Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Phatscotty]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

All good points. I actually would not deny that the state of religion likely inhibited scientific advances during the middle ages.

Still, I think it is a misnomer that religion in and of itself denies science. Many of great minds have subscribed to some form of religiosity and would even claim that their scientific efforts were inspired by their deeper beliefs.

Also, religion has directly and indirectly contributed to the pursuits of science during the course of history.

Interesting. It has always been my opinion that religion has been a home for things humans could not explain/did not yet have the tools to understand. We understand more now and know that when it thunders God isn't really bowling.

It's just human nature....kinda like humans who have 15 children and want to have more without the slightest bit of planning or effort for how to feed them or shelter them is just "human nature".

That's just how humans roll

[TheProwler]

Correction:

We understand more now and know that sometimes when it thunders God isn't really bowling.

Let's not get overconfident now.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

You cant necessarily find an example, because it essentially never happened. What you can do, is realize that the sceintific breakthroughs happened, as religious governments simply lost their stranglehold on them, and it is perfectly reasonable to essentially understand that the achievements that improve our quality of life today, would certainly have progressed faster had the religious governments simply not...well... killed people that otherwise would have made that advancement.

It wasnt called the dark ages because the sun shone less brightly. It was the dark ages, because the light of truth, ie science, was darkened by simple men, who simply enjoyed their position of power.

And how are the dark ages different from today?

My point, to put it specifically, is that I think it's misguided for people to blame nonadvancement of science on religion, no matter the generation or historical reference. I agree that in every generation there are people in power who repress things that don't help them retain power or obtain more of it. I don't believe this has anything to do with religion. Perhaps religion was used as a tool for those powerful men, but it certainly wasn't the root cause of the nonadvancement of science in any historical time period.

History simply disagrees. I agree that there are other factors as well, but none that are simultaneously so ridiculous and powerful at the same time.

Science is an exponential process. For every time religion held back science even a little, it held back science a lot. Its essentially the butterfly effect. Go back and discover a better way of treating infection, a few years before it was discovered, and thousands and possibly millions would be saved.

Hell, just the bias towards homosexuals slowed AIDS funding when it was most needed in the early years, and while its impossible to calculate the exact number of lives affected, one can very much intelligently summarize that it was millions.

Even when simple in-vitro fertilization science emerged, some religions fought it passionately. The only real argument against it was that it was against Gods will. Thousands or millions were affected, and the science was held back. If there was never any religious opposition, it would absolutely have emerged into the staple of medical procedures that it is today much faster.

There is simply no way to argue against that. Religions fight against stem cell research as we speak. While there are other fears, the main one that religious leaders are against is that it tampers with Gods plan. Its the same example thats played through the history books, thousands of times over.

Legislatures must cater to their religious constituents and religious beliefs, and essentially underfund, or outright block possibly one of the most important sciences in medicine right now, that has the potential to help billions. Again, it will survive, and one can never know how things may have gone differently, but one certainly can know that the science was slowed, and absolutely slowed by religion and religion only in many cases, because in every case, the only real argument against the science, was a religious one.

You provide good examples of ways that maybe religion is the cause of various scientific "repression." I would argue that it's not religion, but power and wealth, that are the root causes of the scientific repression, but I've had that argument before and was shouted down.

But let's take a look at stem cell research (the last one on your list of modern scientific repression by religion). First, the argument you're advancing is that the reason we don't have all these wonderful scientific advances that stem cell research would provide is because religion is blocking such progress and the way religion blocks such progress is through the legislature (i.e. government).

First, why are you not blaming the legislators? That's who I would blame (and do blame as you probably know by now). And the reason those legislators don't allow funding, or whatever, to stem cell research is because they would like to stay in power and accumulate wealth and accolades. So, I blame those things.

Second, why does stem cell research have to be funded by governments? Because it's expensive, right? Do you blame scientists for taking too much salaries? Do you blame companies and private individuals for not funding the research themselves? Do you blame technology companies for not providing the right technology?

