christianity doesnt have to hamper progress

[michaell]

there exists the pervasive and in my opinion erroneous belief that christianity was the major force that hindered the western civilization and its remnants still encumber it

i personally dissent from this view
lets talk about the calvinist faith which is itself a branch of the protestant christianity


one of its precepts its pre destionation according to which, the conditions of our life on earth, including its materialist facets is bestowed upon on us by god himself.

does it sound like espousing the intransigent feudal order by favoring the most affluent? quite a reverse

rather than resignation, it instilled exertion in many adherents of the calvinist faith, who constituted a majority in successful nations such as the netherlands or prussia, the former renowned for its successful merchants and the latter for remarkable military system and efficient industry

therefore, virtues such as diligence and hard work were perceived as homage to god and the wealth one could amass over time as a reward and the holy fathers approval of ones actions

the same rule applied to prussian monarchs, who wished to reign wisely, so as to show theyre worthy of their venerable positions

concisely speaking, this way of thinking paved way for the rise of modern capitalism, which was a motor for major upheavals in europe in the xix century and the usa alike, which triggered the eclipse of feudalism and propelled humanity into a new era

though the west has become largely secular and even socialist inclined, economic independence and self reliance are still vaunted

contrary, in 'communised', albeit still largely orthodox russia or ukraine, cheating, corruption or being a servile member of the communist party and thus accumulating wealth following the collapse of socialism are regarded as perfectly tenable

[rtil]

i, too, own a thesaurus

joking aside, christianity doesn't have to hinder progress, but it is no longer a necessary component of modern society needed to incite progress. the problem with christianity is that it's based on a predetermined set of ancient manuscripts that can never be altered, wherein the conclusion is decided before the evidence is found. the church can only re-align itself to be compatible with society so many times until it becomes apparent they are only doing it to stay relevant and politically correct. the advent of the internet and the speed at which information travels also didn't do the church any favors.

it's funny that you mention calvanism - i would wager that most christians today have no idea what calvanism or predestination is, and if they found out they would be upset. as a christian i rejected calvanism and a few years later renounced my faith completely. abandoning my faith was probably the best decision i ever made in my life. that being said, i know plenty of people who are christians who are brilliant people that do brilliant work - i simply believe they are capable of doing those things without christianity.

[redmongoose]

did any of you guys ever play that game twisted metal 3?  if you took the game disc and put it in a cd player and skipped the first track you could listen to songs from the soundtrack.  it was a really cool feature, but the songs haven't really aged well tbqh

[Gilthwixt]

Even if it doesn't have to, it still does, or rather, some of its followers do. I'm not going to deny that historically the church has done quite a lot of good for society. Even today you have charities for children, abused women, and the homeless funded in part or wholly by religious groups. But in this modern era we are in dire need of well educated and scientifically minded citizens, even the ones that aren't going to end up in STEM fields. Many kids who get indoctrinated on creationism and grow up believing the bible to be absolute fact have been trained to distrust anything "scientists" have to say, and in general have a lack of interest for science topics. When they're finally adults with funding and voting power, they are less likely to appreciate or understand legislature based on scientific findings, and society suffers for it. This is why we have issues with recycling, global warming, etc. and why no one but my aerospace engineering friends give a shit that NASA has been gutted.


Anecdotal, but I hated biology class in high school. Not because I didn't like the subject, but because during and after the coverage of evolution, a good handful of kids wouldn't shut the fuck up about their grandparents not being monkeys, dogs not coming from cats, monkeys still being around despite us evolving from them, and all of that garbage. They disrupted the class and kept anyone from learning anything, spouting shit like god made man and "read a bible nigga". Our area isn't even devoutly religious, so I'm scared to wonder what science classes are like in bible belt states that actually attempt to teach evolution. The ring leader of that group of kids ended up going to a christian college where he majored in religious studies and is now a pastor, spreading his views in his community.


