Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[Aridas]

Simply, religion generally opposes science. (As is evidenced)

Yes, yes. Try to hide from actually addressing the various ways that you were clearly demonstrated to be wrong by offering up a weaker alteration of one of your claims that you've still not presented either valid evidence or cogent argument to support. That'll fix eeeeverything, right?

What you've actually demonstrated is, at best, that some parts of some religions oppose some findings of science. No one here disputed that in the first place, though, and most of those here have pointedly opposed the opposition to science, where it actually happens, especially when it happens in potentially deadly ways. You're not actually offering anything particularly new to us here as evidence, either, for that matter, and most of us can point out lots and lots of other instances where religions have caused bad things, or at least played very important roles in why things happened as they did. So, given all that, why should any of us accept your poorly formulated and terribly supported actual claims that would do little more than give the more mystical woos a field day with how much they can accurately find to be wrong with it and use that to further reconfirm their biases?

 

[Aridas]

Also, this is where your argument collapses; religion is generally consistent with myths.

Your interpretation of what I said is quite strange if you think that would even undermine the points that were actually made, much less cause the argument to collapse.

So, in contrast to your nonsensical quote, there was certainly a focused removal of religion, from astronomy for example.

At best, one could say that there was a focused removal of falsifiable claims that were consistently able to be falsified. Even then, "focused" could still be something of a hard sell, though, considering how long it actually took to do. Saying that there was a focused removal of religion, though, is laughably wrong, given that the reasons for the removal had little to nothing to do with the presence or lack thereof of mythological or religious influence. Of some relevance there is that astrology was largely treated as mythological only after it was found to consistently fail the increasingly accurate tests, so you're trying to put the cart before the horse fairly clearly. As another similar example, there were multiple forms of creationism that were scientifically viable for quite a while, until the evidence against them became clear and they were then discarded because of that, not because of their relation to religion. Much related to religion and mythology was removed from natural philosophy and later, science, yes, but the reasons for the removal largely had nothing of note to do with its relation to religion or mythology, which make your claim distinctly misleading at best and flat out wrong otherwise.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do you reject Darwin?

How does the empirical observation that chimpanzees don't invent science and technology, supposedly translate to one rejecting Darwin?

Are you attempting to deflect from the fact that the brains of humans are generally, demonstrably more advanced than chimps, contrary to your prior claim of the opposite?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Astrology is not mythology, so your rephrasing does not help at all.

Astrology is unavoidably of mythological description:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisces_(astrology)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

One of the largest religions in the world, Catholicism, is not opposed to science. It was a Jesuit monk working in a Vatican funded observatory who proposed the Big Bang theory.

Besides, not all sciences are "opposed" by those believers who "oppose" science. You will have some difficulty in finding religious believers who are opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity, nuclear physics, electromagnetism, or quantum physics.

Your sweeping generalisations are simply wrong.

I didn't say that all things said by all religious people oppose science.

What I instead said was that religion generally opposes science, and that is empirically observed. (This is the reason why science was separated from the nonsense that is religion, from science in antiquity to modern science)


FOOTNOTE:
Catholicism unavoidably generally opposes science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Heaven, hell, etc are scientifically unfounded.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, yes. Try to hide from actually addressing the various ways that you were clearly demonstrated to be wrong by offering up a weaker alteration of one of your claims that you've still not presented either valid evidence or cogent argument to support. That'll fix eeeeverything, right?

What you've actually demonstrated is, at best, that some parts of some religions oppose some findings of science. No one here disputed that in the first place, though, and most of those here have pointedly opposed the opposition to science, where it actually happens, especially when it happens in potentially deadly ways. You're not actually offering anything particularly new to us here as evidence, either, for that matter, and most of us can point out lots and lots of other instances where religions have caused bad things, or at least played very important roles in why things happened as they did. So, given all that, why should any of us accept your poorly formulated and terribly supported actual claims that would do little more than give the more mystical woos a field day with how much they can accurately find to be wrong with it and use that to further reconfirm their biases?

Yes, religion is empirically observed to generally oppose science, and your feelings, and evidence contrasting responses, not surprisingly, won't change the evidence.