There's a reason I think it's all about money and power. It's because throughout history powerful men do things to increase their wealth or power, and for virtually no other reasons. Whether it's a state legislator, king, or pope, those seem to be the main reasons for why people do bad things. Religion is a justification for doing the bad thing. Patriotism is another reason that we've come to know and love now that religion is less successful a justification.

[AAFitz]

You provide good examples of ways that maybe religion is the cause of various scientific "repression." I would argue that it's not religion, but power and wealth, that are the root causes of the scientific repression, but I've had that argument before and was shouted down.

But let's take a look at stem cell research (the last one on your list of modern scientific repression by religion). First, the argument you're advancing is that the reason we don't have all these wonderful scientific advances that stem cell research would provide is because religion is blocking such progress and the way religion blocks such progress is through the legislature (i.e. government).

First, why are you not blaming the legislators? That's who I would blame (and do blame as you probably know by now). And the reason those legislators don't allow funding, or whatever, to stem cell research is because they would like to stay in power and accumulate wealth and accolades. So, I blame those things.

Second, why does stem cell research have to be funded by governments? Because it's expensive, right? Do you blame scientists for taking too much salaries? Do you blame companies and private individuals for not funding the research themselves? Do you blame technology companies for not providing the right technology?

There's a reason I think it's all about money and power. It's because throughout history powerful men do things to increase their wealth or power, and for virtually no other reasons. Whether it's a state legislator, king, or pope, those seem to be the main reasons for why people do bad things. Religion is a justification for doing the bad thing. Patriotism is another reason that we've come to know and love now that religion is less successful a justification.

This is an excellent response, and I agree with its general premise in theory, except that it is religious and some would argue unfounded beliefs that are directly responsible for the power to suppress. However, in many of those cases, there was absolutely nothing to lose, except a challenge to the religious beliefs themselves, and while there is definitely a faction that wants to uphold those beliefs, simply to retain their individual position of power, I am simply arguing that the population in general, only allowed such suppression because of the religious beliefs. In other words, if you did not have the faulty religious beliefs in the first place, the repression would never have been possible, as the only real argument against the research, was a religious one.

I absolutely agree that Patriotism has been used as well to repress and control, and enable horrible acts, but when compared to the potential of earlier scientific discoveries especially in medicine, religion can absolutely be held responsible for holding back science in a very real way. It would even be calculable, except that the potential for the damage is so massive, its beyond any reasonable estimation, except to say, learning is an exponential process, so small blocks in the beginning, cause massive ripples throughout time if you will, that simply cant be undone.

[AAFitz]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

All good points. I actually would not deny that the state of religion likely inhibited scientific advances during the middle ages.

Still, I think it is a misnomer that religion in and of itself denies science. Many of great minds have subscribed to some form of religiosity and would even claim that their scientific efforts were inspired by their deeper beliefs.

Also, religion has directly and indirectly contributed to the pursuits of science during the course of history.

Yes, of course there are examples of how religion helped in certain areas. There are also examples of how religion helped spread peace perhaps, but that hardly suggests that religion was not directly responsible for many wars, if not on some level, most of them.

[AAFitz]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

The fact that there were other constraints on science, is irrelevant, because they were just a constant. However, if religion held back any area of science, even in a small way, it very much held it back in a real way, since one discovery, very often hinges on the previous ones. In fact, since religion could even be said to have had control over the funding and resources devoted to science, your point actually supports mine, that since there were much fewer resources at the time, every time a science was not funded for purely religious reasons, and make no mistake they were, they absolutely slowed a science, that absolutely would have developed faster. And again, its an exponential equation. The sooner the science begins, the sooner progress in that area begins.

[BigBallinStalin]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

The fact that there were other constraints on science, is irrelevant, because they were just a constant. However, if religion held back any area of science, even in a small way, it very much held it back in a real way, since one discovery, very often hinges on the previous ones. In fact, since religion could even be said to have had control over the funding and resources devoted to science, your point actually supports mine, that since there were much fewer resources at the time, every time a science was not funded for purely religious reasons, and make no mistake they were, they absolutely slowed a science, that absolutely would have developed faster. And again, its an exponential equation. The sooner the science begins, the sooner progress in that area begins.

