymouser]

The problem with this question is that it isn't religious ideas that are harmful but specific social organizations that take a religious form. The Catholic Church was an absolute monstrosity in the middle ages - but not for reasons that can be found in the Christian religion per se. It was in its function as a landowner, a tax collector, and the physical enforcer of the ideology that supported feudalism that the Church committed its horrific crimes. There have been harmful ideas advanced alongside religion, such as the Church deciding that bathing was a decadent Roman idea and Christians shouldn't do it. But on the flip side, there have been movements from the Muntzerites to Liberation Theology that have tried to find democracy and even socialism in Christianity.

Overall, saying that religious ideas are the cause is idealism, putting the cart before the horse. Religion forms in response to human factors in society, not vice versa, and the underlying issues generally have to be stamped out before religion itself can simply wither away.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

And here we go again the old discussion about religions bad impacts, without regarding Materialism.

[Diello]

People thinking the the earth was the center of the universe.. etc etc etc.

The closest thing to this that comes to mind (aside from the people who still support geocentrism-- and they are out there) is the belief that the Universe was poofed into existence 6,014 years ago, which currently enjoys mainstream acceptance in the American South.

[R_P_A_S]

sigh.. I love you guys! Only two of you actually gave examples I asked for. Everyone else had to put in their two cents on why this and why that. That's cool and all but that's not what the post asked for. I know is hard to resist but lets try to respect the question and stick to it.;)

An other example.. Human sacrifices... some cultures believed that the only way for the sun to come up again was to offer the sun god human blood in for of a sacrifice... and so on.. Now we know why the sun goes down and comes back up in the AM.. next..

[Dave B]

The problem is I think is how you have framed the question.

It might have better to put it like


In what way has religion been used to hurt society?

And then you could put it into a broader context with

In what way has Marxism been used to hurt society?

And;

In what way has science been used to hurt society?

And we can then have Stalinism, Pol Pot and North Korea along with dynamite and unmanned drones etc etc.

I suppose the idea is though that; there is an inherent contradiction between religion and the scientific approach. The scientific approach being an attempt at a rational understanding of the world around us in order to have the freedom to control and have some power over that world.

And believing that human intervention is a legitimate and achievable objective.


As opposed I suppose to appealing by supplication to divine supernatural intervention.

Islam didn’t used to be opposed to scientific investigation and in fact encouraged and patronised it a 1000 years or so ago.


For balance even the vatican are attempting to redeem themselves with their own observatory investigating Trans-Neptunian Objects with Brother Guy Consolmagno leading the field.

I went to a lecture by him a couple of weeks ago at the highly secular Manchester Astronomical Society, he knew his stuff.

I suspect that they have a hidden agenda and want a head start on the observation of the second coming were beforehand ‘the heavenly bodies are going to driven be off their courses’.


There is a serious theory that gravitational orbital resonance could have thrown out an extra planet into an highly elliptical orbit and unobservable as yet at circa 200+ Au’s out, that on its return would do the trick.

Incidentally the earth centric versus the earth spinning around thing has been around for a long time. The ancients Greeks and had postulated or even knew the world was a sphere and had fairly accurately calculated its size with geometry basically.


They had also theorised that it could be spinning and that the sun was ‘stationary’; but that would mean that the earth was spinning around 1000 miles per hour ish I think, a bit slower in Greece.
Despite the evidence to support the theory it was thrown out on scientific grounds, due to the absence of a strong western wind.


I am not a catholic or Muslim obviously i hope.


...

[Tavarisch_Mike]

An other example.. Human sacrifices... some cultures believed that the only way for the sun to come up again was to offer the sun god human blood in for of a sacrifice... and so on.. Now we know why the sun goes down and comes back up in the AM.. next..

Can you be more specific and tell exacly wich cultures practice this today?

[Invincible Summer]

I don't think that anyone really supports "SCIENCE" in the abstract. What people support is the scientific method, which helped prove outdated scientific beliefs false.

Indeed, and what I'm saying is that the very fact that scientific theory can be proven false makes it sort of irrational and illogical to rely so heavily on them.

[R_P_A_S]

Can you be more specific and tell exacly wich cultures practice this today?

I never said anyone practices this today. At least I don't know if anyone does.

[R_P_A_S]

The problem is I think is how you have framed the question.

It might have better to put it like


In what way has religion been used to hurt society?

And then you could put it into a broader context with

In what way has Marxism been used to hurt society?

