Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Phoenix Wright]

this is juicy.

Okay, fine. The cognitive dissonance exists. There remains in the cases I mentioned no practical opposition to science, and thus no actual negative effects.

that's such a small minority of cases. religion (and in general either anti-science sentiment or scientific illiteracy) is the cause of much more problems than not.

It's also an outlook that's assuming the scientific method is to be used like a philosophy that should be applied to everything you do in life. Which it really isn't. It's just a system of determining things. Like if I'm about to be hit by a car the scientific method isn't going to do me a lick of good since it requires you to provide multiple experiments (which in this case would mean getting hit by the car multiple times in a number of different ways). Diving quickly and having faith that my instincts are sharp enough is a much more effective approach.

no it isn't. "just a system of determining things" is quite a weak statement considering what science actually does.

no, the scientific method is to rely on the knowledge that already exists to make an informed decision. you move the fuck out the way because you know you'll die. you have no instincts when it comes to motorized vehicles; how could that possibly be encoded into your dna?

every human being uses the scientific method for nearly every decision they make.

Not really. For example human beings believe things like necrophilia is wrong on a fairly universal level. Now, scientifically we can claim that it's unhealthy, has a high risk of disease, and whatnot, but it's not actually 'wrong'. Find a properly treated and cleaned body and, as far as science is confirmed, you can have at it. That it's something repulsive derives from a 'truth' that cannot be scientifically tested. This holds true for many things such as equality between men and women, racial equality, and so-forth. This is because science is just what it is, a method of observation. That Jalliapians and Truxicans should be seen as equals in the eyes of the government is not a matter of science but belief in the truth that all races of humanity are equal.

it's not a "method of observation." to quote sagan: "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of reason, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe."

science doesn't have anything to say about morality. you can come to the scientific conclusion that a cadaver is safe, but that doesn't mean you ought fuck it.

You can't have science without religion. It's one of the two parts of the amalgam and easily the most reputable of the two.

Also, this discussion is seriously missing Chiki-chan. Dood needs to log on again.

what? why not?

This is categorically false. Anything in science labelled as "Theory" isn't postulated to be true, with those that supporting any number of them having faith in them being true, because if the evidence to support any of them were there, almost all theories would be translated into being laws. It is not "Darwin's LAW of Evolution," because the evidence isn't there, and likely never was, for it to be true. Scientists have faith, too. You seem to be interested in deconstructing a religion that rebuilds at every attempt to do so. To end my rebuttal, let me use a quote, although I expect you to react to it just like in the source material: What if creation was the how and not the why?

uhhhhhhhhhh no. who the hell told you this? lol

law and theory are interchangeable in most cases. (eg theory of relativity, and law of conservation of momentum are basically equally supported by observation. what that means is, we'd need to observe some pretty fucking weird stuff to start thinking differently about these things. it is exactly the same for evolution by the way.) we used to say law but now we say theory. that's the beginning and end of it.

That's a mis-understanding of what a scientific law is. Basically, laws in science explain the basic and fundamental forces of how the universe works (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction for example) while theories deal with specific instances and the like. As far as science is concerned, so long as there is evidence to support it, a theory like evolution can be just as valid as pretty much any other theory. This is because, in science, new evidence and observations are to be expected which can change how a theory previously believed to be true into being false.

this isn't correct. see above. but yeah spot on for the other stuff.

It's a slippery slope, but as stated, there's no scientific evidence that all people, whether it by race, sex, or baseball team preference, are equal. That's something that just has too be taken on faith. When people do try to prove it one way or the other scientifically, it leads to unsavory areas like eugenics.

A person's or anything's for the matter's worth is something that has been the purview of philosophy and religion, rather than science. Trying to apply scientific rigor to that area is misguided.

what? we know all people aren't created equal. you're taking that philosophical idea way way way out of context. what it means to say is that in the eyes of the law, all citizens of a nation are to be treated equally.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

what? we know all people aren't created equal. you're taking that philosophical idea way way way out of context. what it means to say is that in the eyes of the law, all citizens of a nation are to be treated equally.

To risk breaking Godwin's Law, men pursuing science in the absence of religious, moral, or ethical considerations committed some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. I'm a doctor; science is a big part of my daily life, but people who only do things in the name of science try to use it to prove things that should be left to other fields.

My point is that science and religion/philosophy/morals/ethics have completely different purposes, and when you try to say one is superior to the other or try to use science to prove red heads are better than blondes or try to use scripture to determine the angular velocity of celestial bodies, you're trying to use the wrong tool for the job. Religion and science are apples and oranges.

[Snowy_One]

this isn't correct. see above. but yeah spot on for the other stuff.

Except... No. And there is a VERY good reason why the two are different.

When it comes down to a specific theory things constantly change as we come to learn new things. For example we could learn about some previously unknown factor in cheese wiz that effects how it ages inside of the can. As a result all our theories of how cheese in cans age (along with potentially all theories relating to cheese and cans) would need changing. But this is because we learned of a new factor involved and not some fundamental shift in the universe. For a prime example of this let's look at dinosaurs. Years ago dinos were all thought to be scaly because that's what the evidence showed. Not only from observable species today but what few skinprints we found re-inforced this. But it's changed because new fossils and techniques have come to reveal that dino's rocked quite a few feathers. So all our theories on that need to be changed or were wrong. But no scientific laws were violated. Just new evidence came to light.

