On 12 Maj, 02:10, John Schilling <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Remus Shepherd
<re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >John Schilling <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> If the argument is, "space travel requires *rocket science*, which is
> >> the Essence of Pure Smartness, thus space travel will be the domain
> >> of Really Smart People who will of course be smart enough to
understand
> >> that all this religion stuff is pure nonsense and be atheists like
me",
> >> then no. We've heard all that before, for every possible permutation
> >> of "smart enough to prosper in the glorious new future" and "believe
> >> what I believe", and it's never true.
> > I think the argument is that space travel requires science, which
> >requires the scientific method, which religion has a tendency and
history
> >of denigrating and destroying.
>
> Except for the slight detail that religion has no great tendency or
> history of any such thing. Indeed, the actual history of religion is
> quite the opposite.
That would be worth looking into. Can you point us to any longer
account of this history that verifies your statement...?
> Religion has, in some modern circles, a *reputation* for denegrating
> and destroying the scientific method. This reputation is primarily
> due to the highly visible interaction between a minority of religions
> and a minority of sciences, and only the ignorant or the foolish would
> generalize from that to simply "religion".
Well. If we look at Christianity and Islam, both their holy texts have
places where the faithful are encouraged to follow new ideas and
educate themselves. Great. However, how many of their adherents are
really following that advice (beyond educating themselves *in the holy
texts*, which is not what is meant)? I know there are religious
scientists and science fiction fans and people who very sensibly see
no conflict between religion and science (after all, science is simply
describing the beauty of God's work), but the vast majority of
ordinary Christians and Muslims don't seem to me to have either a
scientific attitude or much of an interest in science at all, beyond
the latest model of cell phones or such. Rather, a great many of them
tend to be a conservative, backward-looking lot. Sure, even in Muslim
countries there are perfectly professional scientists, but they are
the well-educated (and possibly to some degree secularized) elite.
Hardly an example of the typical religious person in such a society.
Come to think of it, does any country with a religious regime actually
mass-produce any technology...? I can't think of any. (Well, the U.S.
comes somewhat to mind, what with a born-again President and "faith-
based initiatives" and what-not, but there *is* that Establishment
Clause thingy in the Constitution, which is *supposed* to be
respected...)
I see both fiction and religion (related phenomena, I dare venture) as
attempts to formulate theories about how the world works. As proto-
science, therefore. The farther they come; the more detailed their
understanding of the world, the more they will historically approach
science, because, ideally, the more of what they learn they will
incorporate into their world view (this is also why science fiction is
the most highly developed form of fiction). Between religion and
science lies stages like philosophy and political ideology.
This in itself is all good and well. Where it creates problems is when
people will not change with the times and embrace new developments.
Apparently they prefer a more literal and simplistic interpretation of
the scriptures or ideologies, which only consolidates their ignorance
of science. That, and very pious people tend to be terrifically
boring, sporting one-track minds and dogmatic, doctrinaire attitudes.
Bleurgh.
But they're not to blame. The root of the problem, of course, is lack
of education. Sufficient education will solve just about every problem
in the world (and yeah, I know there are very educated religious
people, but again: they are exceptions, not typical examples). And
most rulers (religious and otherwise) probably know this, but for
reasons to do with money and control it's not in their interest to
introduce better education.
> > I don't buy that argument as such, but it's not a bad argument. It
> >is not enough to have faith that your spaceship has no leaks in it, for
> >example.
>
> Have you noticed any actual tendency for spaceships built by religious
> people to be any leakier than spaceships built by atheists? Because I
> certainly haven't.
And have you ever encountered a spaceship built entirely by (or, for
that matter, of) religious people? Because I certainly haven't. ;-D
- Tue
|