And;

In what way has science been used to hurt society?

And we can then have Stalinism, Pol Pot and North Korea along with dynamite and unmanned drones etc etc.

I suppose the idea is though that; there is an inherent contradiction between religion and the scientific approach. The scientific approach being an attempt at a rational understanding of the world around us in order to have the freedom to control and have some power over that world.

And believing that human intervention is a legitimate and achievable objective.


As opposed I suppose to appealing by supplication to divine supernatural intervention.

Islam didn’t used to be opposed to scientific investigation and in fact encouraged and patronised it a 1000 years or so ago.


For balance even the vatican are attempting to redeem themselves with their own observatory investigating Trans-Neptunian Objects with Brother Guy Consolmagno leading the field.

I went to a lecture by him a couple of weeks ago at the highly secular Manchester Astronomical Society, he knew his stuff.

I suspect that they have a hidden agenda and want a head start on the observation of the second coming were beforehand ‘the heavenly bodies are going to driven be off their courses’.


There is a serious theory that gravitational orbital resonance could have thrown out an extra planet into an highly elliptical orbit and unobservable as yet at circa 200+ Au’s out, that on its return would do the trick.

Incidentally the earth centric versus the earth spinning around thing has been around for a long time. The ancients Greeks and had postulated or even knew the world was a sphere and had fairly accurately calculated its size with geometry basically.


They had also theorised that it could be spinning and that the sun was ‘stationary’; but that would mean that the earth was spinning around 1000 miles per hour ish I think, a bit slower in Greece.
Despite the evidence to support the theory it was thrown out on scientific grounds, due to the absence of a strong western wind.


I am not a catholic or Muslim obviously i hope.


...

Thanks for your contribution. In regards to your first comment about how I word my questions.. I'm tired of trying to hard to do this on this forums. No matter what one ask or writes there will always be oner or two posters that just want to add something completely irrelevant or off topic discussion.

[R_P_A_S]

Do I really have to make this post "idiot proof"? I'm not asking how science has hurt or how science is also dangerous. All I want is for examples of things society didn't understand and they used religious beliefs to fill in the blanks. most of the blanks can now be answered my science. that's all. damn!

I got an other for you.. you will see how easy it is to add your own.. Lucid dreams and sleep paralysis.. we now understand this and know why it happens. Till this day many cultures believe is the devil or a demon trying to posses you. Some people claim this is the feeling of being abducted by aliens etc etc.

[Invincible Summer]

I never said anyone practices this today. At least I don't know if anyone does.


Then why bring it up? If it has no significant bearing on the past... oh... 1000 years...

And before anyone calls me a Western chauvinist, I realize that there are cultures who still do all sorts of ritualistic practices, but in the grand scheme of things, they have no bearing on the topic at hand.


Do I really have to make this post "idiot proof"? I'm not asking how science has hurt or how science is also dangerous. All I want is for examples of things society didn't understand and they used religious beliefs to fill in the blanks. most of the blanks can now be answered my science. that's all. damn!

Your motive is so goddamned obvious that I figure we might as well go ahead and debate it, as opposed to simply feeding your passive-aggressive attack on anything "unscientific."

And my point is that things that are "answered by science" may very well be proven wrong anyway. We've seen that pattern many times throughout history, just as many as some religious beliefs being debunked by science.

So it's not off topic, I'm just commenting on your request. This is a forum for discussion, so don't just make a post asking for things to create a confirmation bias for you, then be a baby about it when people come up with other opinions.


I got an other for you.. you will see how easy it is to add your own.. Lucid dreams and sleep paralysis.. we now understand this and know why it happens. Till this day many cultures believe is the devil or a demon trying to posses you.Do these cultures even have medicine beyond the local plant species? And I don't see how a misunderstanding of lucid dreams is a "hindrance" to society or progress, as you were discussing in your OP. It's just a silly folk belief that generally has few social implications.


Some people claim this is the feeling of being abducted by aliens etc etc.I really don't think this has anything to do with religion.

[graymouser]

Do I really have to make this post "idiot proof"? I'm not asking how science has hurt or how science is also dangerous. All I want is for examples of things society didn't understand and they used religious beliefs to fill in the blanks. most of the blanks can now be answered my science. that's all. damn!