It just bothers me the way people bash others over the head with their bibles and are somehow respected for this kind of behavior. Any amount of criticism you lay on them, no matter how fair, makes you disrespectful at best and a satanist faggot who shouldn't be around children at worst. Think of all the bright minds out there that could've become great scientists but were taught to fear rational thinking as children. Think of all the talented people who could've done something for the world but ende up committing suicide because they happened to be gay and were bullied in school (hell, look what happened to Alan Turing). In this day and age, I don't think you need religion to be altruistic, to have a sense of compassion, or to hold yourself to high standards. People should be good, not because it's expected of them by some God, but because it noticeably makes the world a "better" place.

[rtil]

the problem with christianity is that it's based on a predetermined set of ancient manuscripts that can never be altered, wherein the conclusion is decided before the evidence is found. the church can only re-align itself to be compatible with society so many times until it becomes apparent they are only doing it to stay relevant and politically correct.

your statement about christianity not being necessary is fine, but for what it's worth it's absolutely untrue that Christianity is just a "predetermined set of ancient manuscripts". Actually, the Catholic tradition is all about deriving theology through reason and teleologically oriented Bible study, with very little blind faith involved. Indeed, it's said that you can't truly worship god if you don't understand who He is. In theory, Protestant traditions are supposed to involve critical thinking too, but modern Protestant branches (especially in the united states) are pretty blind worshippy, which sucks. Meanwhile, the Orthodox are incredibly mystical and live mostly on rituals and blind faith, which is weird.

yeah i don't need to be educated on branches of christianity i'm very aware of how catholics derive their theology although i wouldn't say that they use much reason. maybe you and the catholics think that they do but they rely on divine revelation which is 100% completely faith based and there is no reason or logic behind such a thing. i assume that you know what divine revelation is so i won't go into it, but it is essentially blind faith and is a core part of how catholic doctrine is formed, so i'm confused as to why you would say there is "very little blind faith" involved when it is in fact something they rely on heavily to come to theological conclusions. the pope himself is considered the acting supreme leader of the church through which revelation can be achieved through divine assistance - one person in charge of what he believes god has personally revealed or illustrated to one person chosen by a council of pampered and isolated elites. several revelations have also been rejected by future catholic councils, so that also would lead one to believe that not only does god make mistakes, but he may also lie or change his mind from time to time. that or satan/demons trick humans into believing they are receiving divine revelation .. you see how convenient it is when you can make up any bullshit you want when you can call on faith and magic to trump anything that can be explained. in any case i think you give the catholics way too much credit here. and the book from which they derive their theology is indeed unchanging and will continue to be unchanging - a book of which a large chunk is mostly invalidated/obsolete because of the old covenant. not to mention full of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. long story short, it's not a very good book.

blind worship is what has kept the church alive and well throughout the ages. a popular saying is that "i wasn't an atheist until i read the bible", a lot of people who dive deeper into the theology and history of the church causes people to turn away from it. i was one of them. in fact the catholic church is probably the most guilty of keeping its followers in the dark for as long as humanly possible , look at the era of indulgences and how much they felt they could get away with when most of their followers were incapable of so much as reading when the church had all the power they could have hoped for. they knew better than anyone that ignorance and fear bred obedience and that was what they needed to stay in a position of power. the brilliant and intelligent members of the church were often killed for heresy. obviously that doesn't happen anymore, but only because they can't get away with it anymore. nowadays the catholics are scrambling to figure out how to keep their numbers from bleeding in developed countries because all their theology and biblical teachings can't keep up with progressivism.

[rtil]

they rely on divine revelation which is 100% completely faith based and there is no reason or logic behind such a thing. i assume that you know what divine revelation is so i won't go into it, but it is essentially blind faith and is a core part of how catholic doctrine is formed, so i'm confused as to why you would say there is "very little blind faith" involved when it is in fact something they rely on heavily to come to theological conclusions. the pope himself is considered the acting supreme leader of the church through which revelation can be achieved through divine assistance - one person in charge of what he believes god has personally revealed or illustrated to one person chosen by a council of pampered and isolated elites. several revelations have also been rejected by future catholic councils, so that also would lead one to believe that not only does god make mistakes, but he may also lie or change his mind from time to time. that or satan/demons trick humans into believing they are receiving divine revelation .. you see how convenient it is when you can make up any bullshit you want when you can call on faith and magic to trump anything that can be explained. in any case i think you give the catholics way too much credit here. and the book from which they derive their theology is indeed unchanging and will continue to be unchanging - a book which a large chunk is mostly invalidated/obsolete because of the old covenant. not too mention full of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. long story short, it's not a very good book.

