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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google