This is why there is such a huge gap between the terms. Because they refer to different things and share about the same degree of relationship as the Constitution and Bill of Rights have with your city garbage regulations (both are legal matters and the latter could be affected by the former, but they're pretty much two entirely different things for the most part).

Going around and saying you can use them interchangeably is both not a counter (it doesn't deal with the difference) and speaks VERY poorly of your argument because it puts homeopathic theory on-par with the laws of thermodynamics.

[Moblin Major General]

Religion... is the cause of much more problems than not.

Religion itself or the reactions to it? Were it not for the fact that people are knee-jerkingly triggered by religion(or, as you like to so often point out, Christianity), there would be no problem with religion or faith. Sure, I may have missed the mark of my comment, but the point was that a theory along the lines of Darwin's conjecture on the origin of man is so asininely absurd that no one with half a mind would be inclined to believe it. But alas, I am but a man in sheep's clothing, hoping the Shepherd doesn't see me as different and sick his Komondor on me. I'm not buying any of the shit that has come out of the mouth of any science teacher that believes in macroevolution (microevolution I do believe, though, as Darwin's finch theory is far more easily supported). Tell me how it can be proved with the physical fossils available, not the nonexistent gaps between ancient and modern animals, and don't use the phrase I believe, as that equates to the phrase I have faith.

[Jotari]

no it isn't. "just a system of determining things" is quite a weak statement considering what science actually does.

no, the scientific method is to rely on the knowledge that already exists to make an informed decision. you move the fuck out the way because you know you'll die. you have no instincts when it comes to motorized vehicles; how could that possibly be encoded into your dna?

You seem to be confusing the Scientific Method with the concept of logic. Using knowledge that already exists to make an informed decision is merely the first step. You also have to try and disprove your hypotenuse using experimentation in a stable environment with a control. So in this case using the scientific method to determine the best course of action when you're about to be hit by a car depends on you seeing what happens when you avoid or attempt to avoid the car (in various ways) as well as testing what happens when you actually get hit by the car. Since getting hit by the car once is probably going to result in your death or critical injury, it's in fact not the best method to deal with the situation here.

[Baldrick]

If I observe a car coming towards me, hypothetise it's going to hit me, predict that I would get hurt and immediately experiment by jumping away, that's still a scientific approach. Especially if I make a secondary hypothesis that I have neither the time nor the resources to be more rigorous.

@Jotari What approach would you take?

Edited October 28, 2016 by ???

[Jotari]

If I observe a car coming towards me, hypothetise it's going to hit me, predict that it hitting me would hurt and immediately experiment by jumping away, that's still a scientific approach. Especially if I make a secondary hypothesis that I have neither the time nor the resources to be more rigorous.

@Jotari What approach would you take?

It's not the scientific method. You have no proof that the outcome would be different had you let the car hit you. For something to be the scientific method you must test for all conditions and all possible factors. Trying one thing and seeing if it succeeds proves nothing. In this example case the car could have been a hologram and the same result would occur regardless of my action. I might not be making it clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that the scientific method is a way of discovering things. It is not a philosophy that needs to permutate every aspect and decision in your life. You can certainly let it if you choose to but it's not a prerequisite for calling yourself a scientist or studying science. You can use the scientific method to discover all sorts of wonderful things but it is not necessary to determine your code of ethics, your spiritual belief or what you should have for breakfast in the morning.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Jotari

[Phoenix Wright]

To risk breaking Godwin's Law, men pursuing science in the absence of religious, moral, or ethical considerations committed some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. I'm a doctor; science is a big part of my daily life, but people who only do things in the name of science try to use it to prove things that should be left to other fields.

My point is that science and religion/philosophy/morals/ethics have completely different purposes, and when you try to say one is superior to the other or try to use science to prove red heads are better than blondes or try to use scripture to determine the angular velocity of celestial bodies, you're trying to use the wrong tool for the job. Religion and science are apples and oranges.

this is strawmanning, albeit not intentionally. i'm not arguing that ethics and morality are useless, nor that they are inferior to science. i am saying science itself says nothing about morality. we do not derive morality from science.

religion should not be bundled with philosophy/morals/ethics. you do not need to study religion to understand morality, ethics, etc. we do not ascertain any knowledge from religion other than more information about the religion itself.

overall, you're missing the point. to put it concretely: it is foolish to accept anything where evidence is lacking. people do it all the time though, including myself. having faith directly contradicts the scientific method. i'm not saying this is some crisis. i'm essentially arguing semantics but religious people have a problem with it because they wanna think that believing in god is not scientifically problematic. but it is.

Except... No. And there is a VERY good reason why the two are different.

When it comes down to a specific theory things constantly change as we come to learn new things. For example we could learn about some previously unknown factor in cheese wiz that effects how it ages inside of the can. As a result all our theories of how cheese in cans age (along with potentially all theories relating to cheese and cans) would need changing. But this is because we learned of a new factor involved and not some fundamental shift in the universe. For a prime example of this let's look at dinosaurs. Years ago dinos were all thought to be scaly because that's what the evidence showed. Not only from observable species today but what few skinprints we found re-inforced this. But it's changed because new fossils and techniques have come to reveal that dino's rocked quite a few feathers. So all our theories on that need to be changed or were wrong. But no scientific laws were violated. Just new evidence came to light.

This is why there is such a huge gap between the terms. Because they refer to different things and share about the same degree of relationship as the Constitution and Bill of Rights have with your city garbage regulations (both are legal matters and the latter could be affected by the former, but they're pretty much two entirely different things for the most part).