although you need to have faith in revelation, the church, and the bible to call yourself a christian, the point is that you use those materials as foundational stepping stones and use pure reason to derive the rest. if you contrast Catholicism with traditional Judaism, for example, you'll find that the "don't do work on the shabbat because the Torah said so" or "don't mix milk with meat because it's forbidden" is completely absent from Catholic tradition. far from being pure faith or pure tradition, Catholicism has a balance of faith and reason. For examples, a good Catholic scholar would never say "abortion is wrong because the Bible said so," but something more like "abortion is wrong because it's a death of a God-given life". Moreover, plenty of educated theologians will tell you about why the prohibition against tattoos and shaving is dumb, and Christ himself violated the Sabbath day in order to demonstrate that Biblical law ought to be based on reason and teleology, not the blind execution of tradition. This is why I mostly disagree with the idea that the Bible is "static and unchanging" -- sure, the text itself might be flawed as a result of human transcription error, but you can still derive telos and principles from the general ideas. (In fact, the more general criticism of Catholicism I tend to hear is that it's full of cherrypickers who just ignore Biblical text for no reason.)

And anyways, we live in a fallen world to begin with, so I doubt that Catholics would say that god is making mistakes more than messages are being corrupted. St. Augustine was viewed as the greatest theologian who ever lived for most of Christian history, but St. Thomas had major disagreements with him, and far from being executed for heresy, was promoted as the greatest teacher in the Church.

wait a sec - are you religious? or are you using the 'fallen world' thing to play devil's advocate? because that's a religious teaching. if you're not a christian, you don't subscribe to the idea that humanity is fallen. and of course catholics would not say that god makes mistakes or changes his mind (even though he did in the bible on more than one occasion), because that wouldn't lend any credibility to selling their religion. they just use the excuse that humans make mistakes and can be deceived. and apparently god is not very good at communicating his message to humanity because it has been misinterpreted over and over again by millions if not billions of people! not a very intelligent or transparent god, unfortunately..

still, just because they can logically interpret teachings in the bible doesn't necessarily make them moral or any more reasonable. i can appreciate the effort, though.

and there's still the issue of divine revelation, which represents a serious problem for any faith-based religion. if you believe otherworldly, invisible voices are speaking the divine word of god through you, there's a lot that can, will, and has gone wrong. and there's a fundamental issue of trust there that i can't ever get over.

the bible is also flawed not only because of transcription error but also because it was largely written by uneducated sheep herders who also relied heavily on divine inspiration. the reality is the same for them as those who interpret it - they were normal human beings with their own flaws and their own opinions. they also did not agree on everything, either - which is why the bible is riddled with inconsistencies. this is why there are so many splits in the church over the centuries. groups cannot agree on doctrine because the bible itself is a confusing mess. if it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many denominations that believe so many different things. many of the major denominations even believe that there are others so far gone from what they believe to be the truth that they will go to hell over what most would consider trivial details. that's just how poorly written the bible is (and how petty its devout are).

Yeah it's sad. Honestly there is a lot of realpolitik and manipulation behind early modern European states, but what can you do? With so many uneducated peasants around, it's very appealing to use religion as a tool of the state in order to manipulate them. It does sound like a cop-out, but hey, replace Catholicism with almost any other religion and people would be manipulated too.

oh i certainly would not just single out catholicism, but it's a great example. and although it's sad, i think it's good that people be made aware of the history of religions and how they use fear, manipulation and indoctrination to control people. religion should be a personal thing, and i have a huge problem with the current establishment with their mega churches and obsession with money. and it will always be that way so long as organized religion exists.

obviously that doesn't happen anymore, but only because they can't get away with it anymore. nowadays the catholics are scrambling to figure out how to keep their numbers from bleeding in developed countries because all their theology and biblical teachings can't keep up with progressivism.

