Do you believe that organized religion is an impediment to scientific knowledge?

2016-05-31T12:48:56-04:00

It's "common knowledge" that religious dogma is counter-intuitive to scientific knowledge. However, it seems to me that common knowledge is a lot less scientific than religious dogma. The problem likely stems from the misinformation that passes for history as taught in schools and colleges these days.

Take, for example, the story of Columbus's petition to the Spanish Court to finance is expedition seeking a westward route to the riches of China and India (thus avoiding Arab monopoly on trade to that region). We were taught that the Royal Wise Men argued the world is flat while Columbus is pictured holding an orange to illustrate that it is a sphere. Actually, everyone at that time knew it was spherical. The debate centered on the size of the earth. Columbus was way off in his estimates while the Jews and Arabs serving as scientists to the Royal Court were only about 1% off in their estimates. In actuality, Columbus would never have survived to reach his goal if the New World didn't get in his way.

Yes, there were periods of history wherein church leaders argued for the scientific accuracy of their religious books. However, that hasn't applied in many centuries. As for including a caricature of a rabbi in this cartoon the artist belies a prejudice which would indicate that he never looked at list of Nobel Prizes in science awarded to Jews. As for Muslims, they did have a golden age of scientific research and discovery for a brief time while Christians were prosecuting sea captains who dared carry charts on their ships which contradicted the biblical descriptions of earth. But, that was then. This is now...

Sure, there are fundamentalists clinging to some notions of Intelligent Design, but in truth, there is no more evidence against their claims than there is supporting them. There is still a limit to scientific knowledge that allows "wiggle room" for religious explanations (and I'm sure there will be those who will now jump in to dispute my claim even though their scientific foundations are no more compelling than the Creationists).

So, what sorts of "Common Knowledge" do you rely on? Are you willing to mention them here so they can be challenged?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-05-31T12:50:42-04:00

Religion, yes. Spirituality, no. Spirituality IS scientific.

Response by PO3 Sandra Gomke made May 31 at 2016 12:51 PM

2016-05-31T12:51:10-04:00

Agreed! I've always wanted a "Creationist's" explanation of dinosaurs. Haven't gotten it yet.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 12:58 PM

2016-05-31T12:58:42-04:00

I just see it as ANY kind of closed mind is an impediment to scientific knowledge and advancement.

Response by CPL Patrick Brewbaker made May 31 at 2016 1:08 PM

2016-05-31T13:08:30-04:00

No because science is a religion as well. I have have faith that there are 6.23 x 10^23 molecules in a mole. Stuffing all the other constants that I've stuck in my brain. Beers law, std dev, cryptosporidium, I'm a party killer, until we state talking quantum mechanics!!!!! Cool beans.

Sorry science ranting, arthritis mess, fentanyl patch.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 1:09 PM

2016-05-31T13:09:04-04:00

Well brother, how about you check into whether Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Mark Hopkins, and Immanuel Kant found religion to be an impediment to scientific knowledge, and then we can talk about it?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 1:15 PM

2016-05-31T13:15:45-04:00

The idea that educated people of medieval times and earlier believed the earth to be flat (and the stars nearby overhead) is a good example of the kind of falsehood which comes from historical arrogance, or perhaps it could be better phrased as "temporal arrogance", because it really stems from a lack of historical knowledge. Kids need to stop being taught these kind of lies.
The ancient astronomer Ptolemy taught that the earth was like a tiny point compared to the size and the distance of other celestial bodies in our view, and the Ptolemaic model was the standard until you get around the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
At no point does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat, by the way.

Response by CSM Michael Salfai made May 31 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-05-31T13:33:47-04:00

Some versions, especially the fundamentalists in Christianity, Islam, etc. are absolutely an impediment to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 31 at 2016 1:57 PM