Going around and saying you can use them interchangeably is both not a counter (it doesn't deal with the difference) and speaks VERY poorly of your argument because it puts homeopathic theory on-par with the laws of thermodynamics.

there is no "theory" of scales. we simply lacked the knowledge that dinosaurs had feathers. there were no underlying principles that dictated dinosaurs to have feathers.

no it doesn't. homeopathic theory isn't a theory lol. they can call it that, but it's clearly not. also the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of relativity are equivalent.

take it from a literal (almost) astrophysicist.

Religion itself or the reactions to it? Were it not for the fact that people are knee-jerkingly triggered by religion(or, as you like to so often point out, Christianity), there would be no problem with religion or faith. Sure, I may have missed the mark of my comment, but the point was that a theory along the lines of Darwin's conjecture on the origin of man is so asininely absurd that no one with half a mind would be inclined to believe it. But alas, I am but a man in sheep's clothing, hoping the Shepherd doesn't see me as different and sick his Komondor on me. I'm not buying any of the shit that has come out of the mouth of any science teacher that believes in macroevolution (microevolution I do believe, though, as Darwin's finch theory is far more easily supported). Tell me how it can be proved with the physical fossils available, not the nonexistent gaps between ancient and modern animals, and don't use the phrase I believe, as that equates to the phrase I have faith.

religion itself. believing in things without evidence is inherently problematic lol. this is for myriad reasons.

if i sit down and take the time to argue to you why you're wrong, will you actually listen?

You seem to be confusing the Scientific Method with the concept of logic. Using knowledge that already exists to make an informed decision is merely the first step. You also have to try and disprove your hypotenuse using experimentation in a stable environment with a control. So in this case using the scientific method to determine the best course of action when you're about to be hit by a car depends on you seeing what happens when you avoid or attempt to avoid the car (in various ways) as well as testing what happens when you actually get hit by the car. Since getting hit by the car once is probably going to result in your death or critical injury, it's in fact not the best method to deal with the situation here.

no i'm not. let's say you're the first human to ever see a car coming towards you, and you know none of its properties aside from that it moves. logically, you would not be able to assume the car would do you harm.

the scientific method does not mean you literally conduct an experiment in every instance of your life. what the hell?

It's not the scientific method. You have no proof that the outcome would be different had you let the car hit you. For something to be the scientific method you must test for all conditions and all possible factors. Trying one thing and seeing if it succeeds proves nothing. In this example case the car could have been a hologram and the same result would occur regardless of my action. I might not be making it clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that the scientific method is a way of discovering things. It is not a philosophy that needs to permutate every aspect and decision in your life. You can certainly let it if you choose to but it's not a prerequisite for calling yourself a scientist or studying science. You can use the scientific method to discover all sorts of wonderful things but it is not necessary to determine your code of ethics, your spiritual belief or what you should have for breakfast in the morning.

yeah you do. thousands of people a year are killed by cars. there are millions of cases to work on, including knowing what materials the car is made out of etc etc etc. again, using the scientific method does not mean you are compelled to conduct an experiment that has already been done.

@bold: no one is arguing it should be.

[eclipse]

overall, you're missing the point. to put it concretely: it is foolish to accept anything where evidence is lacking. people do it all the time though, including myself. having faith directly contradicts the scientific method. i'm not saying this is some crisis. i'm essentially arguing semantics but religious people have a problem with it because they wanna think that believing in god is not scientifically problematic. but it is.

Sorry, your reply was super-de-duper long, and this is the only part I wanted to ask about. Why is it foolish to believe in something that has no evidence for or against it?

[Baldrick]

I might not be making it clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that the scientific method is a way of discovering things. It is not a philosophy that needs to permutate every aspect and decision in your life.

I don't disagree with that. But, logic is based on scientific principles rather than faith. If you instinctively dive out of the way of a car, it's likely that you are basing that on previous experiences of being hit by things.

[Jotari]

@bold: no one is arguing it should be.

You kind of our. You're saying it's inconsistent for scientists to believe in god because it's not supported by the scientific method. I'm saying the fact that it's not supported is irrelevant. The scientific method isn't perfect. It can do absolutely nothing to dissuade the possibility that the universe was created last Tuesday. It's can't disprove we're in the matrix (though apparently irrational numbers can help dissuade that somewhat, it's still a pretty major possibility), it can't even prove of the existence of intelligence outside your own. These are three things that the scientific method will never be able to definitively make a statement about because all the evidence we think we have could be fabricated or misunderstood. But obviously most scientists (and people in general) are pretty sure that what we see, feel and remember are real enough to use it as a base for our behaviour.

[Snowy_One]

there is no "theory" of scales. we simply lacked the knowledge that dinosaurs had feathers. there were no underlying principles that dictated dinosaurs to have feathers.

Just because it lacks an official name does not change what it is. The latter point, however, is actually quite huge as it changes how we viewed both the evolution of dinosaurs and birds. This is why it's a theory. Not because it's 'wrong' but because it can change as new evidence gets uncovered.

no it doesn't. homeopathic theory isn't a theory lol. they can call it that, but it's clearly not. also the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of relativity are equivalent.

take it from a literal (almost) astrophysicist.

Actually, if one were to pay attention to things like the placebo effect and the VERY, EXTREMELY, small amounts of actual science, yes, it can be classified as a 'theory'. There in lies the problem and why it is EXTREMELY important to keep your theories, hypothesis, and laws separate.

It's a word game but a very important one and one I've seen played all the time.