I disagree with this too. Roman Catholic people aren't a homogeneous bunch, and there are plenty of "progressive" theological ideas mixed in with the rest. For example, one common line of thought I hear is that "homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Catholic tradition, but straight people sin almost just as much anyways."

The reason why Catholicism (and most religions) are dying is because we're in a liberal, hyper-individualized era where morality and religion are both viewed as mere "personal opinions". It's a sad state of affairs, since people now think that making a moral judgement is some sort of horrible crime that should never be done. It's not because Catholicism can't keep up with the progressive world -- it's because the progressive world does not respect codified ethics.

i understand that, however they are not in line with the vatican and because of that they are reprimanded and risk being cut off from them. the most notable example are the american nuns. the vatican is pressuring them to stop trying to elevate women to a higher position within the church. it's all about power and tradition. for all we know this could end up creating another split or sect within the catholic church - another drop in the bucket in christianity when it comes to disagreements.

lastly i find your final point absolutely bizarre. it could be phrased in another more popular question that theists often ask secularists: "where do you get your morality from?", that somehow we would be savage cannibals who rape and murder without a divine religious text in order to guide us. some even go so far as to ask why atheists simply do not murder and rape as they please since they apparently have no moral code to draw from.

first of all i would like to point out that even though catholicism et al have "codified ethics" curiously doesn't ever seem stop them or their followers from breaking this code when it is convenient for them, and so any accusations towards secularists regarding the supposed lack of one are at the very least hypocritical. even the almighty god of the bible himself seems to have no regard for one of his most esteemed commandments, "thou shalt not kill". religious ethics are merely the illusion of moral certainty - that because a supposed "divine" book has commanded authority down from on high that it instills the belief that it is true. true morality is slightly more complex than the false comfort that religious morality provides, yet it is also internal. secular systems of morality work naturally and reveals itself through conflict resolution. you can start with basic ideas like life being more preferable than death, pleasure than pain, helping instead of harming, etc. these things can be communicated without having being commanded to do so. matt dillahunty explains secular morality more coherently than i ever could, but at the very lest he dispells the myth that morality doesn't exist outside religion or that religion "invented" morality.

so no, it is not that catholicism can't keep up with the progressive world doesn't respect codified ethics, it is because the progressive world does not submit to catholicism's authoritatively corrupt ethics.

[Bamyasi]

What even is progress anyway.

[rtil]

What even is progress anyway.

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

[Bamyasi]

So what happens when things like Transhumanism.

[rtil]

starting to get off topic here but nobody actually knows the answer to that question

[michaell]

Even if it doesn't have to, it still does, or rather, some of its followers do. I'm not going to deny that historically the church has done quite a lot of good for society. Even today you have charities for children, abused women, and the homeless funded in part or wholly by religious groups. But in this modern era we are in dire need of well educated and scientifically minded citizens, even the ones that aren't going to end up in STEM fields. Many kids who get indoctrinated on creationism and grow up believing the bible to be absolute fact have been trained to distrust anything "scientists" have to say, and in general have a lack of interest for science topics. When they're finally adults with funding and voting power, they are less likely to appreciate or understand legislature based on scientific findings, and society suffers for it. This is why we have issues with recycling, global warming, etc. and why no one but my aerospace engineering friends give a shit that NASA has been gutted.


Anecdotal, but I hated biology class in high school. Not because I didn't like the subject, but because during and after the coverage of evolution, a good handful of kids wouldn't shut the fuck up about their grandparents not being monkeys, dogs not coming from cats, monkeys still being around despite us evolving from them, and all of that garbage. They disrupted the class and kept anyone from learning anything, spouting shit like god made man and "read a bible nigga". Our area isn't even devoutly religious, so I'm scared to wonder what science classes are like in bible belt states that actually attempt to teach evolution. The ring leader of that group of kids ended up going to a christian college where he majored in religious studies and is now a pastor, spreading his views in his community.


