ITT: Can we all agree that despite the diaspora of different religious, political, social and cultural ideologies that have attempted to create a better world; the only thing that has clearly and consistently helped humanity progress is the development of technology?
When will people realise that the only thing that deserves our faith is the spirit of invention?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Science has advanced despite religion and its bullshit.
Americans already banned genetic engineering in humans due to some religious bullshit, I bet a ton of scientific areas are haram or some shit.
Unless something gets done soon, we will enter the dark ages of science again.
As someone who was anti-religion quite firmly for almost 10 years, but is now seriously considering converting to Christianity, the only thing technology doesn't progress is morality.
And as evidenced by the current state of the world, you can't trust politics to do so.
do it, faggot
Wow warhammer art really has gone to shit.
I plan to go to Church this Sunday and make my decision then.
en.wikipedia.org
But yes, I guess you are correct in a regard. I suppose it depends on how you define morality.
Can we all agree that despite the diaspora of different food types: the only thing that has clearly and consistently helped humanity progress is actually eating the food?
youre an idiot, britbong. up untill 1-200 years ago those things were mutually inclusive, and will be again.
Part of the problem is the perversion of science by politics.
As someone who just finished their degree in a (laughable pseudo) science, too many people go out and do research with a distinct agenda in mind. And those who don't have their findings represented directionally to try and prove a point.
For there is no neutrality in the media, nor in politics. Any progress we make will be twisted to try and push agendas. Only through rigorous faith and unflinching belief can we manage to maintain an ethical and moral standpoint for generations.
Explain Hermeticism and its huge influence and contribution to science and chemistry.
>a Brit defending Christianity
I think I just cried a little inside
Hermeticism, also called Hermetism,[1][2] is a religious, philosophical, and esoteric tradition based primarily upon writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ("Thrice Great").
Much of the importance of Hermeticism arises from its connection with the development of science during the time from 1300 to 1600 AD. The prominence that it gave to the idea of influencing or controlling nature led many scientists to look to magic and its allied arts (e.g., alchemy, astrology) which, it was thought, could put Nature to the test by means of experiments. Consequently, it was the practical aspects of Hermetic writings that attracted the attention of scientists.
...
Whether or not the scientific method was defined as such before the enlightenment people still followed it to get useful, repeatable results. The bible didn't teach them how to plough fields or smith iron.
And religion is infamously perverted by politics and personal agenda. At least with science there is a burden of proof (even if it is at times ignored for the status quo).
Hermeticism and Alchemy were the birth of modern science, and the Islamic scholars before them. No-one debates that many people of many religions contributed to the progress of technology. Just like the Soviets made huge scientific advances. It still remains though that it was those advances themselves that benefitted the world rather than the ideologies those who made them followed.
I'm not sure if these are good reactions or not.
Infamously perverted by politics? As is everything. Your 'burden of proof' doesn't stop tabloid journalism or political agenderists from speaking whatever propaganda they want to.
At least with religion no matter how much they try to bend or shape it to their political method, the core remains the same, as it has.
The bible may not have taught them how to plough fields, but it taught humanity how to act like decent fucking human beings. Not everything in life is a matter of being pragmatic and adapting. With some issues, you have to take a moral and ethical stand, draw a line in the sand, and ask yourself
'Just because we can, does it mean we should?'
A good reaction from me
It's good.
Bless you both.
Uh... Sure nothing beats technology in making people's lives better. But in what economic system does inovation and technology tend to thrive? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with freedom, and debureaucratization
I do hope my cigarette didn't take so long that you've left, I was actually enjoying this exchange.
Yes, I would agree, everything is perverted by politics and personal agenda. I do not think science is immune from it. I would ask which core you are referring to however. Certainly the bible never changes, but the interpretation of it does significantly. The Catholicism of a thousand years ago is markedly different to that of today. Take into account the emergence of different denominations, sects and, in the case of Islam entirely seperate religious movements the core isn't quite as stable as might be desired.
And to that matter, even if it is, the world around it is not. Can we really say that the teachings of 2000 years ago can even begin to apply to the modern world? What can any religion tell us of the morality of shitposting on Sup Forums?
As a personal aside I would consider myself a deeply religious person. I just find that none can measure up to what we now know, and the world we live in. I would like to see something new that takes both a moral stand in a manner compatible with current scientific knowledge.
In reference to the core, I am referring to teachings and concepts; The idea of God, the idea of after death, the idea of values, respect, authority, reward and punishment, and an overarching punshiment/reward system that is far more impending than anything society can produce.