Well, you're mistaken. For example, the price of books and the extreme lack of their supply is relevant to the growth of technology because those factors (price and supply) are not constant. They aren't constant because the quantities produced varied over time (in the long-term, it exponentially increased). Consider the effects of the printing press and earlier writing utensils.

What about the introduction of the telegraph? How do you think transactions costs remained constant with the introduction of the wheel? or government-financed roads? Or railroads? ...


You're just assuming that religion was the most significant determinant for the growth of technology, but you provide no evidence that it actually was the most significant determinant. You don't explain how significant its supposed dampening effect was, nor do you explain how significant its "encouraging" effect on tech. growth is.

My position is that the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor, which expanded the total knowledge of a society, were the main determinants for the growth of technology. The effects of religion will always be constrained by those two factors. So, if you magically remove religion, you still face those constraints. Would the growth of technology suddenly rise because of no religion? Who knows, but you can't whisk these factors away by assuming that the growth would somehow magically take off. You still have to explain why the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor would grow as well.


Also, you just assume that if everyone was an atheist, they'd be content on leading rational, knowledge-seeking lives. Suppose they'd be hopeless because the science of the times couldn't explain various phenomena. Without the comfort and forms of social organization provided by religion, it could be the case that the growth of technology would not magically explode. Maybe there would be more tribal wars among various groups. Maybe things would be worse without religion. Again, who knows.

You're presuming too much.

[Phatscotty]

The Church held back science, Progressives hold back freedom.

Today's Progressives = The Church of the Dark Ages. Still holding back mankind...

[Phatscotty]

One more question (cool convo but going back to the OP)

Why do you guys think the father of 10 of this woman's children did not marry her?

[MeDeFe]

Well, you're mistaken. For example, the price of books and the extreme lack of their supply is relevant to the growth of technology because those factors (price and supply) are not constant. They aren't constant because the quantities produced varied over time (in the long-term, it exponentially increased). Consider the effects of the printing press and earlier writing utensils.

What about the introduction of the telegraph? How do you think transactions costs remained constant with the introduction of the wheel? or government-financed roads? Or railroads? ...

You're just assuming that religion was the most significant determinant for the growth of technology, but you provide no evidence that it actually was the most significant determinant. You don't explain how significant its supposed dampening effect was, nor do you explain how significant its "encouraging" effect on tech. growth is.

My position is that the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor, which expanded the total knowledge of a society, were the main determinants for the growth of technology. The effects of religion will always be constrained by those two factors. So, if you magically remove religion, you still face those constraints. Would the growth of technology suddenly rise because of no religion? Who knows, but you can't whisk these factors away by assuming that the growth would somehow magically take off. You still have to explain why the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor would grow as well.

Also, you just assume that if everyone was an atheist, they'd be content on leading rational, knowledge-seeking lives. Suppose they'd be hopeless because the science of the times couldn't explain various phenomena. Without the comfort and forms of social organization provided by religion, it could be the case that the growth of technology would not magically explode. Maybe there would be more tribal wars among various groups. Maybe things would be worse without religion. Again, who knows.

You're presuming too much.

It's funny that you bring up scientific technological advancements that enabled further advancements, and imply that... well, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.

You don't appear to be arguing against AAFitz's argument, though.

His argument doesn't even hinge on religion being a major determinant, much less the most significant determinant. In fact, you're making his point for him when you bring up the exponentially accumulating effects of consecutive advancements as well as the accumulation of wealth and the division of labour. A small advancement now can have a huge impact a hundred years in the future, if religious leaders actively work to suppress that advancement either because it threatens their position or the dogma of their religion, they also actively suppress every advancement that would have followed from the original one.

Which brings me to my own point. Far more insidious than the open challenges to scientific research and application was the dogma. The truth was in the bible, any resarch was geared to support what was written there, results that didn't fit were tossed out. Only a few people thought that maybe the results that contradicted the biblical interpretations of the time should be considered, too. In my opinion that was what put the dark into "dark ages", the unquestioning acceptance of dogma as truth. Under such circumstances it's no wonder that science and technological development languished.