I got an other for you.. you will see how easy it is to add your own.. Lucid dreams and sleep paralysis.. we now understand this and know why it happens. Till this day many cultures believe is the devil or a demon trying to posses you. Some people claim this is the feeling of being abducted by aliens etc etc.
People used to have literal magical world views. Sometimes those were harmful, like human sacrifice. Other times they were actually helpful, like not eating pork in the desert sun, or frequent bathing, or eating the correct herbs that were basically proto-medicine. Humans thought everything was caused by the supernatural forces around them. The potential answers to your question are limitless, and TBH I don't see much merit in sitting around talking about them, as they really aren't impediments to human progress as such. Progress is based on material conditions, not on what people thought about how the world works - we only got as accurate as we are now because reliable technological production requires a very detailed picture of exactly that. Religion has gotten in the way in a few concrete cases (consider Galileo or Darwin) but for the most part your question is a triviality.

[¿Que?]

And my point is that things that are "answered by science" may very well be proven wrong anyway. We've seen that pattern many times throughout history, just as many as some religious beliefs being debunked by science.

Just to clarify, my point was not as specific as yours. I said we should be skeptical of science, but not just because science gets it wrong sometimes, but rather that we should challenge some basic epistemological assumptions that science relies on.

So for example, Science relies on empirical observations in order to make claims about how the world works. But on a very fundamental level, those empirical observations cannot be corroborated without making certain assumptions that we have no way of corroborating, that is, assumptions we take for granted. How do we confirm our experiences as an accurate representation of reality? How do we "prove" causality? Or even understanding the nature of consciousness and free will (if it exists). Science and the scientific method tend to disregard these questions because they don't really affect practical problem solving and thus they are considered philosophical problems. But the basis of all Science is itself philosophical, as such they are still relevant to how and why we do science in the first place.

[Invincible Summer]

Just to clarify, my point was not as specific as yours. I said we should be skeptical of science, but not just because science gets it wrong sometimes, but rather that we should challenge some basic epistemological assumptions that science relies on.

So for example, Science relies on empirical observations in order to make claims about how the world works. But on a very fundamental level, those empirical observations cannot be corroborated without making certain assumptions that we have no way of corroborating, that is, assumptions we take for granted. How do we confirm our experiences as an accurate representation of reality? How do we "prove" causality? Or even understanding the nature of consciousness and free will (if it exists). Science and the scientific method tend to disregard these questions because they don't really affect practical problem solving and thus they are considered philosophical problems. But the basis of all Science is itself philosophical, as such they are still relevant to how and why we do science in the first place.

Indeed - science for some reason has been assumed to be "the objective truth," when really it is just another explanation of perception.

What makes it more "valid" than other explanations (not that I necessarily endorse wild explanations such as demons or whatever) is social - there is no inherent superiority to science.

[¿Que?]

Indeed - science for some reason has been assumed to be "the objective truth," when really it is just another explanation of perception.

What makes it more "valid" than other explanations (not that I necessarily endorse wild explanations such as demons or whatever) is social - there is no inherent superiority to science.
Exactamundo comrade!

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry to buck the trend in this thread but I'm going to answer the OP

I can think of a couple that have not been mentioned. Left handedness was considered to be the work of the devil and the trials of people accused of being witches.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hello all! I want to see how many more known examples are out there in which religious belief has hurt society more than helped it. I can think of many but I want to hear new ones or some that I've forgotten about. I want to make the case of science, logic and reason. How thanks to these things we have more answers and understand the complex world around us more.

For example... religious beliefs led us to believe that a person with tourette's syndrome was posses by the devil. Now, thanks to research and science we understand this condition and diagnose it.

People thinking the the earth was the center of the universe.. etc etc etc.

let me hear them!

Thank you!

I highly suggest you acquire a copy of Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ. It is by far the most devastating attack on Christianity I have read. If you are looking for a more encompassing critique, you can check out the links and resources in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=334) for a whole host of websites and literature on the topic.

- August

[ckaihatsu]

Nice rant -- guess you heard the creationists in Texas are hiring, huh?





Science relies on empirical observations in order to make claims about how the world works. But on a very fundamental level, those empirical observations cannot be corroborated without making certain assumptions that we have no way of corroborating, that is, assumptions we take for granted. How do we confirm our experiences as an accurate representation of reality?


You're making a dualism type of argument here. You'd rather throw out the entire body of humanity's accumulated knowledge and science rather than have to admit that you *don't trust* it. You're projecting your uncertainty onto *everyone* in general, expecting us to internalize *your* unease and mistrust. Sorry, not gonna happen here.





How do we "prove" causality?