It just bothers me the way people bash others over the head with their bibles and are somehow respected for this kind of behavior. Any amount of criticism you lay on them, no matter how fair, makes you disrespectful at best and a satanist faggot who shouldn't be around children at worst. Think of all the bright minds out there that could've become great scientists but were taught to fear rational thinking as children. Think of all the talented people who could've done something for the world but ende up committing suicide because they happened to be gay and were bullied in school (hell, look what happened to Alan Turing). In this day and age, I don't think you need religion to be altruistic, to have a sense of compassion, or to hold yourself to high standards. People should be good, not because it's expected of them by some God, but because it noticeably makes the world a "better" place.

creationism

i dont know as far as im concerned the catholic church for instance espouses the evolutionary theory

i live in poland which is probably the most devout country in europe (predominantly catholic) as of now and ive never met anyone who believed in that

but i dont know i dont want to sound impudent but most people are idiots in general, or to put it mildly theyre just ignorants. some people trumpet the dire need for a more scientific approach to be adopted by the masses but i fail to perceive how thatd affect anyones behavior in genaral. this may be true to african countries where the belief in child witchcraft is still prevalent but those supersititons have been long dispelled in europe/usa. ironically, i have seen little correlation between faith and diligence.

in my opinion atheism itself isnt an inherent part of science and has never influenced it either way

i think its more of a side effect

[michaell]

the problem with christianity is that it's based on a predetermined set of ancient manuscripts that can never be altered, wherein the conclusion is decided before the evidence is found. the church can only re-align itself to be compatible with society so many times until it becomes apparent they are only doing it to stay relevant and politically correct.

your statement about christianity not being necessary is fine, but for what it's worth it's absolutely untrue that Christianity is just a "predetermined set of ancient manuscripts". Actually, the Catholic tradition is all about deriving theology through reason and teleologically oriented Bible study, with very little blind faith involved. Indeed, it's said that you can't truly worship god if you don't understand who He is. In theory, Protestant traditions are supposed to involve critical thinking too, but modern Protestant branches (especially in the united states) are pretty blind worshippy, which sucks. Meanwhile, the Orthodox are incredibly mystical and live mostly on rituals and blind faith, which is weird.

yeah i don't need to be educated on branches of christianity i'm very aware of how catholics derive their theology although i wouldn't say that they use much reason. maybe you and the catholics think that they do but they rely on divine revelation which is 100% completely faith based and there is no reason or logic behind such a thing. i assume that you know what divine revelation is so i won't go into it, but it is essentially blind faith and is a core part of how catholic doctrine is formed, so i'm confused as to why you would say there is "very little blind faith" involved when it is in fact something they rely on heavily to come to theological conclusions. the pope himself is considered the acting supreme leader of the church through which revelation can be achieved through divine assistance - one person in charge of what he believes god has personally revealed or illustrated to one person chosen by a council of pampered and isolated elites. several revelations have also been rejected by future catholic councils, so that also would lead one to believe that not only does god make mistakes, but he may also lie or change his mind from time to time. that or satan/demons trick humans into believing they are receiving divine revelation .. you see how convenient it is when you can make up any bullshit you want when you can call on faith and magic to trump anything that can be explained. in any case i think you give the catholics way too much credit here. and the book from which they derive their theology is indeed unchanging and will continue to be unchanging - a book of which a large chunk is mostly invalidated/obsolete because of the old covenant. not to mention full of historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. long story short, it's not a very good book.

blind worship is what has kept the church alive and well throughout the ages. a popular saying is that "i wasn't an atheist until i read the bible", a lot of people who dive deeper into the theology and history of the church causes people to turn away from it. i was one of them. in fact the catholic church is probably the most guilty of keeping its followers in the dark for as long as humanly possible , look at the era of indulgences and how much they felt they could get away with when most of their followers were incapable of so much as reading when the church had all the power they could have hoped for. they knew better than anyone that ignorance and fear bred obedience and that was what they needed to stay in a position of power. the brilliant and intelligent members of the church were often killed for heresy. obviously that doesn't happen anymore, but only because they can't get away with it anymore. nowadays the catholics are scrambling to figure out how to keep their numbers from bleeding in developed countries because all their theology and biblical teachings can't keep up with progressivism.

