Once again: does religion produce knowledge?

And although science and religion are said to be “different ways of knowing”, religion isn’t really a way of knowing anything – it’s a way of believing what you’d like to be true. Faith has never vouchsafed us a single truth about the universe.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/once-again-does-religion-produce-knowledge/

Which is the same as saying that faith is evidence of nothing.

specifically limited context for that word (which I personally would still like to observe is inherently based upon PROBABILITY, i.e. not 100% absolutes, so the limitations upon knowledge are qualified by the context(s) that produce(s) it).

And some have a completely unlimited and unqualified context for that word, which is pretty much the opposite of what a lot of us mean when we use that word, so based upon our assumptions about it, we would have nothing to say about THEIR "knowledge", only our own.

and please, look up the definition of faith before you answer.

1

a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions


2

a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust


3

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


Faith is not just about religion.

is definition #2 in your post. For your question of "what about your faith?" to make sense, you would also need to be speaking with definition #2 in mind.

You couldn't have spoken with #1 in mind as we're not talking about allegiance to duty or a person, and if you were speaking with #3 in mind, your question is answered very easily (the explanation for his faith is in the empirical proof science provides). Surely you wouldn't ask such an easy question.

On edit: faith may not be "just" about religion, but its at least 66% of it according to the definition, so don't make it sound like I made a that large of an assumption when I thought you spoke with definition #2 in mind.

BTW, science has not proven empirical or otherwise about a God.

Maybe this help help you out. I cannot not prove there is a God, I have faith there is a God. You nor anyone else cannot prove there is not a God, And since you cannot prove it, can can only have faith that there is no God.

Thanks for playing.

You made the claim of a god, it is up to you to prove his existence. My position does not require "faith" nor any other effort on my part as it is nothing more than a dismissal of your claim.

Have some tea to make yourself feel better.

:rofl:

For someone who has nothing to prove, you sure have alot to say (as losing as it may be).

I'll leave you alone now to stew in your own hyperbolic jucies.

quote tailored to fit need.

Your flawed "logic" is amusing.

"Maybe this help help you out. I cannot not prove there is a God, I have faith there is a God. You nor anyone else cannot prove there is not a God, And since you cannot prove it, can can only have faith that there is no God."

You probably already know this, but the burden of proof lies on the one MAKING the claim. Very few will ever make the claim "there is no god", especially me, so until YOU, who asserts that there IS a god, can prove it, the default position is that there probably is not a god.
Thats the same reasoning and logic we, as humans, apply to everything else in the world.

Thanks for playing.

but I don't have to. If you claim that the easter bunny is real it is up to you to prove it.

No need to be obtuse about it.

And by that, I do not mean, "Oh that unexpectedly turned out less bad than it might have so god must have been protecting someone" or "two unlikely and related things happened, therefore god did it." I mean concrete experiences, not wishful thinking. My wife has always demonstrated herself to be a compassionate and loving person, therefore, I have faith that she will continue to be. So far every biological process that has ever been explained has been explained by natural (or sometimes artificial) selection, therefore, I believe that this will continue to be the case for future discoveries. OTOH, if I had undeniable evidence that my wife was a serial killer, I would revise my earlier assumption in light of the new evidence, however unpleasant the conclusion would be. If just one undeniable example of divine intervention in biological development were discovered, I would be forced to doubt the veracity of evolution.

Religion is responsible for a lot of technological and scientific advances.

Not always so much in an individual.

Please, can you give me some examples?

Tons of scientific and technical advances were made to address religious needs.

In fact, religion is responsible for the intentional SLOWING of technological progress for many centuries. Why do you think it was called "The Dark Ages" ?

And for that matter, the "dark ages" (sic) ended when the church finally gained significant political control over all of Europe.

Also, like it or not, religion addresses a human need.

The question is, did opiates create that need to start with?

to fill that need.

Name one please.

Propositional logic. Physical relativity. Genetics. The theory of pulmonary circulation. Logarithms. Many results in plane and solid geometry.

These were developed to solve religious problems. Watch James Burke's Connections some time.

But, for instance, clocks were developed so that monks would know when to get up and pray (not all clocks, certain kinds of clocks and vast improvements of how they work -- most of these things are like this since invention rarely occurs all at once). The cam is probably one of the most significant inventions of the last two millenia and it was invented so that monks at an abbey could meet their prayer requirements during the harvest. The vacuum was discovered to settle a theological dispute.

Seriously, watch Burke's show some time; the stuff around us in our daily lives has some surprising antecedents.

