Science, Religeons prodigal son

[Worsle]

aah, but without religion, we wouldnt have great works of art

As there are no great works of art not connected to religion? I am not saying that we do not get some great religious themed art but the artist behind them where great not the theme. If they where not painting religious themes we would have some thing just as good but about a different subject. Also that great inspiration? It was called money, the church had (and in cases does have) a lot of money and the commissioned the artists.

 

[Hot'n'steamy]

religion =/= science.

One asks why
One says because.



if you dont know which is which then I cant help you.

That's not entirely true.

If one is aware to the how ad-infinitum to a reductionist scale, you may be able to dispute the requirement for a why or may be able to obtain the why. For instance:

Why is there global warming?

If we know:
HOW Atmospheric concentrations of various gases affect air temperature.
HOW The Sun's UV rays warm the atmosphere.
HOW heat is dissipated into outerspace etc etc etc...

we can ascertain reasons rather than jumping to them.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

He is referencing the story of the prodigal son. It is not a misuse of the word by definition, though I fail to see how science will metaphorically "take us back" to religion, as the use of the term prodigal here implies

also

Religion is really only a method of social control not a forerunner to science.

What nonsense. Reported for flaming.

I really don't think that was flaming. Religion was indeed a form of social control, just like an early form of government. When civilization was a series of huts on the plains, people were connected by common beliefs. When those beliefs were exploited by those in power to manipulate the populace it was just as effective as brainwashing/propaganda

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

If he'd said science was religions 'prodigal son' then I may have agree.

Of course you'll have to replace leading a lavish with foolish.

Your wording isn't very clear.

The title of the thread is "Science, Religeons prodigal son".
He said science is the prodigal (id est: lavish and wasteful) son of religion.
So you agree...?

 

[sallene]

religion =/= science.

One asks why
One says because.



if you dont know which is which then I cant help you.

That's not entirely true.

If one is aware to the how ad-infinitum to a reductionist scale, you may be able to dispute the requirement for a why or may be able to obtain the why. For instance:

Why is there global warming?

If we know:
HOW Atmospheric concentrations of various gases affect air temperature.
HOW The Sun's UV rays warm the atmosphere.
HOW heat is dissipated into outerspace etc etc etc...

we can ascertain reasons rather than jumping to them.

Hmm, and exactly HOW would we know those things if someone at some point in time did not ask
WHY atmospheric concetrations of various gases affect the air temperature and through what method
WHY the sun's UV rays warm the atmosphere and through what method
WHY heat is dissipated into outerspace and through what method, etc..


so for the more anal people, let me re-phrase that.


Science Asks the questions of the why, Science posits questions and devolopes theories and then tries to disprove them or prove them.

Religion simply has the because, Why did life begin? Because goddidit. Why do we have gravity? because godwillsit, etc..


When all the answers are responded to with a deus-ex-machina response that is not science.

 

[bodyklok]

Your wording isn't very clear.

The title of the thread is "Science, Religions prodigal son".
He said science is the prodigal (id est: lavish and wasteful) son of religion.
So you agree...?

Yeah... That post of mine was made of failure, lets just forget it ever existed. I've edited it now so it actually says something that begins to make sense.

 

[Legion]

I really don't think that was flaming. Religion was indeed a form of social control, just like an early form of government. When civilization was a series of huts on the plains, people were connected by common beliefs. When those beliefs were exploited by those in power to manipulate the populace it was just as effective as brainwashing/propaganda

Religion was used as a form of social control. That's not the same as it being created for social control.

Religion did indeed explain how the world worked, before science was able to explain a lot of it better.

Saying "Religion is really only a method of social control not a forerunner to science." is flaming and is quite clearly untrue.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

He is referencing the story of the prodigal son. It is not a misuse of the word by definition, though I fail to see how science will metaphorically "take us back" to religion, as the use of the term prodigal here implies

It is a misuse of the word by definition.
The son in that story was wasteful and reckless.