i dont think the church is solely to blame

we speak of their medieval power but we all overlook the political background religious persecution had

if you looked deeper into wars of religion youd discover either machinations of various states or individuals behind them. note that the inquisition, despite being spearheaded and subject to the curia did not execute people. its role was to investigate while the state apparatus conducted repressions against dissidents. in germany, many princes embraced protestantism not becuase of their zeal but because of their desire to get rid of the influence of the holy roman emperor (emperor of germany) who was their overlord. as a result, both protestant and catholic countries alike embarked on ferocious perecution of 'heretics'                       

another example: the wars of religion in france were actually a cover for the disputed succession of the french crown

[Gilthwixt]

and this, my friends, is why Protestantism sucks :^))))))))))))

and Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholicism...

It might be uniquely an American thing, but here in the US the kind of Christian you are doesn't pre-determine how rational you are. Plenty of Catholic Hispanic-Americans don't believe in evolution or gay rights and vote for the kind of conservative politicians that are actively trying to keep people like them out of the country but that's fine because Jesus. Their children, many of whom are my friends, see that sort of hypocrisy for what it is and have renounced their faiths and are happier for it.

creationism

i dont know as far as im concerned the catholic church for instance espouses the evolutionary theory

i live in poland which is probably the most devout country in europe (predominantly catholic) as of now and ive never met anyone who believed in that

but i dont know i dont want to sound impudent but most people are idiots in general, or to put it mildly theyre just ignorants. some people trumpet the dire need for a more scientific approach to be adopted by the masses but i fail to perceive how thatd affect anyones behavior in genaral. this may be true to african countries where the belief in child witchcraft is still prevalent but those supersititons have been long dispelled in europe/usa. ironically, i have seen little correlation between faith and diligence.

in my opinion atheism itself isnt an inherent part of science and has never influenced it either way

i think its more of a side effect

Europe is smarter about evolution as a whole, but that doesn't change my point that Christianity is crippling America at the moment.  I have to go with what I'm most familiar with, and you can't just say "well that's not true of the people around me" and ignore the bigger picture.

Even if we put evolution aside, there's still the fact that "secular" France had a huge movement recently to stop gay couples from adopting children, on the scientifically unfounded belief that children must be raised with one mother and one father. You don't have to use the extreme example of child witchcraft when there are plenty of simpler, subtler cases of unscientific mindedness all over the place.

Atheism isn't inherently part of science, but Christianity seems to be inherently opposed to scientific advancement. @rtil touched on it briefly with how the church has done it's best to maintain a position of power and would either vehemently oppose any scientific findings that would challenge that power (Galileo and Heliocentrism) or eventually reverse their position to remain relevant (Evolution). This is going into the territory of "What if?" and science fiction, but assuming rapid advancements were made in technology, do you really think every christian out there would readily embrace them? If we learned to alter our own DNA sequences, wouldn't there be people out there screaming "Don't play God"? Just look at how people react to stem-cell research today, despite the numerous benefits that could arise from it.

When it comes to science I think religion is unnecessary and often ends up slowing progress down. I'm not saying atheism promotes better scientific understanding or vice versa, but they are correlated. There's a reason that religiosity drops as level of education goes up. There's a reason why Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins don't go to church on Sundays.

[michaell]

and this, my friends, is why Protestantism sucks :^))))))))))))

and Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholicism...