Why, you ask? Because the Chuch had an absolute monopoly on learning in the middle ages. Anyone who wanted to be a scholar was required first to become a monk. Studies were allowed only if they met with the approval of the Church hierarchy. As a result, anything we have that came from the middle ages would have come from a monk/scholar. The Church, and religion, of course claims ownership, but let me ask you this: Your employer will claim ownership of anything you create or innovate while on their property. Does that mean your employer should be credited as the creator of that item?

I don't think so.

I'd say yes because it produced things like velcro and freeze-dried ice cream, even if NASA isn't credited as the creator of them.

The question was "does", not "did."

And consider the influence of Taoism on quantum mechanics.

As for Taoism, were there many Taoists working with Bohr and Heisenberg? The fact that the idea of uncertainty in quantum states is similar to Taoistic ideas on the nature of self could very well be a coincidence, especially when you consider that QM doesn't apply beyond the subatomic scale even according to the original theorists.

interesting series on science/history i have seen in years. I still have the VHS tapes I recorded off of PBS years ago.

Brought to him by Ganeesha or Shiva or one of those, as I recall. Hard to argue with so brilliant a mind. Of course if you just mean religious scientists, there are scads of those. Mendel, frinstance.

Like, developing heliocentrism to more accurately predict the date of Easter, or developing the clock so monks would know when to get up and pray, or developing the cam so monks could pray rather than thresh wheat.

Heliocentrism was discovered because it was the only thing that would explain the movement of extraterrestrial bodies, observed by Galileo and other stargazers. Heliocentrism was actually quashed by the Church as a heresy for quite some time. How can religion possibly take credit for a scientific advancement that the institutional Church stood against?

Copernicus's and Brahe's work were not controversial in the church, and they were gladly accepted because it made calculating dates (not just Easter, in fairness) much easier.

The heretical doctrine was that the planets obey the same physical laws as objects on earth. (Which laws Galileo fleshed out in service of that other great driver of technology, war.)

Galileo was also facing a much more conservative and paranoid church.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/galileo.html

If you read it, you'll recognize the widely known story of Galileo being called before the Inquisition to answer for supporting Copernicus' Heliocentrism theory.

Here's another link about Copernicus' Heliocentrism theory:
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/pre20th_europe_church.html

Have a look at the last paragraph:
In other words, you're working with some seriously revised history. The church fought Heliocentrism tooth and nail.

Copernicus' publication On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres was not published until after he died in order for him to avoid being persecuted by the Church.

No, it was not published until after his death because nobody really cared outside of some eggheads in the Vatican. Hell, it was Clement VII who urged him to publish it, and Paul III accepted the dedication of it to him.

He's the main one responsible for romanticizing and oversimplifying Galileo's story in his (admittedly powerful) play. Cajori and Klein are good places to start; keep in mind before that generation it was academic heresy to say math had a history. Cajori in particular outlines Galileo's transforming astronomy from mathematics to physics. Which, when you look at the charges against him, is what he was on trial for.

As far as the popes encouraging Copernicus, he describes it in his own foreword.

I'll be sure to pick up Cajori when I get a chance. But of course, that doesn't help anyone in this active conversation...

Also, if Copernicus' theory was so acceptable, why was Galileo called before the Inquisition? It had nothing to do with relative planetary behavior, and everything to do with Heliocentrism. Why would the Church bother if they had already accepted Copernicus?

Everything you're posting here with regard to Heliocentrism is contrary to every bit of written history taught in both K-12 schools and universities across the world. It might help give your argument credibility if you can explain why that happened in a world where religion, and especially the Catholic Church, holds a place of power.

(there have been 3) If you read the actual auto da fe, his "sin" was saying that laws governing sublunar motions also govern heavenly motions.

Like war, religion has advanced and retarded knowledge throughout history.

My Google-fu hasn't turned it up so far.

(Yet another tie-in between religion and war. How funny.)

ETA: I'm still curious about this:
"Everything you're posting here with regard to Heliocentrism is contrary to every bit of written history taught in both K-12 schools and universities across the world. It might help give your argument credibility if you can explain why that happened in a world where religion, and especially the Catholic Church, holds a place of power."

In the news lately: the Venus tablets. Cuneiform records of the travels of the planet Venus put down about 3700 years ago.

Archaeologists give various probable dates for the observations, a valuable area of investigation for them.