2016-05-31T13:57:08-04:00

I disagree with what was said below that science is a religion, having been, though now VA approved as total perm disabled recently, extensively trained to be one. There are definite phiosophic differences between a science and a religion, though the concept of scientific dogma, as opposed to a religious dogma, is, of course, a relevant philosophic point. That being said, religion is a purely human construct, created both as a means of ethically indoctrinating kids, as well as to create an ethical framework for adult existence. Theology, however , is an altogether different matter, the concept of deity, as I'd mentioned elsewhere on the site here recently, has, in fact, very valid scientific basis in fact. The word "belief", however, is, in my view, inconsistent with science, as well as needlessly metaphysical in its conceptualizations and associated precepts. The word "convinced", is, at least to my way of thinking, admittedly, far more apt as a descriptive, whether scientifcmor otherwise, as well as far more objective as a pedagogical concept. There was an excellent paper by Konrad Zuse, a German ww2 computer scientist, now little known, on the concept of the universe as a computer, with recent mention on the site here of the universe being quite possibly experimentally verifiable as an actual hologram, per se. Anyone considering such questions, should, I think, read the paper by Zuse, it is available online, I have seen it. Also, sainthood, which I have made a study of, as well as of comparative religion, has very real and concrete scientific basis in fact, in terms of the lack of corruption in human remains of saints, as has been witnessed and dcumented many times throughout history. However, while I've read many religious treatises, as well as existened such disciplines as epistemology, the concept of miracles and or a human actually being divine are, I am afraid, aspects of which I am, unfortunately, not yet convinced. Deity in general, certainly, the only accurate definition of deity, the only one sufficiently all encompassing, is the sum of all minds everywhere, not merely on earth, on other civilizations elsewhere, which will inevitably be found, that, I think as with dismissing the flat earth concept, is now only a matter of time, a when, not an if, by all means, to think otherwise bynthe human race would now be absurdly egocentric as well as ethnocentric, I should think. All of the major religious figures, at least from the standpoint of their ethical philosophies, have been, pretty uniformly, brilliant, however, I will not focus on any one as being a central dogma for huiman existence either. I tend to pick and choose, accepting certain viewpoints, while dismissing others. Science has nothing whatever to do with religion, to my way of thinking, other than as a philosophy for the objective evaluation of evidence. There is a mathematical theorem by the logician Kurt Godel, to the effect that nothing, essentially, is provable, only disprovable. I can explain more if desired ,espec about such topics as quantum mechanics, if desired, however, neither that, nor any other theory is suitable, in my view, for consideration from a religious standpoint, though, that is, of course, my own viewpoint, certainly. Also, any deity must, of necessity have two principal abilities, telepathy, and psychokinesis. However, I think it the monumental height of human hubris to think that the deity is at all concerned with the everyday goings on of the human race. And, if there is a deity here, then all other civilizations, on all other planets, must also have a deity hence, they must all be the same deity, for one to exist at all, any other view, to my mind, would essentially be reductio ad absurdum, if you will. I hope that was of interest, do not expect to be agreed with, by any means, by anyone, and would be eager for anyu thoughts, hoping that all of the foregoing at least helps engender discussion, if nothing else, many thanks.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 31 at 2016 1:58 PM

2016-05-31T13:58:56-04:00

Incidentally, everyone always yaks about Darwin for evolution, leaving out booth Huxley, as well as Gregor Mendel, the latter being work of considerably more quantitative and objective caliber, just an observation, many thanks.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 2:22 PM

2016-05-31T14:22:37-04:00

Hey, don't me the Catholic church is hindering scientific investigation. The Pope admitted Galileo was right!
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves

More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun. With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo...

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made May 31 at 2016 2:26 PM

2016-05-31T14:26:24-04:00

Yes and No. Any belief system that stays stuck in the past is an impediment to progress. Just look at "modern" Islam. I find modern evangelists to be just as impeding to modern "social" thought.

For the record I am a non practicing Catholic. I find religious dogma to be limiting.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 31 at 2016 2:37 PM

2016-05-31T14:37:18-04:00

Oh god yes...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 3:05 PM

2016-05-31T15:05:12-04:00

As a "fundamentalist" Christian with a degree, and working in a "scientific" industry (emissions control chemistry) who actually considers himself somewhat "open minded"...I often hear about how the Bible has been, "concretely proven wrong by science". None have yet convinced me to abandon my faith. I'll list some "usual suspects" and try to prove my point:

Daniel 4: 10-11-This is one of the "flat earth" verses some like to pull out to "prove" science/religion have a conflict. What amazes me is how intelligent persons reading a description of a prophetic dream serving up an analogy immediately hang their hat on a "tree" that can be literally "seen" across the whole earth. Kinda like suggesting that Lexington and Concord MUST never have occurred because no weapon of the 18th century could "literally" be heard around the world.

The "Flood"-Scientists love to punch holes in the Biblical account of Noah's great flood. They detail the impossibility of the volumes of water and counter the physical probabilities of placing "two of every living creature" on a vessel that size. Do the math...about 450' long, 75' wide, and 45' tall...pretty much the largest vessel built until the 19th century. Factor in the contemporary accounts of other Bronze Age cultures, and assume that the spectrum of animal species was less diverse (less mutation, domestication, inbreeding)...then look at simple geography...and it sounds a lot less improbable.

Creation-the "big" one. Scientists like to say, "no wizard made the world in a week"-Ok, but a randomly occurring, hitherto unexplained miracle of physics suddenly brought forth matter and energy from no matter and energy?