Spoiler: Bible quote

KJV Luke 15:11-14
(11) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
(12) And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
(13) And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
(14) And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

The exact definition of the word prodigal has been completely distorted by misinterpretations of its meaning in that context.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

::snip::

Religion was used as a form of social control. That's not the same as it being created for social control.

Religion did indeed explain how the world worked, before science was able to explain a lot of it better.

Saying "Religion is really only a method of social control not a forerunner to science." is flaming and is quite clearly untrue.

His statement was perhaps misinformed and undeveloped, but he clearly wasn't going off and ranting solely for the purpose of attention. Being thoughtless isn't the same as flaming. I just saw you reporting that as being overly sensitive.

~puts hands up~ don't taze me bro

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

He is referencing the story of the prodigal son. It is not a misuse of the word by definition, though I fail to see how science will metaphorically "take us back" to religion, as the use of the term prodigal here implies

It is a misuse of the word by definition.
The son in that story was wasteful and reckless.

Spoiler: Bible quote

KJV Luke 15:11-14
(11) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
(12) And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
(13) And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
(14) And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

The exact definition of the word prodigal has been completely distorted by misinterpretations of its meaning in that context.

Damn, I did get the two sentences in my head crossed. What I meant to say was that it WAS a misuse by definition. Colloquially, however, it's not that big of a mistake.

Why is everyone so uptight today? [/aside]

 

[Magnumopai]

UUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!

NO!!!

I was just simply stating one of the origins of early science...

I never said anything about other people it's just an interesting realization.


If you study the works of ancient islamic scholars, the franciscan Roger Bacon and other early scientist, you'll find that many of them also have religious backgrounds.

it's good to actually take time t think about what people are saying.

 

[Magnumopai]

This is based on simple research I did.

I'm talking about how things between Science and religion used to be.

before dipshits from both sides of this dualistic melee started over-assuming and arguing.

people started getting all defensive of their faith or firm non-belief.

I'm not talking about what I want people to believe, I just said "HEY!! Such-and Such!!" godamn!!!

 

[Magnumopai]

People should actually listen and then THINK...just sit there and Think, before appropriating any kind of response.

because peope are misunderstanding what kind of coversation I'm leading here.

I never once made a statement about what I "believe" I'm just cmmenting on something I found out.

what's the problem. everything isn't always what people think it is .

 

[Zacharine]

Look up this video, portion connecting to the OP starts at around 6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

Rejecting Atheims, by Thunderf00t

The argument boils down to this: It has always been the application of logic that has brought us our advancements. Religions have contributed essentially nothing, even when the individuals have been 'true believers'. And I tend to agree. Thank not the religion, advancement in understanding has not been because of religion, but despite it.

 

[Magnumopai]

I never said Religion=Science I said,

I said Religion-->philosophy-->science

religious thought was delivered through philosophical means.

philosophy promotes wisdom.

one of the key elements to wisdom(in a western definition) is the hunger for knowledge, for truth.

in this philosphers turn into scholars and studied the world around them as well as theories and discoveries of those that came before them.

over time scholars began to question what they COULD see. wanting to know more they studied the world around them in anyway possible. Over time a formal method devoloped and precedents were set.

science in its simplest form.

 

[pirateninj4]

So where are you going with that?

 

[Zacharine]

I wouldn't even go as far as saying that religion->philosophy->science.

Rather, religion is not the contributer but the other off-shoot of logical thinking and imagination budding up in primitive humans. The other offshoot was philosophy.

 

[antipunt]

This looks like a troll thread...but anyway my piece is that ...ah never mind actually (lol)

 

[spuddyt]

People should actually listen and then THINK...just sit there and Think, before appropriating any kind of response.

because peope are misunderstanding what kind of coversation I'm leading here.

I never once made a statement about what I "believe" I'm just cmmenting on something I found out.

what's the problem. everything isn't always what people think it is .

Download firefox
Use the spell checker
I won't kill you
Yet
Meanwhile, on topic: Yes religion has contributed in the past to human development, but so has every single social construct created by mankind, religion is no exception or progenitor of this pattern, therefore there is not much discussion to be had about this.