On the other hand, the original takers of the data as far as we know were accidentally the first astronomers. They were only intended for religious purposes, the use of the astrologers, but somehow astronomy and archaeology ended up the gainers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_tablet_of_Ammisaduqa

(In the news because there's a new academic book out about them.)

were both advanced greatly by religions. There's little practical use in studying the motion of planets (navigation didn't start until astronomy was significantly advanced).

how Greek mathematics was "advanced greatly" by Greek religion.

You didn't know that? Never heard of the Pythagoreans? Or Hipparchos and Ptolemy, who needed accurate astronomy so that they could improve their astrology? For that matter, when we're talking about the ancient world, the distinction between mathematics and religion is an anachronism.

giving us some examples of how Greek religion (not philosophy) "greatly advanced" Greek mathematics. Two or three will do.

And are you saying there is no distinction between ancient Judaism and mathematics? The worship of pagan gods and mathematics? Sheesh.

Ditto Hipparchos's. Ditto Ptolemy's.

That's three. They were solving theological questions. Again, you're making a distinction between mathematics and religion that would not have been comprehensible to an ancient Athenian. Oddly enough "philosophy" and "medicine" work the same way (that distinction only came about in the enlightenment).

And are you saying there is no distinction between ancient Judaism and mathematics?

Sorry, I should have said "Hellenic" rather than "ancient".

The worship of pagan gods and mathematics?

Err... yes, precisely. Remember, what we think of as the planet Jupiter was literally thought to be the god Jupiter, and studying its motions was a theological pursuit.

and uninteresting one. No one has ever disputed that philosophy and mathematics have a connection, but the "religion" on which this thread is based does not refer to anything resembling Greek philosophy. And you still have given not one single specific example of how RELIGION advanced Greek mathematics.

Ancient world...Hellenic world...more moving of goalposts?

And Jupiter was not Greek, but Roman, and the planet was not him, but named after him. In both his Roman and earlier Greek versions, he was an anthropomorphic god, not a heavenly body.

Philosophy was what we today call medicine and physics. Religion was math. The distinctions are anachronistic.

http://www.mathsisgoodforyou.com/topicsPages/pythagoreans/brotherhood.htm


They do seem religious, living in their cells and eating a special diet, largely beans.

It looks like it was Pythagoras who brought the holy number 60 back from Babylon, (or maybe some other Greek chap,) but it's worth remembering the gods of Babylon every time you look at a watch or a clock or a protractor or a sextant or a globe.

Is that advancing science?

Well, no. The Arabs/Muslims were building very elaborate water clocks quite early, since Harun al-Rashid gave one to Charlemagne in 798. It was described in detail by court historians - it had 12 brass balls that struck the hour by falling on a cymbal, and 12 carved horsemen which came out of little windows to parade.

One function of a water-clock was making the daily Muslim prayer calls consistent. Though that wasn't the SOLE function, as you seem to be implying with your endless repetitions about "clocks being developed so the monks would know when to get up."

When I worked in Saudi Arabia, several different educated Saudis told me a story about a "European king" who was presented with an elaborate Arabic water-clock during diplomatic negotiations. The king promptly prounounced it a Work Of The Devil and had it destroyed. I don't know if that is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

As for other inventions, I've noticed that both Xians and Muslims claim to have created the first hospital. Both are wrong, since special places for treating sick people have existed as long as there have been sick people. Our ancestors in ancient Greece got off on the wrong foot immediately, and tied their treatment centers to the temples of Asclepius.

Usual disclaimer: I'm an atheist and don't have a god in this fight.

in a meaningful query. You use words, such as "religion" and "knowledge," apparently without realizing how vague the words are, or the multitude of entirely different interpretations the words admit. So you end up asking an indefinite "question," which doesn't really refer to anything in particular. And, as far as I can tell, an "answer" to your question couldn't be put to any real use

But just a snippet from a much larger body of writing.

:boring:
I'm sorry, the soporific nature of your post was overwhelming. What was it you wanted to say again?

in a meaningful query. You use words, such as "religion" and "knowledge," apparently without realizing how vague the words are, or the multitude of entirely different interpretations the words admit. So you end up asking an indefinite "question," which doesn't really refer to anything in particular. And, as far as I can tell, an "answer" to your question couldn't be put to any real use

doesn't always result in a cogent reply.
:boring:

It's a false question. It's a bit like asking if the Democratic party produces democracy, or if your kitchen produces great meals.

I'm not religious at all, but I do get tired of the incessant religion bashing I see here. Some of the smartest, most creative people I know are people of deep faith. And they champion learning, knowledge, and truth.

We should give religion as a whole a free pass? Especially the ignorant conservative majority?