If the simple one-way flow of time and cause-and-effect phenomenon are befuddling you at *this* stage, you may very well be too far gone for treatment....





Science and the scientific method tend to disregard these questions because they don't really affect practical problem solving and thus they are considered philosophical problems. But the basis of all Science is itself philosophical, as such they are still relevant to how and why we do science in the first place.


Why not just at least *set up* some experiments using the scientific method to *find out* if causality, consciousness, and free will exist? Post it here -- I'll be glad to check your work.





Or even understanding the nature of consciousness and free will (if it exists).


Exactly for occasions such as this I made a diagram not too long ago -- saves me the repeat work of having to explain stuff like this over and over. In brief, our consciousness is *based* on self-determination and is socially mediated.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://i46.tinypic.com/24fwswi.jpg

[¿Que?]

Nice rant -- guess you heard the creationists in Texas are hiring, huh?If this is directed at me, then you have totally misjudged me. I have no sympathy for creationists.

You're making a dualism type of argument here. You'd rather throw out the entire body of humanity's accumulated knowledge and science rather than have to admit that you *don't trust* it. You're projecting your uncertainty onto *everyone* in general, expecting us to internalize *your* unease and mistrust. Sorry, not gonna happen here.
I'm not proposing we throw out the entire "body of humanities accumulated knowledge and science" in the least. You are making an assumption about my argument which is not true. Although I didn't explicitly say it, what I was getting at is that we need new ways of thinking, new ways at arriving at knowledge that don't necessarily preclude the old ways, but which accept their limitations.

If the simple one-way flow of time and cause-and-effect phenomenon are befuddling you at *this* stage, you may very well be too far gone for treatment....

In the late nineteenth century, physicists encountered problems with the classical understanding of time, in connection with the behaviour of electricity and magnetism. Einstein resolved these problems by invoking a method of synchronizing clocks using the constant, finite speed of light as the maximum signal velocity. This led directly to the result that observers in motion relative to one another will measure different elapsed times for the same event.Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linear_and_cyclical_time)

I don't want to get into a discussion about quantum physics, since it is not something I know a lot about. But to characterize "time" as a something "simple" is far from any scientific understanding of it.

Why not just at least *set up* some experiments using the scientific method to *find out* if causality, consciousness, and free will exist? Post it here -- I'll be glad to check your work.
Well, you're totally missing the point aren't you. The scientific method, on which these experiments would rely on, itself is predicated on assuming causality. Your premise can't really be it's own conclusion, now can it. I mean it could, but what would you be contributing?

Exactly for occasions such as this I made a diagram not too long ago -- saves me the repeat work of having to explain stuff like this over and over. In brief, our consciousness is *based* on self-determination and is socially mediated.
I've seen your diagrams, and like most people, I can't make heads or tails of them. But if your point is the bolded part, then I don't see how this is in line with any classical understanding of science, which basically proves my point that we need to start thinking in new ways, because the old ways have reached their limitations.

[NGNM85]

So these fringe groups represent how religion is practiced on a whole? I mean, no doubt they are fucked, but I don't think using outliers is a "rational, logical, scientific" way of debating religion.

Admittedly, it was a bit flippant. However, I stand by my point.

That's actually two questions; whether or not these individuals and their actions and attitudes are representative of their respective religions, and, whether or not they are representative of the majority of individuals who belong to that particular denomination. A glance at their respective reveals not only a wealth of justifications for such behavior, but blatant exhortations to commit various types of violence. Just open the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible to any page and within a few minutes you'll find the impetus to commit some sort of atrocity. Also, even seemingly inoccuous, although completely irrational beliefs, can have serious consequences. Take the Victorian (This is putting it mildly.) hangups in the Abrahamic faiths towards procreation. This seems totally benign compared to the perscriptions for heresy and so forth. In sub-Saharan Africa there are Catholic missionaries preaching to everyone they meet against the 'evils' of contraceptives, some even going so far as to claim that they are ineffective against HIV. This is happening in the most AIDS-ravaged part of the world, where these missionaries are often the only source of information about HIV. So, even this seemingly benign, if demented belief is killing people. There's a direct correlation. I don't think Jihadists or abortion clinic bombers make up a majority of the Christian or Muslim communities. However, they are not as 'extreme' as we'd like to think. These beliefs and attitudes are much more common than most of us allow ourselves to admit. There are ample statistics to back this up. The situation in the Middle East is more grim, but make no mistake, the United States, in it's own way, is nearly as deranged by religious extremism as Afghanistan. Even if only one percent of the 2.1 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims are radicalized by their beliefs, that's a serious problem.