[PLAYER57832]

But let's take a look at stem cell research (the last one on your list of modern scientific repression by religion). First, the argument you're advancing is that the reason we don't have all these wonderful scientific advances that stem cell research would provide is because religion is blocking such progress and the way religion blocks such progress is through the legislature (i.e. government).
First, why are you not blaming the legislators? That's who I would blame (and do blame as you probably know by now). And the reason those legislators don't allow funding, or whatever, to stem cell research is because they would like to stay in power and accumulate wealth and accolades. So, I blame those things.

But that is a distinction without a difference. That it is legislators who have power to make laws in our system is irrelevant. The point is it is those in power who dictate. In our system, people elect legislators and a big part of why some people vote the way they do is their ideas about religion. That has been heavily exploited and manipulated by people, some within but many without religion.

However, when you get into things like stem cell and other genetic research, I have to say there is much more than just "religious bias" here. Every great technological advance that has provided great gain also has potential for extreme harm. In the past we talked a lot about the moral hazard of nuclear research. Today, there is a much more real and extremely dangerous threat from genetic manipulation. The dangers inherent are extreme.

The bit about stem cells is wrong and idiotic, for the exact wrong reasons. Even so, most people have no idea how much our food is engineered, etc. Some of the bias against that is "religious", but it is biologically/logically/ecologically dangerous to even perhaps wrong.

Second, why does stem cell research have to be funded by governments? Because it's expensive, right? Do you blame scientists for taking too much salaries? Do you blame companies and private individuals for not funding the research themselves? Do you blame technology companies for not providing the right technology?

Its not just that its expensive. Its also that some things should be controlled by entities that have motives other than just profit. There is too much potential for harm. Even so, it is being done by private sources.

There's a reason I think it's all about money and power. It's because throughout history powerful men do things to increase their wealth or power, and for virtually no other reasons. Whether it's a state legislator, king, or pope, those seem to be the main reasons for why people do bad things. Religion is a justification for doing the bad thing. Patriotism is another reason that we've come to know and love now that religion is less successful a justification.

[/quote]
Yes, but that power is inherent. The system is irrelevant. Attacking the government in that way is dumb, becuase all you do is replace one system of power for another. You never remove the power. In our system, at least average people can decide.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, you're mistaken. For example, the price of books and the extreme lack of their supply is relevant to the growth of technology because those factors (price and supply) are not constant. They aren't constant because the quantities produced varied over time (in the long-term, it exponentially increased). Consider the effects of the printing press and earlier writing utensils.

What about the introduction of the telegraph? How do you think transactions costs remained constant with the introduction of the wheel? or government-financed roads? Or railroads? ...

You're just assuming that religion was the most significant determinant for the growth of technology, but you provide no evidence that it actually was the most significant determinant. You don't explain how significant its supposed dampening effect was, nor do you explain how significant its "encouraging" effect on tech. growth is.

My position is that the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor, which expanded the total knowledge of a society, were the main determinants for the growth of technology. The effects of religion will always be constrained by those two factors. So, if you magically remove religion, you still face those constraints. Would the growth of technology suddenly rise because of no religion? Who knows, but you can't whisk these factors away by assuming that the growth would somehow magically take off. You still have to explain why the accumulation of wealth and the division of labor would grow as well.

Also, you just assume that if everyone was an atheist, they'd be content on leading rational, knowledge-seeking lives. Suppose they'd be hopeless because the science of the times couldn't explain various phenomena. Without the comfort and forms of social organization provided by religion, it could be the case that the growth of technology would not magically explode. Maybe there would be more tribal wars among various groups. Maybe things would be worse without religion. Again, who knows.

You're presuming too much.

It's funny that you bring up scientific technological advancements that enabled further advancements, and imply that... well, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.

You don't appear to be arguing against AAFitz's argument, though.