Life in prison vs Eternal damnation
>Can we really say that the teachings of 2000 years ago can even begin to apply to the modern world?
Yes. Not all of them. Obviously things written about my brothers ox or whatever are supposed to now be extrapolated on to modern mediums, but the message is the same. It refers to this;
>With some issues, you have to take a moral and ethical stand, draw a line in the sand, and ask yourself
>'Just because we can, does it mean we should?'
The line in the sand doesn't fade with time. It is an ideal, to be held and strived towards.
I appreciate you playing devils advocate in this exchange, thank you.
But do the ideas of God, the Afterlife and Otherwordly justice have any value when they are so ephermal and easily dismissed. Christianity's decline has been in large part due to the fact that these things can only be evidenced by other people's testimony on them. You can never take someone to Hell and show them, "This is where you'll end up if you're bad."
While I would agree some kind of transcendant judgement is a powerful tool, the illusion of that power is frail and easily broken.
Do we also need to rely on the moral ideals of long dead peoples to guide our behaviour? What quality sets them apart from the ones we could devise ourselves? Perhaps the line he drew was wrong. We need lines in the sand yes. but I would wager we could draw a better one with what we know today.
And you're welcome. It's nice to have a civilised discussion for once.
I'm going to greentext your post to ensure I address all arguments;
>But do the ideas of God, the Afterlife and Otherwordly justice have any value when they are so ephermal and easily dismissed. Christianity's decline has been in large part due to the fact that these things can only be evidenced by other people's testimony on them. You can never take someone to Hell and show them, "This is where you'll end up if you're bad."
As with all things religious it is the part I have the most trouble with. I've struggled to even comprehend the idea of why people would believe in such concepts without evidence. But honestly, I believe even if you take them as more of a fictional narritive, meant to illustrate in the same way as fables, then it is the lessons and values that we take from them that are important. I simply argued that these core elements don't waver, and so long as they don't then the lessons will remain the same, and so will the core values to be taken from them.
>While I would agree some kind of transcendant judgement is a powerful tool, the illusion of that power is frail and easily broken.
I would hate to see it used as a tool, more as a guidance. A metaphor, to help us correctly govern our lives to be better people.
>Do we also need to rely on the moral ideals of long dead peoples to guide our behaviour? What quality sets them apart from the ones we could devise ourselves? Perhaps the line he drew was wrong. We need lines in the sand yes. but I would wager we could draw a better one with what we know today.
I don't know if it's also my nationalist tenancies but I never dismiss anything simply because the author or visionary was from ages past. They are the foundation to our current platform, and it is through studying their take, and applying it to our modern setting that we can be improved. That way we can interpret our knowledge of now, while maintaining our values.
And agreed. It is nice, and productive.
I too struggled with the idea of why people would believe in a divine creator. Until one night my brother took me out into the middle of nowhere with his telescope. It was a perfectly clear night and without all the light pollution you could see everything in perfect detail. It didn't instill a sense of God in me, but the existental awe made me understand the feeling. If you're trying to find an impression of the divine then I would recommend it.
Aside from that all I would really add to the discussion is that while it is human nature to put some intrinsic value on old knowledge it is often at our own peril. We wouldn't cure sickness the way they did back then, so why should we govern ourselves based on their lessons?
I think the core principles you speak of are inherent to human nature. I think instinctually we know them as we have evolved to be social creatures. Universally people just know when some-ones being a dick and when they're not. Even if they try to subvert those rules for their own gain.
>Because sickness, medicine, academia, science is a constantly developing field.
>Morality, values, conduct, and self-betterment is a social abstraction.
While I absolutely see your point on science, I'd argue the two are very separate. You can absolutely progress science and the betterment of knowledge, while also wanting to maintain traditional upstanding values and morality. In fact a mix of values and intellectual progress is without a doubt the perfect ideal.
But you see, the problem is that the core principles I speak to are only core to those of us who spend time thinking and contemplating it. For those who go about the lives, they don't think about these ethical dilemmas nearly as much. Call them the unintellectuals if you'd like, but personally, they're just people. People like you and I, we're having this discussion and informing ourselves on the topic, so it would seem second nature to us. But to everyone else, it's something that needs to be a much more easily swallowed spoon-fed idea, so that they continue on their life without more thought and issue.
We can't argue for internal moral relativism, while the current systems allow for propaganda, bias, spin doctoring, and legitimised misinformation.
I agree they may be inherent, but it is our job to entrench them, for the better of society, and progress towards that ideal I spoke of earlier in this post.