[ckaihatsu]

If this is directed at me, then you have totally misjudged me. I have no sympathy for creationists.


Yeah, I've been looking through some of your other posts and you're no slouch -- it's surprising to see this particular line from you here at this thread, since it's out-of-sync with an otherwise normal, rational approach to reasoning....





I'm not proposing we throw out the entire "body of humanities accumulated knowledge and science" in the least. You are making an assumption about my argument which is not true. Although I didn't explicitly say it, what I was getting at is that we need new ways of thinking, new ways at arriving at knowledge that don't necessarily preclude the old ways, but which accept their limitations.

Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linear_and_cyclical_time)


So then why the throwback to religious myths that you've referenced with your link here, instead of the *basics*: -- ?





Time has been defined as the continuum in which events occur in succession from the past to the present and on to the future.[1] Time has also been defined as a one-dimensional quantity[2] used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with other quantities such as space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes.[3]

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time





I don't want to get into a discussion about quantum physics, since it is not something I know a lot about. But to characterize "time" as a something "simple" is far from any scientific understanding of it.

Well, you're totally missing the point aren't you. The scientific method, on which these experiments would rely on, itself is predicated on assuming causality. Your premise can't really be it's own conclusion, now can it. I mean it could, but what would you be contributing?


What the *$#@%! is your hang-up with causality???





I've seen your diagrams, and like most people, I can't make heads or tails of them. But if your point is the bolded part, then I don't see how this is in line with any classical understanding of science, which basically proves my point that we need to start thinking in new ways, because the old ways have reached their limitations.


If you want to dredge up humanity's training wheels -- religious mythology -- instead of leaving them by the wayside where they belong, then how the %*^$# are *you* "thinking in new ways"?!!! Go ahead and create some new material for us, at least for its novelty value, if you're going to talk about it...!

[¿Que?]

So then why the throwback to religious myths that you've referenced with your link here, instead of the *basics*: -- ?
What religious myths? Fucking Einstein, bro!

What the *$#@%! is your hang-up with causality???
I don't have a hang up with causality. You said, why don't I come up with an experiment to find out if causality, free will and consciousness exist. To keep it simple, I chose to focus on causality, since I would only need to prove that only one of those experiments would be futile to invalidate the original point (without self correction on your part).

If you want to dredge up humanity's training wheels -- religious mythology -- instead of leaving them by the wayside where they belong, then how the %*^$# are *you* "thinking in new ways"?!!! Go ahead and create some new material for us, at least for its novelty value, if you're going to talk about it...!
Why do you assume that I want to dredge up religious mythology. Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize my position? Is it not you that is falling into this dualistic fallacy: science or mysticism?

[ckaihatsu]

Why do you assume that I want to dredge up religious mythology.


It's not an assumption -- the portion that you referenced with your link here...





Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linear_and_cyclical_time)


...contains *this* text:





Linear and cyclical time

See also: Time Cycles and Wheel of time

In general, the Judaeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, with a beginning, the act of creation by God. The Christian view assumes also an end, the eschaton, expected to happen when Jesus returns to earth in the Second Coming to judge the living and the dead. This will be the consummation of the world and time. St Augustine's City of God was the first developed application of this concept to world history. The Christian view is that God is uncreated and eternal so that He and the supernatural world are outside time and exist in eternity.

Ancient cultures such as Incan, Mayan, Hopi, and other Native American Tribes, plus the Babylonian, Ancient Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, and others have a concept of a wheel of time, that regards time as cyclical and quantic consisting of repeating ages that happen to every being of the Universe between birth and extinction.

In Norse mythology, the gods made the mistake to invite the Norns to Yggdrasil. They immediately began to spin on the wire of time. The gods noticed that they began to grow old. In order to prevent the aging process offered by Idun an apple a day.[citation needed]

Numeric and Divine time

The Greek language denotes two distinct principles, Chronos and Kairos. The former refers to numeric, or chronological, time. The latter, literally "the right or opportune moment," relates specifically to metaphysical or Divine time. In theology, Kairos is qualitative, as opposed to quantitative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linear_and_cyclical_time





Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize my position?




What religious myths? Fucking Einstein, bro!


Okay, what, then is your point regarding time and Einstein? State your case.