His argument doesn't even hinge on religion being a major determinant, much less the most significant determinant. In fact, you're making his point for him when you bring up the exponentially accumulating effects of consecutive advancements as well as the accumulation of wealth and the division of labour. A small advancement now can have a huge impact a hundred years in the future, if religious leaders actively work to suppress that advancement either because it threatens their position or the dogma of their religion, they also actively suppress every advancement that would have followed from the original one.

He's assuming that technology would magically take off with the removal of religion without explaining why. How many times do I have to say he's presuming too much?

The natural decrease of religion over time didn't lead to, or was not replaced by, the accumulation of wealth, the division of labor, a more efficient market economy, etc.; therefore, even in reality, his argument doesn't hold up. It doesn't follow that the growth of technology would occur with the removal of religion. He's only presuming that the flow of technology would magically begin with the loss of religion because (for reasons unexplained) religion was somehow significantly holding back the growth of technology/science.

How does he factor in the benefits of religion into his argument? He doesn't. He discounts it all and says over and over again, "without religion, science would prevail." I say, he presumes too much because he can't tease out the benefits from the costs of religion. Nor can he tease out the benefits and costs of non-religious factors. Religion wasn't the only constraint on the growth of science or technology; therefore, the other factors are important.

He disagrees because "they're constant" (no, they aren't). or "well, without religion, kA-BLAM, science takes off" (How does he know? How does he separate the benefits and costs? He doesn't. He merely presumes this with no good reason).

He'll keep assuming that technology and science will magically grow with the removal of religion. Discount religion's benefits, overemphasize the costs, ignore other constraints, and WHAMMO, you got his weak argument.

Which brings me to my own point. Far more insidious than the open challenges to scientific research and application was the dogma. The truth was in the bible, any resarch was geared to support what was written there, results that didn't fit were tossed out. Only a few people thought that maybe the results that contradicted the biblical interpretations of the time should be considered, too. In my opinion that was what put the dark into "dark ages", the unquestioning acceptance of dogma as truth. Under such circumstances it's no wonder that science and technological development languished.

The dark ages are dark simply because we don't have that many historical records from that time period. It's following a huge economic collapse of the Roman Empire... was it from Christianity and the adaption of "NO USURY"? Was it from climate change forcing "barbarians" to resettle west, thus putting pressure on the Roman Empire? Was it some systemic issue with the Roman administration? Was it simply bad leadership? Who knows which factors weighed to whatever degree. If we apply Fitz's argument, he'll just blame it on the Christians, downplay the other factors, and say, "see! Science could've grown faster here, guys!" That's just an assumption with no account for the other constraints.

Hah, it could be argued that Catholicism dragged Europe from the Dark Ages because the Church acted as a facilitator among the principalities and kingdoms of Europe. Perhaps, the centralized order from the Catholic Church outweighed its costs. But who knows. Fitz doesn't care! Fitz say "demolish religion, ka-blam, magic technology growth!" Perhaps, without the Church, the dark ages would have continued for a longer period? My point, "who knows" and Fitz doesn't--unless he wants to reconsider the benefits of religion and seriously consider the non-religious constraints....

Furthermore, China was whooping ass during the "Dark" Ages. Was it because there was less religion in the Tang dynasty? Nope, because other factors also matter. If you're AAFitz, you'll just ignore the other factors and say, "WHAMMO, Subtract Religion, Get Mo' Science!" :/

[PLAYER57832]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

The fact that there were other constraints on science, is irrelevant, because they were just a constant. However, if religion held back any area of science, even in a small way, it very much held it back in a real way, since one discovery, very often hinges on the previous ones. In fact, since religion could even be said to have had control over the funding and resources devoted to science, your point actually supports mine, that since there were much fewer resources at the time, every time a science was not funded for purely religious reasons, and make no mistake they were, they absolutely slowed a science, that absolutely would have developed faster. And again, its an exponential equation. The sooner the science begins, the sooner progress in that area begins.

Religion's power is much more subtle. It dictates people's thinking in many ways. But, religion and culture go hand in hand and culture and the way religion is implemented arise from local/societal conditions. That is, there is as much argument for the fact that it was beginnings of science thought that brought forward the Protestant revolution as for the reverse.