Would any of those great things religious people have accomplished have not happened without religion? You don't think great people would have risen up to fill those pivotal historical moments if religion wasn't a factor?

Without religion, I may have still gained that knowledge, but it wouldn't have been nearly as fun! Ah religion...you do make things so interesting for us non-believers.

Direct produce or by products.

If you mean the art, music and literature inspired by religion, and the philosophy introduced via religion, then yes, although I will admit, those are by products.

I count 15 anti religious threads started by you on page 1. Good for you, buddy.

so of course your count is skewed.

another group of people.

Partisans?

Self-righteous Christians?

My in-laws?



Oh, I see what you were going for. You wanted to break the rules, but you didn't want to get deleted. You have all the subtlety of a boot to the head.

critics.

:eyes:

who personally took charge of rooting out religious folk.

"There is a name for people who spend that much time criticizing another group of people."

I bet you know that name.

on this forum...

Get to work! Your god commands you!

"Religion does not involve believing things that you’d like to be true."

Both true and not true, obviously depending on the religion and the religious person. For some people, they can't help it but believe in whatever they were taught to believe. For others, they use religion as a prescription that helps them follow a path that closely matches the way they believe things ought to be.


"Religion can too produce knowledge."

Science is the way of knowing the truth about the universe. A religion can only teach subjective truths that are useful to its followers. And these subjective truths are useful to a religious person in the same way that values taught in the secular society are useful to its people. Some people see a set of religious values and teachings as a good guide so they follow it. While others don't find the same values useful therefore they don't follow the religion or a religion.

Asking what "knowledge" religion has provided that is not derivable from secular reason is a question one would expect from a person who has no use for religion. Especially when responding to a religious person who is trying to sell his/her religion as the universal guidance or recipe. But what happens when a religious person sees his/her religion as "an" answer as opposed to "the" answer? In this case what matters (in my opinion) is what is being taught as opposed to the places where the religion borrowed its "knowledge" from.

A religion becomes problematic (in my opinion) when it refuses to evolve with its society. When it fails or refuses to advance by not borrowing what is good from its environment. Or worse, religious groups become a serious problem when they begin to regress. My perception is that there is a strong movement towards regression at the moment regarding religion and that is a scary thing.

Zero (Derived from the Sanskrit word Sunya) was a Philosophical concept/tool used to explain the non-dual Brahman("not-twoness") of Hinduism (Especially of the Advaita Vedanta Schools of though). Advaita Vedanta posits that everything in this universe(s) is but one (beyond even "god(s)") that is hard for humans to comprehend (unless the being is enlightened) because we are totally fooled by the illusory environment that confuses us with notions of duality (I and other..while there is no "I" or "other).

The Ancient Hindus used Sunya(Zero) to signify Brahman. It was at once valueless and the most valuable.
Zero by itself has no value, however, when set alongside a number it increases the value by tenfold. The Brahman is not a subset of anything...same as the zero..nothing can be divided by zero. The physical laws of the universe do not apply to zero, the same way they do not apply to Brahman, because both transcend definition. We can only say zero/Brahman is "not this", "not that"..but we cannot define it. It simply IS.

Later on this concept was used by the sages/yogis who conceived of it as a philosophical concept in the Hindu numeral system, a system of 10 number which was taken up by the Arabs and popularized in Europe(earning the erroneous term "Arabic numerals....at long last the math textbooks are finally setting the record straight).

In this regard, yes...At least one essential invention has been the result of religion. however one has to remember that Hinduism/Buddhism are more of a 'way of life' than a religion in the Abrahamic sense...for example..most Advaita Vedantins are Atheist..as they seek to transcend god(s).

That's what I was taught.

Only now the Math textbooks in the US are starting to redress this incorrect information. As a College student in the US I was often in the un-enviable position in my classes to stand up and protest this incorrect information. :D Lol even most teachers did not believe me till they actually did some research on their own.


However, amongst mathematicians the fact that the zero and the numerals used were from India was quite well known.
For example

"We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made"
- Albert Einstein


some interesting links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system

It was a class on technology in antiquity, and origins of various things we take for granted today, taught by a man interested far more in architecture than anything else.

It's an interesting nugget of information. Interesting nuggets of information are always good things...