Basically, in it, someone will take a theory, claim the terms are interchangeable, state that their theory is on-par with scientific laws, then turn it back around to counter. It's very annoying because it's both a distraction from the real issue, justifies pretty much anything so long as it has even some scientific backing (regardless of how questionable it is), and makes people hesitant to oppose because they'd be against entirely unrelated subjects.

For example, let's say someone espoused the theory that women aren't as good as men at cooking food on the barbecue. For this they bring up things like the differences in bodies and brains between the genders as well as some tests that may or may not have been scientifically verified and so-forth. The evidence for or against their standpoint doesn't matter. Why? Because then they'll play the 'theory and law are interchangeable' card and then be able to swing in entirely unrelated and factually proven things like the laws of motion and the like to reinforce their argument. Think a woman can be just as good at cooking on the barbecue? Well too bad because his statement is now in the same league as the scientific theories and laws that scientists used to put people on the moon. You can't stand against something like THAT can you? So if you claim that women can be just as good at the barbecue you're in the same class of people as the nuts who say we couldn't possibly reach the moon. Would you be willing to fight against that? Even if you were how much time would you have to waste just pointing out the two things aren't the same? Just because 'laws and theories are interchangable'.

This is why it's VERY important to keep your terms right in science. It's just like the '4 out of 5 doctors agree that our product is good for you' scam thing people put in ads. Improper wording and misdirection creating a false image and conclusion that anyone could probably see through easily given the chance but hidden by making the dissenters appear to be going against the obvious truth.

[Phoenix Wright]

Sorry, your reply was super-de-duper long, and this is the only part I wanted to ask about. Why is it foolish to believe in something that has no evidence for or against it?

it really wasn't that long.

two things: 1. to believe in something where evidence exists to the contrary is fucking dumb. to believe in something with no evidence is dumb.

2. believing in an idea that cannot be tested is foolish. the null hypothesis would state that something is not the case unless nature says it is in some way. otherwise you either don't accept the hypothesis or you remain agnostic altogether (my position). i cannot fathom why someone would believe anything without actual evidence.

You kind of our. You're saying it's inconsistent for scientists to believe in god because it's not supported by the scientific method.

this has nothing to do with morality.

I'm saying the fact that it's not supported is irrelevant. The scientific method isn't perfect. It can do absolutely nothing to dissuade the possibility that the universe was created last Tuesday. It's can't disprove we're in the matrix (though apparently irrational numbers can help dissuade that somewhat, it's still a pretty major possibility), it can't even prove of the existence of intelligence outside your own. These are three things that the scientific method will never be able to definitively make a statement about because all the evidence we think we have could be fabricated or misunderstood. But obviously most scientists (and people in general) are pretty sure that what we see, feel and remember are real enough to use it as a base for our behaviour.

it's very relevant. science is the best tool humanity has far and away for progressing as a species. hands down, no questions asked, no doubt about it.

it can very much "prove" that the universe wasn't created just last week. there's a thing called "time," which has existed for around 14bn years.

the matrix hypothesis isn't falsifiable and therefore irrelevant anyway. unless there were some way to test it, there's no reason we should believe it.

do you mean it can't prove that i'm the only lifeform that really exists, or that it can't "prove" that there are aliens? you're wrong on both counts, in any case. science is not just about what we "see," and "feel." there are thousands of instruments that measure tens of thousands of different types of phenomena and capture millions of images that would otherwise be impossible to experience. did you know that if you were to fly by a nebula you wouldn't even see it? they're too faint to see. but telescopes can see them.

Just because it lacks an official name does not change what it is. The latter point, however, is actually quite huge as it changes how we viewed both the evolution of dinosaurs and birds. This is why it's a theory. Not because it's 'wrong' but because it can change as new evidence gets uncovered.

Actually, if one were to pay attention to things like the placebo effect and the VERY, EXTREMELY, small amounts of actual science, yes, it can be classified as a 'theory'. There in lies the problem and why it is EXTREMELY important to keep your theories, hypothesis, and laws separate.

It's a word game but a very important one and one I've seen played all the time.

Basically, in it, someone will take a theory, claim the terms are interchangeable, state that their theory is on-par with scientific laws, then turn it back around to counter. It's very annoying because it's both a distraction from the real issue, justifies pretty much anything so long as it has even some scientific backing (regardless of how questionable it is), and makes people hesitant to oppose because they'd be against entirely unrelated subjects.

For example, let's say someone espoused the theory that women aren't as good as men at cooking food on the barbecue. For this they bring up things like the differences in bodies and brains between the genders as well as some tests that may or may not have been scientifically verified and so-forth. The evidence for or against their standpoint doesn't matter. Why? Because then they'll play the 'theory and law are interchangeable' card and then be able to swing in entirely unrelated and factually proven things like the laws of motion and the like to reinforce their argument. Think a woman can be just as good at cooking on the barbecue? Well too bad because his statement is now in the same league as the scientific theories and laws that scientists used to put people on the moon. You can't stand against something like THAT can you? So if you claim that women can be just as good at the barbecue you're in the same class of people as the nuts who say we couldn't possibly reach the moon. Would you be willing to fight against that? Even if you were how much time would you have to waste just pointing out the two things aren't the same? Just because 'laws and theories are interchangable'.

