Charlie Hebdo

[ys]

Warning : since I'm late here, it's going to a long post ;)

This is a more extreme example, but people with religious views (even mild) affect politics and have been proven to hinder scientific progress. That is something that makes me more militant against it.

If you want to believe, that's fine. However, if it starts affecting the way of life for many people in an adverse way, GTFO.

Since around 2000, researchers noticed that aspects of civilization are going backwards. At the same time, religion gets more into political and scientific spheres again. Related is a steadily increasing number of people who are anti-science. The ironic part is that people have never relied that much on science and technology before.

It also affects life more these days since religious freedom has gotten a new meaning. (Over here) it used to mean that you could believe what you wanted (in private) and the government would not harass you for it. Now, people seem to think that it means that they have to right push their personal belief into others faces while claiming extra rights.

I guess people forgot all the atheists that committed mass genocide in the name of their ideals (stalin, mao, khmer rouge, the DPRK). You don't have to be religious to excuses violence and human rights abuses.

I always see Stalin's name when someone criticizes religion and its negative effect on some You're right though that religion isn't always as your last examples there. On the other hand, that can maybe be said of many things.

Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner in physics) once said this regarding this topic : Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Also saying religion has been proven to hinder scientific progress is a bit unfair when you consider monks worked hard to copy scientific books before the invention of the printing press, that the caliphates preserved and worked upon ancient greek and Byzantine knowledge (who were also a Christian and the heart of Europe's scientific world until the Ottomans conquered Constantinople). Religion isn't only the European dark ages, extreme islam and the American bible belt.

It is a bit more nuanced. They did copy but it was Church-approved science. Which meant the convenient "truth" that didn't go against their interpretation of the bible. On the other hand, the Vatican does have scientists now working in astrophysics. One of them explained why it was compatible. The point was the bible mentioning "Logos" in the beginning. It could mean "word" but also "logic". So finding out logic meant getting closer to god/the truth. Islam on the other hand deals more with absolute truths from their god so there is no incentive to find out more.

As for the caliphates, some overstate their role when you compare it to other cultures. In any case, many of their biggest scientists weren't even muslims which is something many muslim sites conveniently forget to mention while bragging. Several were christians and others were atheists.
The most relevant part is that all their discoveries happened when they were a tolerant society (right then, Europe was stagnant and religion had a huge influence on daily life).
Then one ruler enforced a strict interpretation and the decline happened almost instantly, still seen today. As a Pakistani physicist said : over one billion people but only 6 Nobel prizes. Of which only two in science. He found it troubling that the region practically contributed nothing to science for 1400 years.

@Calshot, yeah, Galileo couldn't know yet that the stars were that far. Only later, more precise instruments could measure parallax. One more problem was his attitude though and he annoyed important people. From what I've read this contributed a lot to the whole situation.

Lemaitre once said that he separated religion and science. The first was about faith and hope he said, the second about how nature works. Many physicists didn't believe his idea at first and thought that it was a religious creation story. There was experimental confirmation later though.
It's ironic when I see some go against the big bang theory these days out of their belief and calling it "atheist". Especially when one of the founders was a priest Actually, the theory doesn't describe the exact creation but rather the behavior of a certain field and symmetry breaking right after. They might look that up before nagging.

[Axm]

I always see Stalin's name when someone criticizes religion and its negative effect on some You're right though that religion isn't always as your last examples there. On the other hand, that can maybe be said of many things.

Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner in physics) once said this regarding this topic : [i]Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Which is complete bullshit, the millions of dead within atheist regimes weren't committed just by evil men. Evil men may have been giving the orders but many of those carrying out the grunt work (and even some of those giving the orders) believed what they were doing was for the greater good, again you don't need religion to excuse your crimes any ideal wherever it be religious or not can be used to rationalising good men in to committing atrocities . And why wouldn't people mention Stalin when he is a perfect example of an Atheist committing institutionalized genocide and strongly oppressed religion.