Bottom line? Science and Religion don't "conflict" in the pure sphere of what is observed, and only do in the realm of hypothesis if one's basis for either begins with a false pretext (you know, like the concept that the Bible says there cannot be little green men...If it does, I've yet to find it, and actually find some evidence supporting it within). Just because someone sat in a church as a kid and got spooked by a preacher who thought only his chosen denomination were going to make it into heaven...or because one came up against a professor who hated religion and couldn't admit some of the greatest minds in science were in fact, devout persons of faith-doesn't constitute a choice between the spiritual and the academic.

Response by PO3 Sandra Gomke made May 31 at 2016 4:06 PM

2016-05-31T16:06:32-04:00

This is fun!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 4:49 PM

2016-05-31T16:49:21-04:00

I despise organized religion.

It's manipulative, hierarchical, and man-centered, just to name a few. Jesus Christ himself was at odds with the religious leaders of his day. They killed the prophets and later erected monuments and whitewashed their graves and proclaimed they were doing "God" a service. Organized religion does things according to men's imaginations while altogether ignoring the very statements of God's word. In this regard NOTHING has changed.

Concerning science and religion, please refer to the above paragraph. The Christian-Judaeo texts are not science books. Not all we discover by observation and testing proves the truthfulness of the Bible; Neither does it disprove the truthfulness of the Bible when you get right down to what and why the scriptures say what they say.

When I say I despise organized religion, I'm not referring to the prescribed manner God has guided His people in the way they should meet and function together as the body of Christ as taught and demonstrated in the New Testament. What we do today is nothing like we see in the first three centuries of church history.

I know there is something written here in response to the original question!

Response by SPC David S. made May 31 at 2016 5:55 PM

2016-05-31T17:55:35-04:00

As much of science has originated from a vast array of once unproven ideas or theories that have lead to new discoveries one could argue that religion is merely a theory that explains our origin but is yet to be proven. Seriously we can believe there are 27 different dimensions streaming along in the same time and space but some being or force couldn't create matter simply based on what we think our understanding of quantum mechanics is - rather arrogant and equally just as impossible. As well one could argue the mere fact that in creating theological principles and creating religious architects religion is indeed real because it has impacted humanity for better or worse - God might not be real but religion certainly is approach. I know many believe that the workings of quantum mechanics explain our origin. However this would imply that the laws of quantum mechanics would have to had been sorted out first in order for matter to simple pop into existence. Thus that leads to "Where did this quantum mechanics come from?". At some point there is faith in either approach. If there are indeed 27 dimensions of time and space we know very little in how things work.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2016 9:23 PM

2016-05-31T21:23:27-04:00

There is tension where there are overlapping factual claims, but they aren't inherently or always in conflict. Science, for example, has nothing to say about the nature of gods or souls, i.e., whether they exist or not, what properties they'd have if they did exist, etc.. Organized religions, by contrast, often insist on having scriptural accounts concerning the natural world treated as fact, even when abundant scientific evidence exists to the contrary. But this isn't always the case.

Some believing scientists - Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins come to mind, as well as the late Theodosius Dobzhanski, who said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,"- see no conflict. And the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) makes it quite clear on its website that science and religion need not conflict.

Of course, Intelligent Design is actually pseudoscience. ID proponents and institutions like the Discovery Institute have yet to offer data to support their claims, relying instead on assertions and superficially appealing claims without offering evidence to support them. Postulating irreducible complexity and couching claims in scientific jargon is all well and good, but if there isn't any way of testing the claims according to the scientific method, there's really nothing to study. And even design proponents freely admit to wanting a looser definition of science so their ideas appear to have merit. In any case, the point is that unresolved philosophical differences do not suggest equivalency with regard to actual science.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2016 9:48 AM

2016-06-01T09:48:06-04:00

Separation of religion and state are a major issue in this argument. I'll simply state that it was Government and their control of power that persecuted scientific research. So long as Government isn't in charge of religions and religions have no control over Government it is a very minor issue. When religions are separate from Government this isn't really ever a significant issue.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 1 at 2016 9:48 AM

2016-06-01T09:48:39-04:00

Religion and science are not polar opposites. They do not serve the same purpose. Science tells us how (as best as we can figure it out) the universe works. Religion tells us why. The problem is when they cross into each other's lanes. Folks on both sides do this a lot.

Response by SP5 Dennis Loberger made Apr 11 at 2024 2:42 PM

2024-04-11T14:42:18-04:00

I am religious and understand science as investigations to expand knowledge. Science doesn't lie to us. It develops as new evidence comes up. I recognize that even as I can't possibly understand all of God's thoughts, I cannot expect science to know everything either