I provided the wiki pages because I took it for granted that this piece of info was pretty much accepted nowadays and was not intending to provide "evidence" per se but articles which would give a general overview. (btw the wiki article Indian Mathematics has a bucket-load of sources/excepts cited at the bottom of the page)

As for the textbooks and classes...well I took them in mid 2000s and some of the college textbooks still had the incorrect info (probably cos they just did not change the 'history" sections from the previous versions but only the questions). However some of the teachers were quite knowledgeable, especially my discrete math teacher who was a math historian as well.He had the correct info.

I'm glad to be of some help in providing this nugget of information. :)



I'll list a few other sources here, and if time permits ill add to it later on.


School of Mathematics and Statistics
University of St Andrews Scotland

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Indexes/Indians.html

Indian Mathematics: Redressing the balance
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/




http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31743/Hindu-Arabic-numerals


http://www.storyofmathematics.com/indian.html

to a friend of mine that I was aware of one single time when religion had produced some useful outcome for humanity - the Hindu invention of zero. Now, he's a recently graduated math major on his way to grad school in KY, and he maintained that the ancient Hindus did not invent zero. I don't remember all the particulars of the discussion, but at very least the Greeks independently derived zero. He noted that they hated the number because it didn't follow some of the rules - namely, you can't divide by it. This is nothing, however, to the consternation they experienced upon discovering that pi and phi, their two favorite numbers, were both irrational. It offended their delicate sensibilities.

Mistaking knowledge obtained in the pursuit of a religious ideal for knowledge obtained directly *from* religion.

Of course that confusion could be intentional, because those offering those examples know better than to try and answer the actual question.

Of course, don't discount the motive of revisionism. Did you know that math and religion were the same thing in ancient Greece?

an extreme sense of greed and envy toward all your happy-go-lucky stamp-collecting friends. :P (I hope you know I am completely joking)

I apply to productive things, like reading and running. The former certainly increases my knowledge of the world, while the latter increases my knowledge of hot babes at the park :D

Nope. But you can keep stuffing those strawmen all you want.

redeeming qualities.

Much appreciated, it takes a lot of moral fortitude to admit that one is a dishonest fabricator, especially in a public forum where anyone can see it, forever.


:applause:




Oh, BTW, your childish attempt to insult me fell flat, again.

Let me help you out with getting a laugh, ok?


militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl: militant atheist :rofl:

what then is the nature of that knowledge?

Why do you keep making things up? Isn't there a tenet in your beliefs about not bearing false witness? I seem to recall seeing that somewhere.....like its a major rule or something...

Right?

It drips off every word and in this case numbers are proof.

But you go ahead and keep trying to move the attention away form your blatant dishonesty.

Its fun to watch.

:rofl:

You're killing me, Smalls.

Find any post where you're not playing Costello to someone else's Abbot, as you are here, and you'll find your answer.

On second thought, Costello is too good for you...

But you do realize you are projecting again, right?

and no attempt to deflect away from that will ever change that fact.

and nothing will ever change that fact. Do you think your god approves of your dishonesty? Is it ok to lie for jesus?

You are allowed to lie to the unbelievers for the sake of furthering the cause of islam. Its called "Taquia".

I can only call you dishonest yourself. Avoidance and vacuous arguments are your forte.

Reply #95.

But by all means, continue your game of "I know you are, but what am I?" It suits you.

For some reason the oft heard statement the one who makes the claim "holds the burden of proof" doesn't seem to apply here.

You know, the one you admitted to making up in reply #93.

I'm starting to worry about you, humblebum. You're making less sense and seeming to have more difficulty keeping track of what you've posted than usual. Is everything ok?

The Church fathers put Johannes Kepler's mother in jail for being a witch while he was working out the orbits of the planets. That's in the third episode of COSMOS.

John Calvin in Geneva barbecued Michael Servetus, the first Unitarian. Michael Servetus was a physician and knew about the circulation of the blood long before Harvey.

They killed women for being witches who had knowledge of herbs and healing.

Carl Sagan talks about the destruction of the great Library of Alexandria as one of the great tragedies in history. Some accounts say it was destroyed for being pagan, by either Christian rulers or Muslims.


Hitler was a good Catholic who thought it was his duty to kill the Jews. The Jews were and are very accomplished intellectually and scientifically. Hitler's genocide of the Jews could be thought of as an anti-intellectual Christian war against Jews.

That's ridiculous.

Here's a video about stupid, slacker, uncharitable atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU&feature=related

even good ole Hillary.

You've really gone off the deep end.

Talk about your straw men?

Since reply #105 was about your YouTube video being posted by "HILARYisaSHEMALE," it stands to reason that this "evidence to support even good ole Hillary" is related to the transphobic libel that is the user who posted your video on YouTube.