It is a bit more nuanced. They did copy but it was Church-approved science. Which meant the convenient "truth" that didn't go against their interpretation of the bible.

Again Christendom isn't just the catholic church during the dark ages. Orthodox Christianity's view on science has always been different and more adaptive to science than catholism. Early Christians were very open minded too where they believed that many things in the bible were not to be taken literally but rather as metaphors for things that the average person couldn't understand. It's only with the rise of power of the catholic church that it became increasingly close minded as the church became corrupt and power obsessed.

As for the caliphates, some overstate their role when you compare it to other cultures. In any case, many of their biggest scientists weren't even muslims which is something many muslim sites conveniently forget to mention while bragging. Several were christians and others were atheists.
The most relevant part is that all their discoveries happened when they were a tolerant society (right then, Europe was stagnant and religion had a huge influence on daily life).

[/quote][/quote]

This wasn't about how much Muslims have really accomplished but rather how religious regimes facilitated scientific progress. The point I was making is saying that religion is "proven" to hinder scientific progress is unfair when there are examples of it being the contrary (not saying that there aren't instances where religion suppressed science either, just saying the balance tips both ways), the caliphates being one of many examples.

Then one ruler enforced a strict interpretation and the decline happened almost instantly, still seen today. As a Pakistani physicist said : over one billion people but only 6 Nobel prizes. Of which only two in science. He found it troubling that the region practically contributed nothing to science for 1400 years.

Wahhabism isn't born from any ruler, what is considered to be the last caliphate (the ottomans) were actually pretty liberal even though they didn't really offer much to the scientific world. wahhabism was born from some muslim scholar who lived in the 18th century and thought muslims were too liberal and weren't actually acting like muslims should etc then the movement started to grow from there (but never became the majority sect outside of a gulf country)

[ys]

Which is complete bullshit, the millions of dead within atheist regimes weren't committed just by evil men. Evil men
may have been giving the orders but many of those carrying out the grunt work (and even some of those giving the
orders) believed what they were doing was for the greater good, again you don't need religion to excuse your
crimes any ideal wherever it be religious or not can be used to rationalising good men in to committing atrocities .
And why wouldn't people mention Stalin when he is a perfect example of an Atheist committing institutionalized
genocide and strongly oppressed religion.

I didn't actually say that religion was always behind it. My post was more about the fact that things aren't black and white as some seem to believe.
But if someone can easily torture it does actually mean that you are a certain type of person ("evil"). Others then were of course forced/brainwashed but the nature of the one giving the orders still stands. Neuroscientists noticed that some people had brains that got easily lured to abuse power while others just didn't.

By the way, that Stalin example that always gets mentioned is a bit flawed. Religious regimes are very clearly built on the principles from that religion and unfortunately those led to misuse at times. An "atheist regime" can't really build much on a lack of belief in a deity. What it was built on in Stalin's case was "communism". Atheism wasn't really what motivated the killings since they didn't only go after religious people. It was much more about class, politics and power in general. The opposition to religion was more about it having power which got in his way.

Again Christendom isn't just the catholic church during the dark ages. Orthodox Christianity's view on science has always been different and more adaptive to science than catholism. Early Christians were very open minded too
where they believed that many things in the bible were not to be taken literally but rather as metaphors for things
that the average person couldn't understand. It's only with the rise of power of the catholic church that it became
increasingly close minded as the church became corrupt and power obsessed.

I never said that they were the only ones? I mentioned them since they were an example of negative influence during the middle ages. Mirroring the muslim world situation. And yeah, the early christians can't be compared to the ones coming just after with the new interpretation. The poor original ones were even killed as heretics...

The point I was making is saying that religion is "proven" to hinder scientific progress is unfair when there are examples of it being the contrary (not saying that there aren't instances where religion suppressed science either, just saying the balance tips both ways), the caliphates being one of many examples.

