Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
This shows that you have a very basic understanding of what Religion is. Religion created stability. Priests were some of the first scientists and science has no greater friend then Religion. Are some practices out of date, of course. Are some of the "fairy-tales" not scientifically accurate, Of course, but that's not the point, the point is the lessons that can be learned from these stories and allegories and applied to a persons life that will enrich it, the people around them and ultimately civilized societies.
Most atheist's or anti-Religion types only focus on the bad things associated, and neglect the good. Sad.
|
Wut? Please try to come across as less than an apologist, its embarrassing to listen to the drivel to be honest.
There is/was simply no greater enemy to science than religion, any position that assumes otherwise is simply mistaken. The world would be far more advanced today if we had allowed scientists to speak openly, study openly without fear of religious annihilation. If that's a friend I think Ill pass. "To this day" Creationists in well educated countries like the USA continue to espouse biblical authority over actual science. Thats MORE than out of date, that is backwards, closed minded and born completely of the tribalism that you speak of.
Lessons in the bible aren't written by a "God"<sic>, they are man made fables that are stolen from societies before them. The idea that it is wrong to kill, rape, etc etc etc is not a "religious" idiom, it is inherent in all of us from birth.
Religious enrichment? Maybe the art and the music if those are something that floats your boat, it is more like religious indoctrination. How about we try a society or tribal path that doesn't allow the indoctrination of children to believe in their grandparents choice of fairy tale without fear of an everlasting hellfire? Or is that enrichment?
What was done 2000 years ago simply does not apply anymore outside of the historicity of our ancestors, and what they did right or wrong.
With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
- Albert Einstein