"Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism. If you want to talk about progress, the secular, scientific worldview has brought us all kinds of advancements in virtually every aspect of life. Scientists, not priests, discovered electricity, developed antibiotics, found a way to travel to the moon; the list goes on and on. If you look back at human history, religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress. Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses. Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history, and there's been a clear trend over the past few centuries: The more secular a country is, the less likely it is to go to war."
Devnull, I disagree strongly with many of the ideas in your post, and I'm surprised that you make such aggressive claims with so little evidence.
First, your discussion of the advances scientists bring to society. You laud scientists, and not priests, for bringing us technology. But producing technology is not the job of a priest. You might as well castigate a teacher for failing to put out house fires. Second, the religious analogue to a scientist is not a priest but a practitioner of religion. (Only a fraction of religious believers support a professional, celibate, spiritually authoritarian priesthood.) And the fact is, that it was primarily practitioners of religion who brought us all three of the advances you list. Indeed, all of our greatest scientists--Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and the list goes on--have been deeply religious men and women.
Even if we take up the argument on your terms, that is, looking for the value of religion in the technological achievements of celibate clergy, the contributions of monks to our most basic technology--written language--is quite significant. And that's not to mention their work in fields such as mathematics, architecture, viticulture, and art.
You offer no evidence for your claim that "religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress." Whether or not religion has impeded scientific progress is an interesting question upon which reasonable men may disagree, but it seems clear that it could not possibly be the biggest impediment. What about the fact that most humans throughout history have been illiterate? Scientific experimentation is an expensive luxury; don't you think that poverty is a greater impediment to science than religion, if indeed religion is an impediment at all?
You say that religion has been used by "a manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses." This is true, but it is a fault of political rulers, not of religion. Technology is also used to kill and control. Shall we abandon science because it leads to the discovery of information that can be misused? It is the misuse of science and religion that should be condemned. It would be foolish to slander an honest pursuit such as religion or science because it is abused by irresponsible and immoral rulers.
We agree that political control and its concomitant economic benefits are one use of religion, but your contention that control is religion's "main use" is impossible to prove, and, I believe, incorrect. If we measure how often religion is used for any given purpose, the billions of people who use religion in their personal life to better understanding their identity and their connection to God surely outweigh the "manipulative few" who use it maliciously. And even in the realm of politics there are wonderful uses of religion: it was religious conviction that gave Gandhi the strength to free a billion people from colonial rule; religion motivated Martin Luther King; evangelical Christians, first in England and then in America, spearheaded the first movements to eradicate slavery on moral grounds. And besides, when political leaders do use religion for nefarious purposes, they generally use it for its instit
Slashdot Mirror
Devnull, I disagree strongly with many of the ideas in your post, and I'm surprised that you make such aggressive claims with so little evidence.
First, your discussion of the advances scientists bring to society. You laud scientists, and not priests, for bringing us technology. But producing technology is not the job of a priest. You might as well castigate a teacher for failing to put out house fires. Second, the religious analogue to a scientist is not a priest but a practitioner of religion. (Only a fraction of religious believers support a professional, celibate, spiritually authoritarian priesthood.) And the fact is, that it was primarily practitioners of religion who brought us all three of the advances you list. Indeed, all of our greatest scientists--Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and the list goes on--have been deeply religious men and women.
Even if we take up the argument on your terms, that is, looking for the value of religion in the technological achievements of celibate clergy, the contributions of monks to our most basic technology--written language--is quite significant. And that's not to mention their work in fields such as mathematics, architecture, viticulture, and art.
You offer no evidence for your claim that "religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress." Whether or not religion has impeded scientific progress is an interesting question upon which reasonable men may disagree, but it seems clear that it could not possibly be the biggest impediment. What about the fact that most humans throughout history have been illiterate? Scientific experimentation is an expensive luxury; don't you think that poverty is a greater impediment to science than religion, if indeed religion is an impediment at all?
You say that religion has been used by "a manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses." This is true, but it is a fault of political rulers, not of religion. Technology is also used to kill and control. Shall we abandon science because it leads to the discovery of information that can be misused? It is the misuse of science and religion that should be condemned. It would be foolish to slander an honest pursuit such as religion or science because it is abused by irresponsible and immoral rulers.
We agree that political control and its concomitant economic benefits are one use of religion, but your contention that control is religion's "main use" is impossible to prove, and, I believe, incorrect. If we measure how often religion is used for any given purpose, the billions of people who use religion in their personal life to better understanding their identity and their connection to God surely outweigh the "manipulative few" who use it maliciously. And even in the realm of politics there are wonderful uses of religion: it was religious conviction that gave Gandhi the strength to free a billion people from colonial rule; religion motivated Martin Luther King; evangelical Christians, first in England and then in America, spearheaded the first movements to eradicate slavery on moral grounds. And besides, when political leaders do use religion for nefarious purposes, they generally use it for its instit