Religion of Science: A Brief History

[wuliheron]

What utter fundamentalist nonsense. Just as religious fundamentalists tend to totally discount, deny, and argue against the value and worth of the sciences, ya'll are just using this forum to spout hateful and erronious propoganda against religion.

I have no love for religion, but this forum is for scholarly discussion of issues, not hate propoganda.

Anyone can visit the Scientific Pantheist website if they so desire and see for themselves that religion and science can belong in the same sentence. For that matter, religion and atheism can belong in the same sentence. To state otherwise is degrading to all those religious atheists out there devoted to science.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

It appears that I have to repeat myself :
SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION.

Royce, my last comments on this subject were
spoiled by Alexander who indeed believes in a
religion rather than just viewing science as it is.
It would appear that you are using his comments
to justify what you say and that's unfair (and
clearly incorrect, of course).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Royce]

Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science. A few years later they may have had to rewrite all the books and textbooks because further experiement proved that the conclusions were wrong and had to be refined. We adjusted our thinking and again believed without visable proof because it is science.

Alexander or LogicalAthiest, its hard to tell them apart, defined faith as belief with no visable proof.

No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, without visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

If, however, I have actually expeienced or witnessed an event that has the slightest tinge of religion or the word God mentioned in the same paragraph it is bunk, myth or delusion or I am a fool or liar.

That is an irrationally biased double standard.

If one scientist says something, no matter how rediculous, incredable or nonsensecal, if he has the right anagrams behind his name, he is taken seriously and we wait. If one or more scientist from other labs come forth and says that they have verified the first scientist finding there is great hoopala, head lines in the papers, more federal grants of my tax money and if they are lucky they get to go to sweden in a few years and collect a million dollars.

If a million people say something that has any association with God or religion and 10 million people all over the world verify it, they are all self deluded fools, liars or con men.

It is not right nor justified. It is a double standard.

When I sited healings and near death experiences you did just that.
If I tried to to do that to findings of scientist siting religious reasons you and most of the others would laugh me right out of the PF's and once I was out you'd lock me out forever. Is that really rational reasonable behavior or knee jerk reactions caused by an irrational emotional bias?

 

[AutisticSavant]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Carl Sagan]

(When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. [Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]

One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]

If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate...Try science. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?...For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

Theres more, but you get the point right royce?

 

[Royce]

Of course I do. What's more I agree with you and feel the same way as most here feel about organized religion. I will even admit that I have an irrational emotional reaction when organized religion is mentioned. The only point that I am trying to make is that people are human, even rational logigal materialistic athiest and that some of them have as irrational illogical faith in science as many religionist have in their religion.
Just as all science isn't good, right or conclusive, all religion or believe in God or a creator isn't stupid irrational or self delusional. They are both belief systems that require faith to believe. Religion believes in some higher being, God and or a creator. Science, science buffs like myself, believe in the word and correctness and honesty of a relative few scientist. I wasn't there. I probably wouldn't have understood what was going on if I were, when they performed their experiments nor I suspect were you or anyone else here at PF. We have to take their word for it. We have to believe without self evident or commonsense, intuitively obvious evidence. That is an act of faith. QM and QED take a leap of faith.
What's the difference? I reiterate. BOTH RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE BELIEF SYSTEMS FOR US LAYMEN AND REQUIRE FAITH.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science.

This is the crux of your mis-interpretation. Clearly no, you have not done the Michelson-Morely experiment. But you CAN if you WANT TO. The evidence is there for the observing if you choose to observe it. This is not the case with religion as there simply ISN'T any evidence.

In order to "believe in" science, you first have to choose to ignore the scientific method. But then, without the scientific method, it isn't science, is it? Whether you choose to participate or not, science is still science and it still rests on EVIDENCE.

Incidentally, I am winning a nearly identical argument http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5404

 

[Hurkyl]

This is not the case with religion as there simply ISN'T any evidence.

Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.

science is still science and it still rests on EVIDENCE.

Specifically, scientific evidence. The "science rests on evidence" is a neat little circular argument.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science. A few years later they may have had to rewrite all the books and textbooks because further experiement proved that the conclusions were wrong and had to be refined. We adjusted our thinking and again believed without visable proof because it is science.

That is one great reason to trust science; it is self-correcting ,where religion is not. All science claims is that it is presenting the best assumption based on the evidence.

Alexander or LogicalAthiest, its hard to tell them apart, defined faith as belief with no visable proof.

No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, without visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

If, however, I have actually expeienced or witnessed an event that has the slightest tinge of religion or the word God mentioned in the same paragraph it is bunk, myth or delusion or I am a fool or liar.

That is an irrationally biased double standard.
If one scientist says something, no matter how rediculous, incredable or nonsensecal, if he has the right anagrams behind his name, he is taken seriously and we wait. If one or more scientist from other labs come forth and says that they have verified the first scientist finding there is great hoopala, head lines in the papers, more federal grants of my tax money and if they are lucky they get to go to sweden in a few years and collect a million dollars.

If a million people say something that has any association with God or religion and 10 million people all over the world verify it, they are all self deluded fools, liars or con men.

It is not right nor justified. It is a double standard.

When I sited healings and near death experiences you did just that.
If I tried to to do that to findings of scientist siting religious reasons you and most of the others would laugh me right out of the PF's and once I was out you'd lock me out forever. Is that really rational reasonable behavior or knee jerk reactions caused by an irrational emotional bias?

You simply misunderstand what the standard is. The standard is that the evidence can be repeated and shown to anyone, regardless of their beliefs, today, tomorrow, next year.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.

This confuses me...your statement is consistant with the idea that religion is either delusion or brainwashing. If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

 

[Royce]

Zero, you still refuse to accept the obvious. As Hurkyl said you are free and more than welcome to do any number of things, some do not require faith at all, and see for yourself, verify for yourself that some of what we believe it is true.
People, scientist and philosophers have been debating and arguing about religion probably since before it became religion. That is why there are so many religions in the world tody. Each religion has numerous divisions, sects, and cults that have split off from the original sect. Ever hear of the Great Reformation? Religion changes and evolves just as science does. That is obvious visable evidence that your statement below is wrong and based on ignorance or a refusal to acknowledge factual truth.

"That is one great reason to trust science; it is self-correcting ,where religion is not. All science claims is that it is presenting the best assumption based on the evidence."

Where, oh where, is that OPEN inquiering mind that science is so proud of? I'll tell you where it is, its locked in a closet afraid to come out and look around because it might learn that it isn't the only truth in the universe.

It is entirely possiple for more that one Truth to exist in this vast universe. SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can actually complment each other and both will benifit by it.

 

[wuliheron]

Royce, its just scientific fundamentalism rearing its ugly head again. Don't take it too personally.

Religion and science are compatable specifically because of capitalism and, again, because of the fundamentalist roots all these institutions share. Both religion and the sciences thrive in capitalistic countries where money drives the marketplace of innovation and threatens moral standards. Religion demonstrably serves to counter these tendencies and regulate them.

Socialistic countries support the sciences as well, but are significantly less religious and depend more upon their governments and societies to establish the foundations of morality. In addition, because they have left behind the extreme dualism of capitalism vs morality, science vs religion, they also tend to be significantly less fundamentalist in general.

 

[Royce]

Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

 

[Zero]

That's what you guys must love about philosophy and religion...not only can you make up whatever suits you, but you can call others 'close minded' for not accepting your ideas as anything more than your imagination. Science has facts, you have mystic mumblings and myths.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

How many times do I 'open my mind' to things that aren't there, before I stop? We should 'wake up'? When all you offer is dreams without substance?