I don't have a hang up with causality. You said, why don't I come up with an experiment to find out if causality, free will and consciousness exist. To keep it simple, I chose to focus on causality, since I would only need to prove that only one of those experiments would be futile to invalidate the original point (without self correction on your part).


Okay, whenever you're ready....





Is it not you that is falling into this dualistic fallacy: science or mysticism?


No, it is not I. (And dualism is *not* a simple either-or choice, as you're making it out to be. Dualism is the Cartesian philosophical construct that asserts that you can *only* be certain of your own mental reasoning since your perceptions of the outside world may actually be somehow false and thus deceiving you. It is counterposed to monism which posits that we are all of one existence.)

[Victus Mortuum]

What the *$#@%! is your hang-up with causality???

Hate to burst your bubble, but causality/induction are huge problems in philosophy. Science cannot prove causality/induction because it assumes them (this is invalid circular reasoning). Also, I'd argue that no one has come up with a legitimate means of showing its validity. But no matter what, there is by no means universal consensus about causality/induction.

See: The Problem of Induction

[ckaihatsu]

Hate to burst your bubble, but causality/induction are huge problems in philosophy. Science cannot prove causality/induction because it assumes them (this is invalid circular reasoning). Also, I'd argue that no one has come up with a legitimate means of showing its validity. But no matter what, there is by no means universal consensus about causality/induction.

See: The Problem of Induction


Boo-hoo, welcome to life in the real world.... So let's just call our conclusions 'tentative', or 'hypotheses', until we can either further confirm or disprove them. That's *science*, kids!

[¿Que?]

Okay, what, then is your point regarding time and Einstein? State your case.

Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Modern_physics)
There, you happy now. Maybe you should just read the quote I posted, you'd realize I pasted the wrong link. It's the same article though, just a different anchor.

In the late nineteenth century, physicists encountered problems with the classical understanding of time, in connection with the behaviour of electricity and magnetism. Einstein resolved these problems by invoking a method of synchronizing clocks using the constant, finite speed of light as the maximum signal velocity. This led directly to the result that observers in motion relative to one another will measure different elapsed times for the same event. Second time I posted this exact same thing, mind you...
Okay, whenever you're ready....
I thought I was clear as to why you can't design an experiment to prove causality. Without causality, the world does not make too much sense, so some see it as a priori, but this basically proves my point. If it's a priori, then you can't prove it empirically, by definition.

No, it is not I. (And dualism is *not* a simple either-or choice, as you're making it out to be. Dualism is the Cartesian philosophical construct that asserts that you can *only* be certain of your own mental reasoning since your perceptions of the outside world may actually be somehow false and thus deceiving you. It is counterposed to monism which posits that we are all of one existence.)
OK, fine, based on the context, I should have guessed you were referring to cartesian dualism. But in a general sense it refers to the idea that there are only two options.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/)

In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles.

[ckaihatsu]

I thought I was clear as to why you can't design an experiment to prove causality. Without causality, the world does not make too much sense, so some see it as a priori, but this basically proves my point. If it's a priori, then you can't prove it empirically, by definition.





[L]et's just call our conclusions 'tentative', or 'hypotheses', until we can either further confirm or disprove them. That's *science*, kids!








Science relies on empirical observations in order to make claims about how the world works. But on a very fundamental level, those empirical observations cannot be corroborated without making certain assumptions that we have no way of corroborating, that is, assumptions we take for granted. How do we confirm our experiences as an accurate representation of reality?





You're making a dualism type of argument here. You'd rather throw out the entire body of humanity's accumulated knowledge and science rather than have to admit that you *don't trust* it. You're projecting your uncertainty onto *everyone* in general, expecting us to internalize *your* unease and mistrust. Sorry, not gonna happen here.


[...]





OK, fine, based on the context, I should have guessed you were referring to cartesian dualism.








In the late nineteenth century, physicists encountered problems with the classical understanding of time, in connection with the behaviour of electricity and magnetism. Einstein resolved these problems by invoking a method of synchronizing clocks using the constant, finite speed of light as the maximum signal velocity. This led directly to the result that observers in motion relative to one another will measure different elapsed times for the same event.


So now you're stretching this notion of time to include Einstein's spacetime:





In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval#Spacetime_intervals


This is *still* nothing new, as you first stated you were searching for -- don't we *both* have better things to do with our time here?!

[Victus Mortuum]

Boo-hoo, welcome to life in the real world.... So let's just call our conclusions 'tentative', or 'hypotheses', until we can either further confirm or disprove them. That's *science*, kids!