It might be uniquely an American thing, but here in the US the kind of Christian you are doesn't pre-determine how rational you are. Plenty of Catholic Hispanic-Americans don't believe in evolution or gay rights and vote for the kind of conservative politicians that are actively trying to keep people like them out of the country but that's fine because Jesus. Their children, many of whom are my friends, see that sort of hypocrisy for what it is and have renounced their faiths and are happier for it.

creationism

i dont know as far as im concerned the catholic church for instance espouses the evolutionary theory

i live in poland which is probably the most devout country in europe (predominantly catholic) as of now and ive never met anyone who believed in that

but i dont know i dont want to sound impudent but most people are idiots in general, or to put it mildly theyre just ignorants. some people trumpet the dire need for a more scientific approach to be adopted by the masses but i fail to perceive how thatd affect anyones behavior in genaral. this may be true to african countries where the belief in child witchcraft is still prevalent but those supersititons have been long dispelled in europe/usa. ironically, i have seen little correlation between faith and diligence.

in my opinion atheism itself isnt an inherent part of science and has never influenced it either way

i think its more of a side effect

Europe is smarter about evolution as a whole, but that doesn't change my point that Christianity is crippling America at the moment.  I have to go with what I'm most familiar with, and you can't just say "well that's not true of the people around me" and ignore the bigger picture.

Even if we put evolution aside, there's still the fact that "secular" France had a huge movement recently to stop gay couples from adopting children, on the scientifically unfounded belief that children must be raised with one mother and one father. You don't have to use the extreme example of child witchcraft when there are plenty of simpler, subtler cases of unscientific mindedness all over the place.

Atheism isn't inherently part of science, but Christianity seems to be inherently opposed to scientific advancement. @rtil touched on it briefly with how the church has done it's best to maintain a position of power and would either vehemently oppose any scientific findings that would challenge that power (Galileo and Heliocentrism) or eventually reverse their position to remain relevant (Evolution). This is going into the territory of "What if?" and science fiction, but assuming rapid advancements were made in technology, do you really think every christian out there would readily embrace them? If we learned to alter our own DNA sequences, wouldn't there be people out there screaming "Don't play God"? Just look at how people react to stem-cell research today, despite the numerous benefits that could arise from it.

When it comes to science I think religion is unnecessary and often ends up slowing progress down. I'm not saying atheism promotes better scientific understanding or vice versa, but they are correlated. There's a reason that religiosity drops as level of education goes up. There's a reason why Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins don't go to church on Sundays.

how is it scientifically unfounded that children dont have to raised by a mother and a father

'homophobia' is also prevalent in largely secular post communist countries where the authorities would repress homos on grounds of them defying the workers state or whatever the hell the reasons were

all that science has to offer in this case is that procreation is only feasible when two individuals of different sexes meet
the influence homo parents may exert on those kids belongs to psychology but i dont think we would ever reach a consistent conclusion because of bias either on the pro or against side

i dont think a believer would have any qualms about accepting the advacement of technology should they benefit from it directly or as a society as a whole

stem cell research raises opposition just like abortion does and you dont have to religious to find arguments for and against, though obviously the churchs official stance is hostile towards the idea and surely influences peoples perception of it

[michaell]

also take into account the strength of pseudo science in the soviet union which officially adopted a 'scientific/materialist' approach

there were cases of pseudo scientists climbing up the social ladder via the party structures
the results of their fruitless work was for instance their usage for politically motivated actions

example:

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

or perhaps theyd trigger an agricultural catastrophe

the church is the most notorious for its opposition to science but many seem to forget cases like this one

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

Moving Illustrations of Machines

http://www.timecube.com/

[rtil]

i dont think the church is solely to blame

we speak of their medieval power but we all overlook the political background religious persecution had

if you looked deeper into wars of religion youd discover either machinations of various states or individuals behind them. note that the inquisition, despite being spearheaded and subject to the curia did not execute people. its role was to investigate while the state apparatus conducted repressions against dissidents. in germany, many princes embraced protestantism not becuase of their zeal but because of their desire to get rid of the influence of the holy roman emperor (emperor of germany) who was their overlord. as a result, both protestant and catholic countries alike embarked on ferocious perecution of 'heretics'                       

another example: the wars of religion in france were actually a cover for the disputed succession of the french crown

that doesn't really paint the church in a better light or strengthen the argument that it doesn't stifle progress

also take into account the strength of pseudo science in the soviet union which officially adopted a 'scientific/materialist' approach

there were cases of pseudo scientists climbing up the social ladder via the party structures
the results of their fruitless work was for instance their usage for politically motivated actions

example:

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

or perhaps theyd trigger an agricultural catastrophe

the church is the most notorious for its opposition to science but many seem to forget cases like this one

what exactly is your argument here? psuedoscience, woo and gullible people will always exist. the counter to this kind of thinking is education and the scientific method. psuedoscience doesn't get through peer review.