 

[Royce]

I offer nothing but ideas and thoughts. I don't want or expect you or anyone else to accept anything. I just expect my thoughts and ideas to be read and thought about with an open mind as I try to do with all of yours; considered and accepted or rejected on their own merits, not rejected out of hand because they have within them the words "God" or "religion."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I offer nothing but ideas and thoughts. I don't want or expect you or anyone else to accept anything. I just expect my thoughts and ideas to be read and thought about with an open mind as I try to do with all of yours; considered and accepted or rejected on their own merits, not rejected out of hand because they have within them the words "God" or "religion."

Oh, I did read them...and they are pretty standard stuff. You seem to be coming from it at the angle of 'religion is just as good as science at what science does'...and since that is patently false, you try to re-label science as just another religion.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

I live on a commune in southern Baptist redneck territory. Radical conservative communists are every bit as unreasonable and foam at the mouth as the worst religious fundamentalist. Put 'em all in the same room together and they'd kill each other-- in the names of God and science of course. They are two extremes of the same fundamentalism which can be directly traced to its sources within the welfare states and is well documented.

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.

Fundamentalism, both religious and scientific, is notoriously violent and its violence is notably creative. The number one manufactured export of the US is weapons, most of which are developed in time of war. As a result, the US routinely rakes in half the Nobel prizes.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
That's what you guys must love about philosophy and religion...not only can you make up whatever suits you, but you can call others 'close minded' for not accepting your ideas as anything more than your imagination. Science has facts, you have mystic mumblings and myths.

And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

 

[Royce]

You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

 

[AutisticSavant]

Originally posted by Royce
You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

1. correct
2. correct
3. wrong
4. correct on first part, wrong on second part
5. wrong

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
You miss my point and the point of this thread.

Better make up your mind as to what the point of this thread is. Your original post suggested the point was that science is a religion, which is patently absurd, however science and religion do have some things in common as I have pointed out.

As for religion being just as good as science, that I believe is patently absurd as well. The most progressive and humane nations in the world today are largely secular. Again, as I have already pointed out, religion has supported the development and rapid growth of the sciences, but at horrific cost. As the world grows steadily smaller it can no longer support the capitalistic and feudalistic systems that support religion.

 

[ahrkron]

A couple comments,

Originally posted by Royce
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.

It seems to me that this statement is basically void.
Every human activity is "good" when evaluated using its own criteria. An extreme example woould be to say that "antisemitism is as good in race-perfecting matters as science is in physical matters".

The only way to break the tautology would be to use a criterion that applies to both... which is where the problem starts.

Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.

Again, in order to treat them on the same footing (and evaluate how "valid" or "appropriate" they are), we would need to agree to a criterion. In principle, such criterion should not be contained on either (or be equally important in both). This is a hard task, since they basically cover all of our experiences (making it difficult to find a criterion outside both of them) from very different perspectives (which makes it hard to find a criterion shared by both with equal importance).

Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.

I think this is should not be the case.
It is very unfortunate that science education sometimes ends up teaching "scientific dogma", and making people memorize data and "laws".

The very essence of science is the method, not the results. Memorizing free fall equations and the value of g is no different to religion (acceptance based on authority).

The difference comes when a student understands how such equations correspond to reality. When he takes a wrist watch and times a rock falling, either by himself or in a school lab.

Once this happens, it is not any more the same kind of "faith", since then he knows how every step should relate to experiences.

Not only that. Also, if he wants and is interested enough, it is always always possible for him to go to the lab where any chosen piece of science was found and say "show me that what you published is true". People there will most probably be happy to show him the equipment and the records of the finding, and to explain how the conclusions were obtained.

Science classes shoud have a much closer relation to the corresponding labs.

This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.

Again, science should not be regarded as a matter of "faith" any more than sports, economy, politics, etc.

There is a level in which all human interaction is a matter of faith (you have to trust the person that says he is your father, the waiter that takes your credit card for a moment, the boy that parks your car at a restaurant, the people that handles your bank account information). This is true of any organized social effort, as science is. This "ground level" of faith cannot be avoided.