I didn't say that it did 100%. That's why I specifically mentioned Galileo's case, Lemaitre and the Vatican researchers. But I still think that you're ignoring a certain fact here. There was more scientific progress in both cultures when religion was less visible in public daily life. When cultures were at their most tolerant regarding religion. So it wasn't religion itself that facilitated science but things rather flourished independently. What actually facilitated science was the fact that the empire was so big at the time. This led to contact with people from different religious background/ethnics.

Wahhabism isn't born from any ruler, what is considered to be the last caliphate (the ottomans) were actually
pretty liberal even though they didn't really offer much to the scientific world. wahhabism was born from some
muslim scholar who lived in the 18th century and thought muslims were too liberal and weren't actually acting like
muslims should etc then the movement started to grow from there (but never became the majority sect outside of a
gulf country)

True, but you have to look back much earlier than wahhabism. I do think that the physicist that I mentioned was too a bit harsh though. Probably criticizing extra since he has to deal with these problems himself?

From what can be seen, the decline was already visible in the 800's when it become criminal to copy philosophical books. This got even more marked during the 11th century due to one specific religious scholar. I can't remember his name now, but he made a case of rejecting science, only studying religion instead. Since there was already momentum against science this got picked up by the rulers at the time. It is his influence that is still seen today (mostly in Sunni circles) who reject science explaining natural phenomena (but then use glasses, camera, internet, GPS, cars etc. built on this )

Summary : I do actually agree with you that it isn't as clear cut as some believe. It just seems that we have some different views regarding details ;)

[St. Elmo's Fire]

From the P.O.V of the mentalists, this must be a slam-dunk though?

They fucked up the cartoon makers,
They managed to kill a few people, including a policeman,
They targeted a Jewish business,
They achieved martyrdom at the hands of the more heavily armed police that came after them,
They received near-constant media attention...

Surely their mission is well and truly accomplished?

How secure is France? I've never been there but I'm guessing they have the same sort of blanket CCTV coverage that a lot of the UK seems to. Just makes me wonder how they got away for even a few days, especially since the French police/special forces don't fuck about...

[south carmain]

By the way, that Stalin example that always gets mentioned is a bit flawed. Religious regimes are very clearly built on the principles from that religion and unfortunately those led to misuse at times. An "atheist regime" can't really build much on a lack of belief in a deity. What it was built on in Stalin's case was "communism". Atheism wasn't really what motivated the killings since they didn't only go after religious people. It was much more about class, politics and power in general. The opposition to religion was more about it having power which got in his way.

Atheism was one of the motivations of the oppression of religion within the regimes though, Atheism was an integral part of Stalinism so it can still be used as an example of Atheist regimes as his particular version of communism was partly based on those beliefs. Of course it isn't representative of Atheism as a whole because there isn't one set definition for what makes an Atheist except for the fact that they do not believe in god but the same can be said for religious people too.

I never said that they were the only ones? I mentioned them since they were an example of negative influence during the middle ages.

I had already recognised the negative influence that they had and was never arguing that religion was always positive for people. Christianity wasn't born as a state religion anyway and shouldn't be implemented as such, unlike Islam it solely concentrates on telling people how to live their private lives so implementing it as state law was always bound to be a flawed system.

I didn't say that it did 100%

I know it was Kenny who made that statement and since you responded to my argument based on that I assumed you were backing his point.

But I still think that you're ignoring a certain fact here. There was more scientific progress in both cultures when religion was less visible in public daily life.

I wouldn't say when it was less visible but less extreme. Fundamentalists and closed minded people in general hinder progress because they don't have the ability to question things or the mental ability to neuter and form ideas outside of the very narrow view they already have which will always hinder progress wherever social or scientific. I think we can agree here that it's not really religion the problem but people who think in absolutes and impose their will on others. Religion is just a tool used by said people amongst many other ideals. A good example being how much stuff that the catholic church did during the dark ages that went directly against the verses of the new testament.

So it wasn't religion itself that facilitated science but things rather flourished independently.

Well there were those that got state funds to accomplish whatever they were wanting to accomplish but yes it flourished independently but it's an environment formed by religion that made it possible for it to do so. Religion of course isn't going to be directly responsible for advances in Science because it is something social however the way it is implemented can facilitate scientific progress or of course hinder it. But such an absolute made statement such as "religion is proven to hinder scientific progress" that I was basing my argument on is false.

I do think that the physicist that I mentioned was too a bit harsh though. Probably criticizing extra since he has to deal with these problems himself?

I don't know but he was a Physicist not a social scientist so personally his quote just comes off as personal frustration in my opinion.

From what can be seen, the decline was already visible in the 800's when it become criminal to copy philosophical books. This got even more marked during the 11th century due to one specific religious scholar.

I'm not an expert so you may be right that the decline started there but it's generally accepted that they remained the intellectual centre of the world until the Mongol sack of Baghdad 1258. That said on a different note I don't know if it's funny or sad that during the caliphates they apparently sought to translate all the knowledge in the world in to Arabic while now less books are translated in to Arabic per year than in to Greek.

From the P.O.V of the mentalists, this must be a slam-dunk though?

They fucked up the cartoon makers,
They managed to kill a few people, including a policeman,
They targeted a Jewish business,
They achieved martyrdom at the hands of the more heavily armed police that came after them,
They received near-constant media attention...

Surely their mission is well and truly accomplished?

How secure is France? I've never been there but I'm guessing they have the same sort of blanket CCTV coverage that a lot of the UK seems to. Just makes me wonder how they got away for even a few days, especially since the French police/special forces don't fuck about...

I would say it kinda backfired though. They were doing it for Al Quaeda in Yemen with the idea of trying to install fear in to people's minds but instead everyone including the left and right got together to say a big fuck you to self censorship and people complaining about hurt feelings because of comics.

France is generally pretty secure as they have a strong police presence however they don't have the same CCTV presence as the UK, not even close. we're pretty unique when it comes to video surveillance.

[shengoro86]

(im a string theorist)

[St. Elmo's Fire]

(im a string theorist)

Give us your thoughts, discussion is welcomed!

"Anon" brings down some extremist sites. I can see their point, but, well, isn't it also kind of in the "blocking free speech" zone, doing that...?

[beedle]

Since around 2000, researchers noticed that aspects of civilization are going backwards. At the same time, religion gets more into political and scientific spheres again. Related is a steadily increasing number of people who are anti-science. The ironic part is that people have never relied that much on science and technology before.

It also affects life more these days since religious freedom has gotten a new meaning. (Over here) it used to mean that you could believe what you wanted (in private) and the government would not harass you for it. Now, people seem to think that it means that they have to right push their personal belief into others faces while claiming extra rights.

Uh

Firstly, 'aspects of civilisation' is not only a vague, bs non-term, it's also not quantifiable at all. How on earth do you measure 'civilisation'? Whose civilisation are we basing this on? And are people starting to live as hunter gatherers or something? What does it even mean?

And how is religion becoming more dominant? I mean it's become more extreme in certain cases, and some oppressive secular regimes in the middle east are disappearing, but nonbelief is almost at its highest in the west. And how are people anti science?

Even if that's the case I'd also suggest the entire basis for the argument is false. Even if we assume religion is growing and 'aspects of civilisation' are falling, you haven't established cause and effect. It is nuanced. Have you considered the economy? Education funding? Those certainly aren't a result of religion (unless you class dogmatic adherence to capital a religion, cough cough).

I always see Stalin's name when someone criticizes religion and its negative effect on some You're right though that religion isn't always as your last examples there. On the other hand, that can maybe be said of many things.

Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner in physics) once said this regarding this topic : Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I dunno, Lenin wasn't an inherently bad guy, he had a genuine concern for the plight of Russian peasants, but he still ended up being responsible for the murder of millions of people. The armenian genocide was committed by a secular regime. You would be hard pressed to argue the enlightened French Revolution and the subsequent terror was religious. The bottom line is any ideology or ism can make people commit atrocities, arguing religion is the sole source of making 'good people do evil' is incredibly short sighted. Steven Weinberg should stick to science methinks.