This is why it's VERY important to keep your terms right in science. It's just like the '4 out of 5 doctors agree that our product is good for you' scam thing people put in ads. Improper wording and misdirection creating a false image and conclusion that anyone could probably see through easily given the chance but hidden by making the dissenters appear to be going against the obvious truth.

i don't know how to not be an asshole about this. your ramblings don't make any sense and you can take that from someone who is literally in this fucking field. i've personally asked this question to professors before (physicists and astrophysicists) and they say the terms are interchangeable in science.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

two things: 1. to believe in something where evidence exists to the contrary is fucking dumb. to believe in something with no evidence is dumb.

2. believing in an idea that cannot be tested is foolish. the null hypothesis would state that something is not the case unless nature says it is in some way. otherwise you either don't accept the hypothesis or you remain agnostic altogether (my position). i cannot fathom why someone would believe anything without actual evidence.

I'll address both points.

1. This is a statement of what, not why. I asked for why.

2. I am a walking example of "something is really fucked up with my body, but I have no idea what". You have no evidence to support or deny my claims, other than my word, since you haven't met me in person, let alone had a crack at my medical records. So. . .do you think that what I said about myself is true?

[Jotari]

it really wasn't that long.

two things: 1. to believe in something where evidence exists to the contrary is fucking dumb. to believe in something with no evidence is dumb.

2. believing in an idea that cannot be tested is foolish. the null hypothesis would state that something is not the case unless nature says it is in some way. otherwise you either don't accept the hypothesis or you remain agnostic altogether (my position). i cannot fathom why someone would believe anything without actual evidence.

this has nothing to do with morality.

it's very relevant. science is the best tool humanity has far and away for progressing as a species. hands down, no questions asked, no doubt about it.

it can very much "prove" that the universe wasn't created just last week. there's a thing called "time," which has existed for around 14bn years.

the matrix hypothesis isn't falsifiable and therefore irrelevant anyway. unless there were some way to test it, there's no reason we should believe it.

do you mean it can't prove that i'm the only lifeform that really exists, or that it can't "prove" that there are aliens? you're wrong on both counts, in any case. science is not just about what we "see," and "feel." there are thousands of instruments that measure tens of thousands of different types of phenomena and capture millions of images that would otherwise be impossible to experience. did you know that if you were to fly by a nebula you wouldn't even see it? they're too faint to see. but telescopes can see them.

i don't know how to not be an asshole about this. your ramblings don't make any sense and you can take that from someone who is literally in this fucking field. i've personally asked this question to professors before (physicists and astrophysicists) and they say the terms are interchangeable in science.

I'm referring to this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie. I assumed you'd be aware of them. You have no way of proving time is a thing or proving that any other being in the universe is truly sentient and not just behaving like a sentient creature. Essentially, the scientific method can not prove the existence of reality itself and any of its components because it depends on inputs we receive in our brain and we have no way of determining wether what we experience in this reality is in any way true and not an advanced simulation of some sort.

[blah the Prussian]

this is juicy.

that's such a small minority of cases. religion (and in general either anti-science sentiment or scientific illiteracy) is the cause of much more problems than not.

What, you want me to list every single religious regime that was pro-science? Fine. I'll list as many as possible within reason. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Ptolemic Egypt-see above

Arab Caliphates-this, incidentally, refers to the Rashiduins, Umayyads, and Abbasids. Anyway, the scientific prowess of the Caliphates is well known, and they were successful at taking the mathematical ideas of Greece and Rome and doing even more with them. Speaking of which...

Rome, both Empire and Republic: super religious, and very technologically advanced for its time. Made great strides in military tactics, technology, and, oh yeah, the aqueduct. Roman roads were also arguably the best in the world.

Meiji Japan: Emperor Meiji was worshipped by his subjects as a literal God. Didn't stop him from modernizing his country in probably the biggest mass scientific advancement in the history of the world. Plus, Meiji's god hood made most of his people support him instead of the reactionary Shogun, so religion here actually helped the cause of science. Plus, it was the secular Shoguns responsible for keeping Japan backwards for centuries.

Mughal Empire: under Emperor Akbar the Great, the Mughals became a huge center of learning while also being Islamic. Shampoo, incidentally, was invented during this period, so there's a good quality of life invention you owe Akbar.

China up to the Yuan: China was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations out there, and research suggests that the last dynasty before the Mongol conquest, the Song, were on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Unfortunately the Ming embraced isolationism, but that's still most of Chinese history.

Rudolf II's HRE: from his Capitol in Prague (yes, home turf bias) Rudolf devoted his reign to supporting the cause of science by allowing astronomers into his court, including Johannes Kepler, who made great advances in our understanding of the universe, such as the laws of planetary motion.

Frederick the Great and Joseph II: among the reforms of these enlightened absolutists was the promoting of science.

These are what I can think of off the top of my head. Keep in mind, meanwhile, the existence of religious societies perfectly neutral to the cause of science, rather than actively impeding it. Overall, religion at least breaks even on science.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'll address both points.

1. This is a statement of what, not why. I asked for why.

2. I am a walking example of "something is really fucked up with my body, but I have no idea what". You have no evidence to support or deny my claims, other than my word, since you haven't met me in person, let alone had a crack at my medical records. So. . .do you think that what I said about myself is true?

1. you're wondering why it's dumb to believe something where evidence exists to the contrary? do i really need to explicitly say why? ok: because reality differs from the person's perception of it. depending on what the belief is, it could result in the death of that human (eg, holding the belief that humans can fly). it is dumb to ignore what nature is and substitute it for what you want reality to be.

why is it dumb to believe in something that has no evidence? to believe in a falsifiable hypothesis before experiment and results is simply bad practice for decision making. you don't believe believe the higgs boson exists because it's expected to, similarly with the 9th planet that may exist somewhere in the far reaches of our solar system. this is another case of wanting reality to be different from what it is.