[michaell]

1) its not supposed to paint it in a better light

it just shows us the more complex structure of events

some people seem to blame SOLELY religion and that is erroneous

2) the soviet union was an officially atheist state that declared SCIENCE and MATERIALISM as their primary values

yet they ran afoul against both by 1) espousing pseudo science. heard about the sanctions against russia? some of them ban the export of food. ironically despite russias formidable size they CANT nourish themselves because of no real agliculture structures existing there. this is the direct result of the eclipse of agliculture under stalin and a buncha pseudo scientists he endorsed with their 'revolutionary' techniques   2) implementing policies such as personality cult

my point is that any institution can stifle progress in the name of retaining power

i believe a lot of actions of the medieval church were at least in part politically motivated rather than solely religiously

[rtil]

the problem with using "x was an atheist" as an argument is that unlike religion atheism does not have a doctrine or a set of values, atheism is simply the rejection of the belief in deities and the supernatural. it can not be used as an umbrella term nor can it be associated with science as they are both mutually exclusive and apolitical.

despite what the soviet union claimed, Stalin was notoriously oppressive towards the scientific community, and rejected a lot of common scientific knowledge that caused a lot of harm to the state. Stalin rejected Darwinian evolution and appointed people to political power who agreed with him. there was no system of peer review, there was no scentific method, there were no checks and balances.

it is true that any corrupt institution can stifle progress, but christianity has had a proven record of harming rather than helping. it is used as a tool to oppress rather than grow, and that is because the expansion of knowledge hurts the growth of the church. the church is better off keeping its people in the dark. progress, in the broad sense of the word, goes against the very nature of christianity. legitimate, ethical, peer reviewed science doesn't have this issue.

[michaell]

the problem with using "x was an atheist" as an argument is that unlike religion atheism does not have a doctrine or a set of values, atheism is simply the rejection of the belief in deities and the supernatural. it can not be used as an umbrella term nor can it be associated with science as they are both mutually exclusive and apolitical.

despite what the soviet union claimed, Stalin was notoriously oppressive towards the scientific community, and rejected a lot of common scientific knowledge that caused a lot of harm to the state. Stalin rejected Darwinian evolution and appointed people to political power who agreed with him. there was no system of peer review, there was no scentific method, there were no checks and balances.

it is true that any corrupt institution can stifle progress, but christianity has had a proven record of harming rather than helping. it is used as a tool to oppress rather than grow, and that is because the expansion of knowledge hurts the growth of the church. the church is better off keeping its people in the dark. progress, in the broad sense of the word, goes against the very nature of christianity. legitimate, ethical, peer reviewed science doesn't have this issue.

well isnt it why i underlined their reputed emphasis on science and materialism

what is science? to me it is rationalism and empiricism

to me being a scientific person is to accept the achievements of science and perhaps make use of them. however many seem to incorporate 'science' into an ideology of some sort which i personally dismiss. because science is not a philosophy its incapable of determining, moral values for example. lets bring up a contentious subject like abortion. science can expose to us each stage of the development of a human being from conception to death. but then it cannot assert when genuine life starts because it is up to the customary law to determine this. science SHOWS us things but this is up to us to understand their meaning

that is why theres no such thing as scientific approach when it comes to, especially belligerent, ideologies/insitutions, because they tend to turn into cults themselves effectively abandoning their original values. this was true to 'cult of reason' in revolutionary france.

the mistake the church made was to become enmeshed in political and social matters, thus establishing itself as he backbone of the feudal order in europe in the past. christianity should have stuck to the moral code it once was