 

[gigmaster]

I don't believe religion is in opposition to science, because they are two different entities. One is an organized and codified method for determining the probable accuracy of any given problem or question, as long as enough information is available. The other is an untestable philosophy which has proven to be somewhat accurate on some things, partially inaccurate on othther things, and completely wrong in others. Science has been proven to be a valid discipline for thousands of years, and unliike religion, it is fluid, and can be adjusted when new information becomes available.

That being said, although I personally prefer science, there are many people who seem to benefit from religion, and I would not begrudge them that, as long as they stay out of my hair. I willing to let them be....

 

[Aridas]

Yes, religion is empirically observed to generally oppose science,

Go ahead and actually demonstrate that with something valid for once, then? You've had plenty of time to and opportunity to do so, after all.

and your feelings, and evidence contrasting responses, not surprisingly, won't change the evidence.

Your feelings and continued failure to present valid evidence to support your actual claim remain as unconvincing as ever. You've flailed about a lot as you invoked numerous fallacies and presented evidence that would only actually back up dramatically weaker or completely irrelevant claims than the ones that you've been trying to push. Your empty rhetoric, not surprisingly, doesn't change that.

 

[steenkh]

Astrology is unavoidably of mythological description:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisces_(astrology)

When you look up the astronomical constellation of Pisces in Wikipedia you get the same mythological story, so please revise your argument.

 

[steenkh]

I didn't say that all things said by all religious people oppose science.

What I instead said was that religion generally opposes science, and that is empirically observed. (This is the reason why science was separated from the nonsense that is religion, from science in antiquity to modern science)

The phrasing "opposes science" is unfortunate, because even with the "generally" qualifier added, you are still making a sweeping statement that is difficult to defend.

FOOTNOTE:
Catholicism unavoidably generally opposes science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Heaven, hell, etc are scientifically unfounded.

They are certainly scientifically unfounded, but that does not make Heaven and Hell in opposition to science. You cannot scientifically falsify them.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The phrasing "opposes science" is unfortunate, because even with the "generally" qualifier added, you are still making a sweeping statement that is difficult to defend.

Not at all "difficult to defend".

[IMGw=650]https://i.imgur.com/oJFCgf5.png[/IMGw]

You don't need to be a nobel prize winning genius to see the ;
(1) Science is thus far mankind's best invention/tool. (Responsible for internet, modern cars, medicine, supermarket foods, surgical equipment, modern hospitals... )

(2) Religion opposes science, where religion is scientifically worthless.

▼
▼
▼

Why does religion oppose science?

(1) As an example, astrology/myth/religion was removed from astronomy (See reference [2]), when archaic science became modern science, in the scientific revolution. (See reference [1])

(2) Scientific knowledge/progress was held back by Christianity as another clear example of religion opposing science. (See reference [3])

▽
▽
▽

Quick References:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy
[3] https://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=17880

 

[Aridas]

(1) Science is thus far mankind's best invention/tool. (Responsible for internet, modern cars, medicine, supermarket foods, surgical equipment, modern hospitals... )

Fairly certainly, it is.

(2) Religion opposes science, where religion is scientifically worthless.

As usual, you're showing off your ignorance and bias. Is there some reason why you are so intent on buying into the lies of the anti-science theists and the wishful thinking of the anti-theists?

Why does religion oppose science?

(1) As an example, astrology/myth/religion was removed from astronomy (See reference [2]), when archaic science became modern science, in the scientific revolution. (See reference [1])

Science opposes the demonstrably falsifiable. That's not even remotely the same as opposing religion. In fact, religion-including theories historically have had significant support from scientists, at least until such time as the available evidence clearly demonstrated that they needed to go to the scrap heap, which pretty clearly shows one of the huge flaws in your logic. Geological Creationism, as I've mentioned before, is an easy and obvious example, in addition to the astrology that you favor citing, even after your own cited sources were shown not to support your claim.

(2) Scientific knowledge/progress was held back by Christianity as another clear example of religion opposing science. (See reference [3])

To some extent, Christianity did hold back science during the "Dark Ages" and a number of Christians certainly are trying to undermine and fight against science during the present day. The actual situation was a fair bit more complex, though, and trying to focus solely on the negative part of Christianity's role in it while ignoring the actual reasons why the "Dark Ages" actually happened, what it actually was, and the positive things that Christianity did makes for rather terrible historical revisionism. It is perhaps particularly telling that your link, yet again, largely refutes the overall case that you're trying to push, like so many of your links have previously.