2. i believe you. you talk about it a lot, though. again, i never said i use solely scientific reasoning to make decision, and argued quite the opposite. similarly, i would expect everyone here to understand and believe me when i say i study astrophysics.

but this sort of faith isn't dangerous. no one is going to fight and die in our name. no one is going to spend more than 10 seconds deciding what we say is real or fake. "faith" in us one way or the other is inconsequential. that, i think, is the proper place for faith: in inconsequential matters.

and generally speaking, i would remain agnostic. but you've been talking about this for literally years. at this point if you really wanted to keep up that lie i'd argue you simply have way too much time on your hands.

I'm referring to this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie. I assumed you'd be aware of them. You have no way of proving time is a thing or proving that any other being in the universe is truly sentient and not just behaving like a sentient creature. Essentially, the scientific method can not prove the existence of reality itself and any of its components because it depends on inputs we receive in our brain and we have no way of determining wether what we experience in this reality is in any way true and not an advanced simulation of some sort.

this isn't relevant though. these don't affect how we observe reality to be. these postulations aren't showing a weakness of science, they're showing a weakness of the postulates. you couldn't even test these things--why lay them any credence?

What, you want me to list every single religious regime that was pro-science? Fine. I'll list as many as possible within reason. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Ptolemic Egypt-see above

Arab Caliphates-this, incidentally, refers to the Rashiduins, Umayyads, and Abbasids. Anyway, the scientific prowess of the Caliphates is well known, and they were successful at taking the mathematical ideas of Greece and Rome and doing even more with them. Speaking of which...

Rome, both Empire and Republic: super religious, and very technologically advanced for its time. Made great strides in military tactics, technology, and, oh yeah, the aqueduct. Roman roads were also arguably the best in the world.

Meiji Japan: Emperor Meiji was worshipped by his subjects as a literal God. Didn't stop him from modernizing his country in probably the biggest mass scientific advancement in the history of the world. Plus, Meiji's god hood made most of his people support him instead of the reactionary Shogun, so religion here actually helped the cause of science. Plus, it was the secular Shoguns responsible for keeping Japan backwards for centuries.

Mughal Empire: under Emperor Akbar the Great, the Mughals became a huge center of learning while also being Islamic. Shampoo, incidentally, was invented during this period, so there's a good quality of life invention you owe Akbar.

China up to the Yuan: China was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations out there, and research suggests that the last dynasty before the Mongol conquest, the Song, were on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Unfortunately the Ming embraced isolationism, but that's still most of Chinese history.

Rudolf II's HRE: from his Capitol in Prague (yes, home turf bias) Rudolf devoted his reign to supporting the cause of science by allowing astronomers into his court, including Johannes Kepler, who made great advances in our understanding of the universe, such as the laws of planetary motion.

Frederick the Great and Joseph II: among the reforms of these enlightened absolutists was the promoting of science.

These are what I can think of off the top of my head. Keep in mind, meanwhile, the existence of religious societies perfectly neutral to the cause of science, rather than actively impeding it. Overall, religion at least breaks even on science.

i'll respond to you later.

[Moblin Major General]

You don't seem to understand that it is YOU that hath more the latent time, oh youth. Who's taking more time out of their day to try and debunk one of the many understood truths of the last 2000 years. Eclipse and I don't have to justify our very being to someone who clearly believes themself to be the moral superior, thus we will ever be wrong. Who's the one not listening? Who's really the one who's not willing to budge on their stance? Have I not said before that Christians aren't perfect? And yet you continue to assume that Christians are the lowest and most deplorable of humanity, when history proves this is far from the case, and apart from Europe, Christians are so often the victim. You should probably consider that your words go far beyond logical criticism, almost to the point of the word wars of Lord Raven and Life. As far as I'm concerned, every time religion is brought up, you default to throwing shade at it, which is only going to make people angry. I'm irritated, eclipse is irritated, and some people refuse to acknowledge you in conversation for this very reason. I can't stop you from hating religion, particularly mine, but please do not go out of your way to bash it if you know that you'll only piss people off. I can't recall anyone supporting you in a lot of these arguments, and if there were, they were well before my time.

Edit:

i don't know how to not be an asshole about this.

Then maybe you should stop there, as no one wants to or should have to listen at that point.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Hylian Air Force

[Snowy_One]

i don't know how to not be an asshole about this. your ramblings don't make any sense and you can take that from someone who is literally in this fucking field. i've personally asked this question to professors before (physicists and astrophysicists) and they say the terms are interchangeable in science.

Then you shouldn't listen to them. Because keeping these terms separate, especially when you know better, is very important. This isn't being a grammar nazi, it's akin to keeping the terms 'acid' and 'base' separate and having someone ignore it because 'they're both bad to touch'.