Ha, that's a reasonable, correct answer to all of our problems! Ignore them!

The people of the world are suffering, what do we do? Ignore them!

All of science and really anything you claim about the empirical world is inherently tentative.

[¿Que?]

This is *still* nothing new, as you first stated you were searching for -- don't we *both* have better things to do with our time here?!
I suppose we do...

[ckaihatsu]

Ha, that's a reasonable, correct answer to all of our problems! Ignore them!


Ha! You're fun! That's nowhere near close to what I said! Ha! Go insinuate elsewhere!





The people of the world are suffering, what do we do? Ignore them!


Ha! You're fun! That's nowhere near close to what I said! Ha! Go insinuate elsewhere!





All of science and really anything you claim about the empirical world is inherently tentative.


These things have to be done on a case-by-case basis -- we can't generalize about how to use inductive reasoning across *all* cases, universally.

[Victus Mortuum]

Ha! You're fun! That's nowhere near close to what I said! Ha! Go insinuate elsewhere!

That is exactly what you said. You explicitly advocated NOT addressing the problem, and therefore ignored it.


These things have to be done on a case-by-case basis -- we can't generalize about how to use inductive reasoning across *all* cases, universally.

Yes, but we can observe and define how it is that humans induce and develop a proper system that explains our methods

[ckaihatsu]

That is exactly what you said. You explicitly advocated NOT addressing the problem, and therefore ignored it.


Then, to back up this (false) claim of yours you're going to have to show me the quote of what you're alleging I said.

[Victus Mortuum]

Boo-hoo, welcome to life in the real world...

This is where you seemed to have implied this to me. If you are saying that is not what you meant, fine. I'm not against you, but what it seemed you'd said.

[ckaihatsu]

This is where you seemed to have implied this to me. If you are saying that is not what you meant, fine. I'm not against you, but what it seemed you'd said.


I think it's quite a stretch to go from the first part here to the second part, there:








Hate to burst your bubble, but causality/induction are huge problems in philosophy. Science cannot prove causality/induction because it assumes them (this is invalid circular reasoning). Also, I'd argue that no one has come up with a legitimate means of showing its validity. But no matter what, there is by no means universal consensus about causality/induction.

See: The Problem of Induction





Boo-hoo, welcome to life in the real world.... So let's just call our conclusions 'tentative', or 'hypotheses', until we can either further confirm or disprove them. That's *science*, kids!








Ha, that's a reasonable, correct answer to all of our problems! Ignore them!

The people of the world are suffering, what do we do? Ignore them!


In the hopes of assuring you and providing something along the lines of bona fides, go ahead and do a web search on 'human needs ckaihatsu revleft' -- here's a link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22human+needs%22+ckaihatsu+revleft&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0

[Die Neue Zeit]

Two comrades, Ckaihatsu and Victus need to chill. I too have taken studies in the philosophy of science, and induction is a major problem.

The way around this, though, is the paradigm shift.

[ckaihatsu]

Two comrades, Ckaihatsu and Victus need to chill.


The steam is *still* coming off of my head, and it's already causing a "butterfly effect" -- it's gonna be a *warm* winter...!


= D





I too have taken studies in the philosophy of science, and induction is a major problem.

The way around this, though, is the paradigm shift.


Do tell....

[R_P_A_S]

If there was no scientific or medical research we'd still be exorcising tourette's syndrome patients... that's hindering progress.

Don't come on here trying to debate me on shit you are obsessed with. This is not a debate about science and religion. Is a simple question for more examples of how fucking dumb religion. Thank to all those who are contributing!

[Victus Mortuum]

Two comrades, Ckaihatsu and Victus need to chill.

Fair enough


The way around this, though, is the paradigm shift.

How's that?? I'm highly skeptical


If there was no scientific or medical research we'd still be exorcising tourette's syndrome patients... that's hindering progress.

Don't come on here trying to debate me on shit you are obsessed with. This is not a debate about science and religion. Is a simple question for more examples of how fucking dumb religion. Thank to all those who are contributing!

I absolutely agree that religion is a social hindrance. Don't misunderstand my staunch defense of Skepticism with any interest in justifying religion. I'm simply interested in intellectual honesty, and honestly I've never seen an intellectually valid solution to this problem.

[Invincible Summer]

If there was no scientific or medical research we'd still be exorcising tourette's syndrome patients... that's hindering progress.

It's not a black-and-white issue we're talking about. No one here is saying "get rid of all science."

