Posted on May 31, 2016
Do you believe that organized religion is an impediment to scientific knowledge?
6.07K
74
80
12
12
0
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?
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?
Religion
Science
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
9
9
0
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT (Join to see) - Here, I'll give you another so you don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
Sorry science ranting, arthritis mess, fentanyl patch.
(4)
(0)
CPL Patrick Brewbaker
CPT Jack Durish - It's what we biologist do. Secret language grasshopper. Drives my boss nuts when the biologists get together. Ha!! Like fingernail on the chalkboard. Sweet!!
(0)
(0)
I just see it as ANY kind of closed mind is an impediment to scientific knowledge and advancement.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - As long as there are those with eyes wide shut, then no it will never be settled.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Double-edged sword... whose eyes are wide shut... the atheist or the deist? The question is what is the truth? The answer depends on what you believe to be truth and why? Science and Christianity are not at odds... there are theories that are at odds with religion, but they aren't scientific... rather assumptions and guesses that exclude the possibility of a supernatural creator at the outset -- that's not science...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
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!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
For the record I am a non practicing Catholic. I find religious dogma to be limiting.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Agreed! I've always wanted a "Creationist's" explanation of dinosaurs. Haven't gotten it yet.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Sandra Gomke
PO2 Paul Endes - 2 Peter 3:8 "Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." But 65 million years ago, a day was only 21 hours. How long it took to create everything is totally subjective. Depends on the point of view.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sandra Gomke
PO2 Paul Endes - I thought you didn't believe in evolution. But humans "evolved" to adapt their nostrils to their environments?
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sandra Gomke
SGT Geoffrey Harduk - Thank you! Interesting point of view! What about dinosaur and human fossils in different strata?
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sandra Gomke
I found this article explaining the conflicts: http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google