[solrocknroll]

You don't seem to understand that it is YOU that hath more the latent time, oh youth. Who's taking more time out of their day to try and debunk one of the many understood truths of the last 2000 years. Eclipse and I don't have to justify our very being to someone who clearly believes themself to be the moral superior, thus we will ever be wrong. Who's the one not listening? Who's really the one who's not willing to budge on their stance? Have I not said before that Christians aren't perfect? And yet you continue to assume that Christians are the lowest and most deplorable of humanity, when history proves this is far from the case, and apart from Europe, Christians are so often the victim. You should probably consider that your words go far beyond logical criticism, almost to the point of the word wars of Lord Raven and Life. As far as I'm concerned, every time religion is brought up, you default to throwing shade at it, which is only going to make people angry. I'm irritated, eclipse is irritated, and some people refuse to acknowledge you in conversation for this very reason. I can't stop you from hating religion, particularly mine, but please do not go out of your way to bash it if you know that you'll only piss people off. I can't recall anyone supporting you in a lot of these arguments, and if there were, they were well before my time.

Edit:

Then maybe you should stop there, as no one wants to or should have to listen at that point.

I agree with Phoenix.

Religion is used to hate innocent people who only want to live and be themselves and to love others.

If you justify the awful treatment they get, you are the problem. I will not rest as a person until every single LGBT person alive is safe and sound. All religions that choose to futilely fight us and stand on the wrong wide of history will one day be mowed over. That goes not just for Christianity, but for every religion.

And funnily, you assume that Phoenix is attacking ypu. Yet Judaism and Islam are also what Phoenix disagrees with, among others. So why do you have to be the victim here?

[Dwalin2010]

I agree with Phoenix.

Religion is used to hate innocent people who only want to live and be themselves and to love others.

If you justify the awful treatment they get, you are the problem. I will not rest as a person until every single LGBT person alive is safe and sound. All religions that choose to futilely fight us and stand on the wrong wide of history will one day be mowed over. That goes not just for Christianity, but for every religion.

And funnily, you assume that Phoenix is attacking ypu. Yet Judaism and Islam are also what Phoenix disagrees with, among others. So why do you have to be the victim here?

Sorry for the intrusion but, since you brought up the LGTB/homosexuality/heterosexuality/homophobia etc conflict, I would like to say that in 99% of the cases I have seen so far BOTH sides use the same methods and are equally belligerent and fanatlcally bent on destroying and humiliating each other. Homosexual people themselves (at least the ones who openly state to be homosexual in these discussions) usually argue in a polite and civil manner; while they defend their positions, they don’t push them down the others’ throats. At least so far I have never seen any of them doing so. The “supporters” of homosexuality who are themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, are usually very different. They often are equally rude, insulting, belligerent and completely unwilling to try to change the opposite side’s mind rather than just bashing their teeth, exactly like extremist homophobes are. I have no idea why, but they probably realize that, not being homosexual themselves, they will never be able to COMPLETELY identify themselves with them and their feelings, therefore they decide to “compensate” with belligerent attitude and insults. Maybe they think this will help the LGBT human rights cause better, but I must say that, If I were homosexual, I would honestly be ashamed of THAT kind of help, I would feel that such methods make us look bad. Just in the same way as I am ashamed of religious fanatics/extremists, in spite of being religious myself.

What I mean, to put it briefly, is that I have yet to see a LGBT discussion which could really be called a “debate” and not a “banal fight” or “who is better at insulting others”. Both sides use the same shameful methods and attitude, and it usually seems it’s about the people’s ego rather than ideologies.

In my opinion, there is no difference what cause is a person fighting for, if such methods are used (just the word “fighting” is already disturbing, since I think it’s pointless to fight without trying to solve a problem with diplomacy first). If somebody has no other way to prove their point than insults and belligerent behavior, does it really matter which side is this person on? The end doesn’t justify the means. If “homophobes” and “LGBT supporters” use the same methods, then they are the same from a moral point of view, even though they support different things. I am convinced that nobody can claim to have made a point it they do so with insults and without trying to be polite.

Sorry for the digression, since it’s only indirectly related to the religion topic.

[solrocknroll]

I'm gay, and I've earned the right to defend myself. I'm not a heterosexual LGBT supporter, I'd go as far as to call myself an SJW.

If you don't respect someone for any reason that they can't control, you are 100% in the wrong. No argument will be taken. I have Christian friends, they just support LGBT people. If they didn't, I would probably refuse to even speak to them.

Until my people are truly free, me and others like myself will never stop. Religion isn't inherently bad, only if it teaches others to hate.

[Dwalin2010]

I'm gay, and I've earned the right to defend myself. I'm not a heterosexual LGBT supporter, I'd go as far as to call myself an SJW.

If you don't respect someone for any reason that they can't control, you are 100% in the wrong. No argument will be taken. I have Christian friends, they just support LGBT people. If they didn't, I would probably refuse to even speak to them.

Until my people are truly free, me and others like myself will never stop. Religion isn't inherently bad, only if it teaches others to hate.

Ok, I understand then. I personally prefer to stay neutral on the issue, since the arguments about this are usually quite heated, but I get your point.

[Phoenix Wright]

You don't seem to understand that it is YOU that hath more the latent time, oh youth. Who's taking more time out of their day to try and debunk one of the many understood truths of the last 2000 years. Eclipse and I don't have to justify our very being to someone who clearly believes themself to be the moral superior, thus we will ever be wrong. Who's the one not listening? Who's really the one who's not willing to budge on their stance? Have I not said before that Christians aren't perfect? And yet you continue to assume that Christians are the lowest and most deplorable of humanity, when history proves this is far from the case, and apart from Europe, Christians are so often the victim. You should probably consider that your words go far beyond logical criticism, almost to the point of the word wars of Lord Raven and Life. As far as I'm concerned, every time religion is brought up, you default to throwing shade at it, which is only going to make people angry. I'm irritated, eclipse is irritated, and some people refuse to acknowledge you in conversation for this very reason. I can't stop you from hating religion, particularly mine, but please do not go out of your way to bash it if you know that you'll only piss people off. I can't recall anyone supporting you in a lot of these arguments, and if there were, they were well before my time.