Also, sometimes slowing of science is reasonable. As much as I believe in the pursuit of science, having more power than we are capable of morally controlling is a danger. Stem cell research, but also abortion and increased medical advances both illustrate that well. The fact that there is so much dispute is partly because people don't want to face the consequences of our technology. If you get into the area of things like mining, fishing and such, then you see that we are not the only culture in history that is literally burning itself out (using up resources so fast that a downfall is inevitable).

At the same time, science will provide many answers we need. Unfortunately, greekdog, by wanting to emphasize profit as a motivator, you will wind up steering things in exactly the opposite direction from what we need. Coating of aspirin for sale, not making the pills.

We really do need an overall national/world plan to tackle some problems. Global warming and resource depletion are certainly in that category. Issues of genetic research (of all types) is likely another area where such is needed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

[thegreekdog]

This is an excellent response, and I agree with its general premise in theory, except that it is religious and some would argue unfounded beliefs that are directly responsible for the power to suppress. However, in many of those cases, there was absolutely nothing to lose, except a challenge to the religious beliefs themselves, and while there is definitely a faction that wants to uphold those beliefs, simply to retain their individual position of power, I am simply arguing that the population in general, only allowed such suppression because of the religious beliefs. In other words, if you did not have the faulty religious beliefs in the first place, the repression would never have been possible, as the only real argument against the research, was a religious one.

I absolutely agree that Patriotism has been used as well to repress and control, and enable horrible acts, but when compared to the potential of earlier scientific discoveries especially in medicine, religion can absolutely be held responsible for holding back science in a very real way. It would even be calculable, except that the potential for the damage is so massive, its beyond any reasonable estimation, except to say, learning is an exponential process, so small blocks in the beginning, cause massive ripples throughout time if you will, that simply cant be undone.

See the bolded above - You are not blaming religion per se with this statement; rather, you're blaming the followers of a religion for accepting the dogma of those in power without questioning it. I also believe this is a problem (or THE problem), especially when the original religious dogma (e.g. peace, love thy neighbor, etc.) is lost in the new religious dogma. But I'm not here to agree with you; so let's move back a second. You blame the followers of the religion for not questioning the dogma. This sort of thing is not limited to religion and science. There are a ton of reasons why people have repressed science over the years for a variety of reasons; I have yet to see compelling evidence that religion, and not the people who practice religion, is the reason for the repression.

See the italicized above - Who creates the religion? Most people who argue that religion is a problem (for whatever society's ills are) generally tend to be atheists. So, ostensibly they believe that a religion was created by a guy or a group of guys (and not by a god or savior or whatever). Religion, therefore, we created by people. What did those men want? Why did they create a religion and rules in the first place? Power and/or wealth, right? So, when you point to religious dogma, I will point to the creation of that dogma by people who want power and wealth and I'll point to people who want to keep the power and wealth by getting hive-minded stupid people to keep believing what they want them to believe. Patriotism does the same thing.

As to the second paragraph, I absolutely disagree. First, as it may appear from my previous quotes, I don't blame "isms" or "ions" for anything. I blame people, not the thing itself. I think it's disingenuous for anyone to blame anything other than people. Blame Christians if you want; don't blame Christianity. The actions of repression are not committed by the religion, they are committed by some of the religious who practice that religion. Further, and maybe more on point to your argument, although a whole lot less relevant, patriotism did some nice killing in the 18th through 21st centuries without any tangible benefits (unlike maybe religion, if we're blaming things on concepts in this thread, rather than people). But, again, and most important, I do not blame the word patriotism or the belief in one's country; I blame the people who take it too far.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well said, TGD. That's a good angle of attack.

[thegreekdog]

Well said, TGD. That's a good angle of attack.

I couldn't think of a silly example, but I have one now.

Let's blame World War Two on National Socialism (or Nazism or facism) and not on, you know, the fucking Germans or Italians or Japanese who participated.

[Army of GOD]

I agree with tgd. If you want to go after the Dark Ages, Christianity began as a peaceful religion. Just because crazies in the middle ages used it as a reason to oppress is no reason to blame religion itself. It's like blaming religion because certain kings used "Divine Right" as a reason to retain power.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

Economics and science are very different things. Economics is just the study of human interactions, centered on money. Science is the study of everything, including economic impacts.

[PLAYER57832]

Well said, TGD. That's a good angle of attack.

I couldn't think of a silly example, but I have one now.

Let's blame World War Two on National Socialism (or Nazism or facism) and not on, you know, the fucking Germans or Italians or Japanese who participated.

Well, yeah, and how about how everything today, in the minds of many conservatives, is due to liberalism... even when the things they claim are wrong really have nothing to do with liberalism.

And, when some of the ideas put forward by liberals have a LOT of evidence, reasoning behind them.. they just happen to be inconvenient to people in power.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

Economics and science are very different things. Economics is just the study of human interactions, centered on money. Science is the study of everything, including economic impacts.

lol, hahahaha, oh god.


Thanks, PLAYER. That was a good one!

[Baron Von PWN]

This is an excellent response, and I agree with its general premise in theory, except that it is religious and some would argue unfounded beliefs that are directly responsible for the power to suppress. However, in many of those cases, there was absolutely nothing to lose, except a challenge to the religious beliefs themselves, and while there is definitely a faction that wants to uphold those beliefs, simply to retain their individual position of power, I am simply arguing that the population in general, only allowed such suppression because of the religious beliefs. In other words, if you did not have the faulty religious beliefs in the first place, the repression would never have been possible, as the only real argument against the research, was a religious one.

I absolutely agree that Patriotism has been used as well to repress and control, and enable horrible acts, but when compared to the potential of earlier scientific discoveries especially in medicine, religion can absolutely be held responsible for holding back science in a very real way. It would even be calculable, except that the potential for the damage is so massive, its beyond any reasonable estimation, except to say, learning is an exponential process, so small blocks in the beginning, cause massive ripples throughout time if you will, that simply cant be undone.

See the bolded above - You are not blaming religion per se with this statement; rather, you're blaming the followers of a religion for accepting the dogma of those in power without questioning it. I also believe this is a problem (or THE problem), especially when the original religious dogma (e.g. peace, love thy neighbor, etc.) is lost in the new religious dogma. But I'm not here to agree with you; so let's move back a second. You blame the followers of the religion for not questioning the dogma. This sort of thing is not limited to religion and science. There are a ton of reasons why people have repressed science over the years for a variety of reasons; I have yet to see compelling evidence that religion, and not the people who practice religion, is the reason for the repression.

See the italicized above - Who creates the religion? Most people who argue that religion is a problem (for whatever society's ills are) generally tend to be atheists. So, ostensibly they believe that a religion was created by a guy or a group of guys (and not by a god or savior or whatever). Religion, therefore, we created by people. What did those men want? Why did they create a religion and rules in the first place? Power and/or wealth, right? So, when you point to religious dogma, I will point to the creation of that dogma by people who want power and wealth and I'll point to people who want to keep the power and wealth by getting hive-minded stupid people to keep believing what they want them to believe. Patriotism does the same thing.

As to the second paragraph, I absolutely disagree. First, as it may appear from my previous quotes, I don't blame "isms" or "ions" for anything. I blame people, not the thing itself. I think it's disingenuous for anyone to blame anything other than people. Blame Christians if you want; don't blame Christianity. The actions of repression are not committed by the religion, they are committed by some of the religious who practice that religion. Further, and maybe more on point to your argument, although a whole lot less relevant, patriotism did some nice killing in the 18th through 21st centuries without any tangible benefits (unlike maybe religion, if we're blaming things on concepts in this thread, rather than people). But, again, and most important, I do not blame the word patriotism or the belief in one's country; I blame the people who take it too far.

