No, the first settlements and even colonies were founded for the sake of religious freedom. Not necessarily the same kind of contribution, but yeah.
I think Milly is thinking in terms of recent times.
---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------
And if he's making money at the same time, then it's good for him I guess...
But I'm talking about overall contribution, and how Islam contributed as much as Christianity and Catholicism.
The dawn of institutionalized religion you mean...which I think it can be argued that it began in 325, in Nicaea....unless someone else has knowledge of earlier date(s)Quote:
PS: you should look up Jesuits I think, and read about them a bit...they have been around in the last 1500 years, so within your timeframe, and they are specialized in education...
Last edited by benelori; September 03, 2013 at 02:27 AM.
From what I've read though, Europeans aren't assholes about science and religion like Americans are and have agreed that both can go hand in hand and cooperate. In America, it tends to be science vs. religion.
Religion as whole though - from the start of belief in higher power. Which I assume began when ancestors long ago had no idea how things happened and made up stories of deities and spirits to explain, which created god, allah, and etc.
I think you may be conflating Christianity with modern Western Civilization. The first Islamic empires lied at the crossroads of the hindustan and byzantine civilizations while simultaneously amalgamating the persian civilization into its structure (post Umayyad caliphate). It benefited from a huge resource of intellectual thought, scripture and teachings which it then began to develop and progress even further. This intellectual legacy carried on and led to more modern developments especially during the middle ages when Europe was in intellectual demise. Many of the intellectual underpinnings of modern western civilization, i.e. Greek philosophy and sciences would later be translated from Arabic back into Latin (by men like Thomas Aquinas) and would be the seeds of the european renaissance. Most of what we know about philosophy and science would have been lost during the middle ages and our modern world would not have existed as we know it today.
An example of this that you might be familiar with is Hindu-Arabic numerals. The basic number system. It was invented and developed in the subcontinent and those teachings were used by islamic mathematicians (like Al-kindi, Khwarzimi) and further developed. This work was then translated into Latin (by men like Fibonacci), afterwards the false assumption was made that the numeric system was originally arabic and began calling it arabic numerals even though the Arabs/Persians themselves did explicitly call it hindu. This is only recently being rectified.
Why is atheism so small in numbers, when clearly many people disagree with religious beliefs that worship a higher being? Especially, when science is factual and rational, which has been very useful and progressive for the world, yet people still put hopes in a fallacy that does not depend on rational argument or factual evidence? Why do people enjoy belonging to something or become so hypnotized by the notion that a miracle will save their unfortunate lives, rather then just doing something about it, in order to make change for themselves? Anyways, I hope I did not offend anyone.
The last sentence of your post made me laugh lol
But I mean, whether you are religious or not, religion as a human practice has been around so long and in so many different societies, it is probably safe to say it is almost biological. It will be a very difficult practice to give up as a species.
I don't think religion is as biological as the idea of society/group is. Given the argument of some people, it feels as if they're in a religion due to the community or family they were raised in or due to fear of going to Hell.
I don't believe in that sort of riff raff though. There's no deity, Jesus, or whatnot. Sadly, it's not just atheism vs. religions, it's science vs. religions.
Most of us are not "atheists" because we don't have the fucks to give. Religion does not play a major part in my life. I still don't care enough to deny the existence of god, let alone align myself in opposition to religion. I celebrate a few major holidays with family, in a strictly secular fashion. No prayers, no temple, no ceremony. I don't give enough fucks to formulate some pseudo-intellectual argument against religion. There is nothing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist. Just as pushy, narrow minded, and long winded as a religious missionary, but twice as sanctimonious. The only thing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist is a proselytizing who invokes science, without any real working scientific knowledge.
I have always said science and religion can coexist like they used to. Religious people whose only source of information is biased towards god and against science are just as annoying because they don't have close to accurate information. I personally find "so we evolved from monkeys" to be very ignorant, as it shows no research or knowledge at all.
Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas provides 5 rational ways in terms of proving God, of course not as evident, but the point remains hat religion uses logic as well, at least tries to prove it's point through it.
I don't think religions should be ridden of, but the mindset of many people need to change. Rather than be diehard religious, they need to be more open minded and consider different views.
Open mindness is an issue of perspective. From what I have experienced people with whom we do not agree are perceived as close and narrow minded while people with whom we agree are perceived as open minded and all that stuff. People's perception of us as open or close minded ends up depending on how much they agree with me to begin with.... Its rare to see someone who perceives himself or people who agree with him as close minded. At least I have never seen that so far. Perhaps that is the part that makes the issue so complicated.... Someone who takes a scientific/logical approach to problems will be invariably seen as close and narrow minded by someone who takes a religious/spiritual approach to the same thing (my point here is not about who is correct, its about the perspective). Maybe to some extent the issue is not of open mindness but rather of simple and basic tolerance.
As was already said, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The issue here is to keep them separated so as to do both right. The issue here is that when you mix them you are doing both wrong. Nothing properly religious can ever be proven or rejected by science. Nothing properly scientific can ever have religious implications because science does not attempt to answer spiritual questions. You can't proof religion with science because things that are properly religious are not things upon which you can make testable predictions on. Leave things on which you can do proper science to to the scientists and the rest leave it to people's whims. Believing in the afterlife or god and other things which fall in the spiritual area are ultimately unrelated to science and you ability to do science right. What we should take a stance against is against doing religion wrong, against using religion to reject science (you know, stuff like creationism, homeopathy and other stuff which rejects actual objective and scientific knowledge). In the same manner we should take a stance against people who use science to disprove religion (stuff like saying evolution disproves god or the afterlife and such things, its just plain irrational and poor science; unless the religious/spiritual/esoteric point in question is being somehow based on on something measurable or scientific sounding in which case just disprove away....).