Edit:

Then maybe you should stop there, as no one wants to or should have to listen at that point.

i feel like when i say the word "religion," you insert the word "christian." i'm not singling out christianity lol.

justify your being how? when did i request this? when did i assume i am your moral superior? when did i conflate scientific knowledge and its methods to morality? when have i done any of the things you are currently accusing me of doing? please point them out to me so that i may make my arguments clearer. i don't wish to upset you. in fact, one of my earliest posts reads, "i have a problem with religion, but not with religious people." another thing, the other day i requested that if you were willing to listen to a formal case for evolution, would you listen? you have yet to respond.

obviously i'm going to throw shade at religion in a topic about it. i don't agree that it should have ever existed. i don't think religion does good to anyone. arguments such as "religion has done good for science," or "religion is the foundation of morality," are fallacious. these things have existed long before religion. faith does not progress humankind. being "nice to science," is not a characteristic of religion, it's a characteristic of a subset of followers. get the wrong followers, and you set back progress 1000 years.

religion does no good to society because it's completely reliant on the people who follow it. this is not true for science. science will do good for society no matter the type of person. even in the face of dishonest research, the rest of the scientific community can correct it. if you're a complete asshole (richard feynman for example), you can still do absolute wonders for science.

this fundamental difference lies in the methods by which science and religion operate.

Then you shouldn't listen to them. Because keeping these terms separate, especially when you know better, is very important. This isn't being a grammar nazi, it's akin to keeping the terms 'acid' and 'base' separate and having someone ignore it because 'they're both bad to touch'.

don't listen to some of the best physicists in the world because snowy (who seemingly has zero science background) says not to.

they're equivalent dude. scientific theory = law. theory of evolution = law of evolution. theory of relativity = law of relativity. law of conservation of energy = theory of conservation of energy.

physical laws are not immutable aspects of science. that is why we have moved away from calling them laws. science is self-correcting. right now, relativity and quantum mechanics butt heads. one of them is wrong somewhere, but they're both equally valid theories (read: laws) as far as observation is concerned at this point in time.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

two things: 1. to believe in something where evidence exists to the contrary is fucking dumb. to believe in something with no evidence is dumb.

2. believing in an idea that cannot be tested is foolish. the null hypothesis would state that something is not the case unless nature says it is in some way. otherwise you either don't accept the hypothesis or you remain agnostic altogether (my position). i cannot fathom why someone would believe anything without actual evidence.

Forgive me, if I misunderstand you, but you come across as an atheist, not agnostic. Atheists are general the ones who steadfastly deny the possibility of a higher power, whereas agnostics believe there's no way to know for sure one way or another, and are generally ambivalent to discussion. That being said, I know many fine people who are atheists and good people.

Personally, I believe in a higher power, but there's still a bit of agnostic in me, since I feel there is no absolute way to know one way or the other.

Sorry for the intrusion but, since you brought up the LGTB/homosexuality/heterosexuality/homophobia etc conflict, I would like to say that in 99% of the cases I have seen so far BOTH sides use the same methods and are equally belligerent and fanatlcally bent on destroying and humiliating each other. Homosexual people themselves (at least the ones who openly state to be homosexual in these discussions) usually argue in a polite and civil manner; while they defend their positions, they don’t push them down the others’ throats. At least so far I have never seen any of them doing so. The “supporters” of homosexuality who are themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, are usually very different. They often are equally rude, insulting, belligerent and completely unwilling to try to change the opposite side’s mind rather than just bashing their teeth, exactly like extremist homophobes are. I have no idea why, but they probably realize that, not being homosexual themselves, they will never be able to COMPLETELY identify themselves with them and their feelings, therefore they decide to “compensate” with belligerent attitude and insults. Maybe they think this will help the LGBT human rights cause better, but I must say that, If I were homosexual, I would honestly be ashamed of THAT kind of help, I would feel that such methods make us look bad. Just in the same way as I am ashamed of religious fanatics/extremists, in spite of being religious myself.

What I mean, to put it briefly, is that I have yet to see a LGBT discussion which could really be called a “debate” and not a “banal fight” or “who is better at insulting others”. Both sides use the same shameful methods and attitude, and it usually seems it’s about the people’s ego rather than ideologies.

In my opinion, there is no difference what cause is a person fighting for, if such methods are used (just the word “fighting” is already disturbing, since I think it’s pointless to fight without trying to solve a problem with diplomacy first). If somebody has no other way to prove their point than insults and belligerent behavior, does it really matter which side is this person on? The end doesn’t justify the means. If “homophobes” and “LGBT supporters” use the same methods, then they are the same from a moral point of view, even though they support different things. I am convinced that nobody can claim to have made a point it they do so with insults and without trying to be polite.

Sorry for the digression, since it’s only indirectly related to the religion topic.

Well, I may one of the ones you are talking about. I'm a lesbian leaning bi. I've dated far more girls than otherwise, for me to be married to my spouse took a very special person. I am a bit sad that so many within the LGBT community spit such vitriol against those we may disagree with. I've had my own issues with the Catholic Church. I've been unable to baptize my son, since I'm a sinner, but I don't hate all religion because of it. I don't like seeing the hate go in either direction, and I generally try to conduct myself in a loving manner.