To say patriotism or nationalism(Which I think is what you realy mean) has resulted in no tangible benefits, would be as accurate as saying Christianity has not resulted in any tangible benefits. I like your point it is well said. However I'm choosing to nit pick that last part as though patriotism/nationalism has led to some very ugly things it has also resulted in some very good things.

[Aradhus]

This is an excellent response, and I agree with its general premise in theory, except that it is religious and some would argue unfounded beliefs that are directly responsible for the power to suppress. However, in many of those cases, there was absolutely nothing to lose, except a challenge to the religious beliefs themselves, and while there is definitely a faction that wants to uphold those beliefs, simply to retain their individual position of power, I am simply arguing that the population in general, only allowed such suppression because of the religious beliefs. In other words, if you did not have the faulty religious beliefs in the first place, the repression would never have been possible, as the only real argument against the research, was a religious one.

I absolutely agree that Patriotism has been used as well to repress and control, and enable horrible acts, but when compared to the potential of earlier scientific discoveries especially in medicine, religion can absolutely be held responsible for holding back science in a very real way. It would even be calculable, except that the potential for the damage is so massive, its beyond any reasonable estimation, except to say, learning is an exponential process, so small blocks in the beginning, cause massive ripples throughout time if you will, that simply cant be undone.

See the bolded above - You are not blaming religion per se with this statement; rather, you're blaming the followers of a religion for accepting the dogma of those in power without questioning it. I also believe this is a problem (or THE problem), especially when the original religious dogma (e.g. peace, love thy neighbor, etc.) is lost in the new religious dogma. But I'm not here to agree with you; so let's move back a second. You blame the followers of the religion for not questioning the dogma. This sort of thing is not limited to religion and science. There are a ton of reasons why people have repressed science over the years for a variety of reasons; I have yet to see compelling evidence that religion, and not the people who practice religion, is the reason for the repression.

See the italicized above - Who creates the religion? Most people who argue that religion is a problem (for whatever society's ills are) generally tend to be atheists. So, ostensibly they believe that a religion was created by a guy or a group of guys (and not by a god or savior or whatever). Religion, therefore, we created by people. What did those men want? Why did they create a religion and rules in the first place? Power and/or wealth, right? So, when you point to religious dogma, I will point to the creation of that dogma by people who want power and wealth and I'll point to people who want to keep the power and wealth by getting hive-minded stupid people to keep believing what they want them to believe. Patriotism does the same thing.

As to the second paragraph, I absolutely disagree. First, as it may appear from my previous quotes, I don't blame "isms" or "ions" for anything. I blame people, not the thing itself. I think it's disingenuous for anyone to blame anything other than people. Blame Christians if you want; don't blame Christianity. The actions of repression are not committed by the religion, they are committed by some of the religious who practice that religion. Further, and maybe more on point to your argument, although a whole lot less relevant, patriotism did some nice killing in the 18th through 21st centuries without any tangible benefits (unlike maybe religion, if we're blaming things on concepts in this thread, rather than people). But, again, and most important, I do not blame the word patriotism or the belief in one's country; I blame the people who take it too far.

Bro, hate the sin, not the sinner.

But no! You don't blame sarcasm, you blame the sarcastic. typical.

If sarcasm didn't exist I wouldn't abuse it!!!!!!!!!!

- But that's because you're an extremist Arad -

If Extremism didn't....!!!

[MeDeFe]

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

Economics and science are very different things. Economics is just the study of human interactions, centered on money. Science is the study of everything, including economic impacts.

I disagree, economics has more in common with religion than with science since economic theories are largely based on unproven principles that have to be taken on faith. Furthermore, proponents of any given theory often start with their conclusion and then present things that follow from this conclusion as "evidence" that their conclusion is correct.

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree, economics has more in common with religion than with science since economic theories are largely based on unproven principles that have to be taken on faith. Furthermore, proponents of any given theory often start with their conclusion and then present things that follow from this conclusion as "evidence" that their conclusion is correct.

It depends on if you're using an objectivist methodology or a subjectivist methodology, and on what you're trying to describe (i.e. positive economics), and what you're trying to prescribe (normative economics).


Which economic theories are based on what unproven principles?