And what's with your obsession with Tourette's? And how long ago were people still doing that (excluding fringe groups in rural areas)? Like.. in the 16th century? Why do you insist on using antiquated shit (like Aztec human sacrifice rituals... seriously.. wtf?) to argue your point?

The practices that you mention took place for the most part when science was hardly even developed yet... hell, some of it was considered science. I don't know if you noticed, but it tends to be that the economic/technological development of a society is generally correlated with development in scientific research. Why else do primitive tribes in the Amazon or Papua New Guinea still hold onto folk beliefs and pray to rain gods and whatnot? It's not because they're "fucking dumb," but rather because they don't know about weather systems.

People thought demons and spirits possessed people because they didn't know about neurology.


All this stuff is based on societal stages in development, not just because some people are more "fucking dumb" than others.



Don't come on here trying to debate me on shit you are obsessed with. This is not a debate about science and religion. Is a simple question for more examples of how fucking dumb religion. Thank to all those who are contributing!Again, this is a forum. If you just wanted examples of "how fucking dumb religion" [sic] then you can easily Google it. By posting here, you're basically implicitly permitting people to comment on your passive-aggressive, non-materialistic attack on non-scientific (I don't want to say religious because it's not always religious) belief/philosophy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How's that?? I'm highly skeptical

In order for there to be absolute truth on something, it must be true in infinite scenarios.

Think of it this way: although most people know the earth is round, they live life as if it were flat. There are people, though, whose jobs depend on the earth being round, and furthermore some of those depend on the earth not being perfectly round.

Maybe I confused paradigm shifts with the constructivist approach to the problem of induction? :confused:

[R_P_A_S]

It's not a black-and-white issue we're talking about. No one here is saying "get rid of all science."

And what's with your obsession with Tourette's? And how long ago were people still doing that (excluding fringe groups in rural areas)? Like.. in the 16th century? Why do you insist on using antiquated shit (like Aztec human sacrifice rituals... seriously.. wtf?) to argue your point?

The practices that you mention took place for the most part when science was hardly even developed yet... hell, some of it was considered science. I don't know if you noticed, but it tends to be that the economic/technological development of a society is generally correlated with development in scientific research. Why else do primitive tribes in the Amazon or Papua New Guinea still hold onto folk beliefs and pray to rain gods and whatnot? It's not because they're "fucking dumb," but rather because they don't know about weather systems.

People thought demons and spirits possessed people because they didn't know about neurology.


All this stuff is based on societal stages in development, not just because some people are more "fucking dumb" than others.


Again, this is a forum. If you just wanted examples of "how fucking dumb religion" [sic] then you can easily Google it. By posting here, you're basically implicitly permitting people to comment on your passive-aggressive, non-materialistic attack on non-scientific (I don't want to say religious because it's not always religious) belief/philosophy.

Yes I can google it. But I also want to ask some of you and not get into a time wasting debate about it. So I was using hardcore examples? who gives a shit if they were from the 16th or 1.5th century? FML lol:lol:

[Trigonometry]

What about Islamic preservation of works of ancient Greece and Rome that really pulled society back to Classical ages!

[Cowboy Killer]

It's simple, the logic of religion is "If you cant explain it, "It must come from (Insert deity)"
Example:If you ask any Religious fanatic about any catastrophe that happens in the world they will tell you "It's from all those godless sodomites in San Fransisco" instead of considering the scientifically provable factors that contributed to it and possibly preventing it from happening from again.

[Victus Mortuum]

In order for there to be absolute truth on something, it must be true in infinite scenarios.

Think of it this way: although most people know the earth is round, they live life as if it were flat. There are people, though, whose jobs depend on the earth being round, and furthermore some of those depend on the earth not being perfectly round.

Maybe I confused paradigm shifts with the constructivist approach to the problem of induction? :confused:

I'm not wholly familiar with the contructivist approach or what you are calling paradigm shifts. Care to elaborate? :)

[Invincible Summer]

It's simple, the logic of religion is "If you cant explain it, "It must come from (Insert deity)"
Example:If you ask any Religious fanatic about any catastrophe that happens in the world they will tell you "It's from all those godless sodomites in San Fransisco" instead of considering the scientifically provable factors that contributed to it and possibly preventing it from happening from again.

But how about the average religious person?

[Cowboy Killer]

But how about the average religious person?
Still the same logic "If you cant explain it, It must come from (Insert deity)" just not as extreme.