However, religious faith is clearly much above this "ground level" of faith.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
This confuses me...your statement is consistant with the idea that religion is either delusion or brainwashing. If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

But, in Science, on needs to first have faith in the human ability to understand the objective Universe (whose existence they must also have faith in), and only then can they benefit from "proof".

Note: I am not saying that Science is a religion, as I am rather positive it is not (since, in order to be a religion, it would have to have some kind of deity (at least by most definitions of "religion")).

 

[Royce]

Wuli and all, I apologize. My last post was in response to Zero's last post which at the time was the last one visible to me. Apparently we were writing our replies at the same time and yours was posted before mine. I had not yet read it when I posted myreply. I should have shown the quote to which I was replying. Again, sorry about that.
Now to reply to all of you.
I do not think that science is a religion. That is absurd as wuli says. My original post was a parody, humor, or at least my feable and apparently poor attempt at humor. My one and only purpose at the time was to show the absurdity of the position that so many others have taken in other threads in this forum that science is solely based on fact, experiements and physical evidence; and, the any and all religion being based solely on faith is illogical, foolish and stupid. A minor point at the time was that they totally reject as nonexistant or lies or delusions the centuries of philisophical debate, the millions of testimonys and witnesses of religios and spitual phenomina. All saying that we have NO evidence.
The other point came about and were developed though out the response to the many reponses in this thread.

ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce


ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

Try the general board, pal...humor gets lost everywhere else!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

Show me a fact, just one...something conctrete...please!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by wuliheron

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.

I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by kat
I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

The statistics for welfare I obtained from Utne magazine, which is not likely to inflate such figures. However, I have heard them criticized as not accounting for differences in cost of living.

The non-religious/religious statistics was a mistake on my part. I ment to say Fundamentalist/Nonfundamentalists. Recent statistics gathered show a clear progression and preference for Fundamentalist religions in the most capitalistic countries, less fundamentalist ones in less capitalistic countries, and Atheism in communist countries. In other words, the more capitalistic and classist a country, the more religious.

If you want, there are also a number of interesting statistics correlating crime and religion as well. However, religious statistics and how meaningful they are admittedly difficult to tabulate. One study of people in the US claiming to attend church regularly, for example, demonstrated they often lie about such things.

Here is one of the better websites I know of on the subject:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html#related

They claim there are an estimated one million atheists in the US and 18 million in europe.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Royce
...Presumably apples didn’t fall from trees prior to Newton’s discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier...

[?]

Einstein... discovered first Special and then General Relativity by proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton’s work...

...Schrodinger... invented or discovered Quantum mechanics by putting a cat in a box with a “diabolical device’...

Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong. He also did away with Newton’s gravity by showing that space was bent, twisted and deformed by matter and everything tended to run down hill as a result.

Dare I go on?

Good Goddess almighty. Someone needs to hit the books.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal.

Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.

Interesting twist.

If you see an apple falling down, the the only thing which prevents you from seeing the evidence of apple falling up (in the direction of heaven) is the faith that apples fall up, not down.

As soon as you get strong faith that apples fall up - you start seeing them falling up everywhere.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

That's a conservative estimate, and the vast majority of them are fundamentalists. You know, religions that say women are inferior to men, evil must be fought by all means possible, etc. A good percentage of the Atheists I know in the US are just as fundamentalist, but with different beliefs. Ted Kazinsky, the unibomber, was an atheist who believed technology is evil. Others I know believe capitalism is the source of all evil, but most seem to believe religion is the source of all evil. Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.

 

[FZ+]

Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.

Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..

According to some statistics, atheists in general are peaceful, law abiding citizens in comparison to the religious. That's not to say Atheism doesn't have its own drawbacks, especially fundamentalist atheism. Just that many of the arguments put forward in favor of religion are highly questionable.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning?