If we had no religion the last 100 years, would we have advanced more than we have now or would it be the same?

If 100% of the world was religious the last 100 years, would we be where we are now or be even further? 1000 years... 2000 years... 10000 years?

When we study and try to improve our understandings of things that earlier generations didn't unlock the secret too yet do our personal faith make us ignore or simply disregard important discoveries?

The question is simple but the meaning is wide, let me hear what you guys think.

We would have advanced in a lot of controversial areas of science, but(even though I believe organized religion is horrible) without it we would have lost a lot of artistic, written and video advancement in a lot of areas.

Just as long as religion doesn't even attempt to interfere with my life, I'll hold no grudges or wish it's destruction because those are the kinds I hate.

It depends on what religion you are on about, if paganism or Satanism then I think we would still be going ahead fine.

I dont want to expose any specific religion(s), but if you have different feelings about the influence, good or bad, of some different religions regarding the topic then feel free to write it. I would like some opinions about this as I might be able to use it for something else and its quite interresting if you ask me atleast this question.

Well some religions would rather revert back to the dark ages which is pointless look at the problems back then.
Some religions I feel though will happily move along forward instead of trying to drag people backwards.
I also feel though that there are some people in Religion who would help us go forward even if they belong to a religion that wants to go backwards.

I'm not saying religion will defiantly drag us down but it depends on the majority of the people in that religion that want to drag us backwards.


If I had to trust a religion to carry on and help us move forward I would place my bets on Paganism or Satanism or even Christianity if the majority of the people want to move forward for the good of man.
If the majority of that Religion thought science was evil and shunned it for leading a simple life then I think we wont be going anywhere soon.

Why those 3 religions? what do you think they hold that would help up progress faster or equally fast?
Do you feel the scientists of those relegions would hold any major discoveries to themselfs if it contradicted their personal faith? please elaborate

Its not that they hold anything to help us progress faster it is just that they have no problem with technology and their beliefs are not afraid to move forward.

In fact I would think Pagans would keep a nice steady balance between science and the Earth So I would think we would progress but also take better care of the planet.

Satanism I think would push forward no matter what. I have met many wonderful Satanists and I believe that they would push forward but not be worried about what other religions would think. If lets say one religion screamed out oh technology is evil and tried to dictate what we should do, I think Satanism would just blank them out and push ahead anyway.





No not really because even if we were able to prove that Gods do not exist I doubt any religion would listen, I would think they would just dismiss the evidence because it is faith that makes them believe.


Edit : Forgot about Christianity


Christianity fits into one of those religions that would drag us backwards if it could but some of its members are happy to learn about science and technology which is good, but as long as it was not twisted to suit that religions belief. Only a some of its people would I trust to help the world move forward.

I think religion may have advanced us in the past in many ways but now we are so advanced in our knowledge of science & human psychology that religion is not necessary . I feel it stagnates development

What things made us so advanced that religion started to stagnate us? compared to what kind of things do you think religion helped advance us in the past, any ideas?

Well we know what causes earthquakes,crop failure ,illness, thunder etc. We don't need to blame it on an angry god.

I think religion brought order, inspired creativity (through suffering LOL). and actually questioning /challenging belief systems>because they existed in place>advanced us> thank (human brains-not god ) for SKEPTICS

Of course it did. Science was viewed as witchcraft, heresy or *insert other here* for centuries. Thanks to their utter ignorance and unwillfullness to think, the human race has suffered for it.

Even today the drones of the religious matrix stomp on progress... There's a new wave of religious hatred of vaccines because they have to do with evolution and so some places are calling it an attempt to make children sterile or in some twisted messed up way beyond all belief somehow a vaccine is going to make children have sex before they're married. Stem cell research has been hit harshly in recent years. Research in our genetic origins are being held back by silly mythology.

Even granting simple mercies like euthanasia to a baby with a genetic disorder that has her skin peel off her body when she moves or the skin in her throat to shred off as she breaths... Some sicko would rather see her suffer till the 4 to 6 months of her life span are over. How about giving children blood transfusions when they're seriously injuried... Of course not... Some willfully ignorant sects refuse their children who they just lable as their faith the medical help that they need to live another day... They're more willing to commit murder against their own offspring then use their head.

Just a tip of the iceberg.

Depends. On the religion in question. On current politics. On your definition of advancement.


Even if you have as narrow-minded a view of advancement as merely technology and power, even then religion can be beneficial. Without it, there wouldn't have been civilization. Revolution. Strife.

Depends on your definition of religion. If everyone was religious in the Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus or Ramana Maharshi sense then everyone would be enlightened, close to it or in a state of love from the powerful love and truth vibes. It would in my view be a world of love and would only advance insofar as to help other gain higher levels of love or truth.

If we were religious in the fundamentalist and immoral sense then we would have (like we have alrewady had) wars, oppression and obscurantism.



Depends on the personal faith. My personal faith is open to all possibility in the literal sense of the word. Truth can only ever lead one to happiness.



Tis a good question. In general I would have to say that religion when properly employed is a good thing because it promotes love, humility and morality. These three things are essential in my view for decent science (though I agree that science like religion can be carried out without morality, humility and love).

The survival of the species relies on awareness and religion (for me anyway) has been the best tool for heightening my awareness (if only ever so slightly).

Religion held mankind back for over 500 years in the Dark Ages. It forced men of science underground for fear of being branded (even burned at the stake in some cases) as Heretics. Religion has already slowed down our advancement. Right now, we are reaching for our nearest neighbours in the solar system. Where will we be in 500 years time? If you can imagine where we will be, then just think that we could be there now if it wasn't for religion.
Does religion slow down our advancement? History has already answered your question.

Is slows it waaay down.

That is the truth. I am ashamed of this period in Christianity. It was like they weren't understanding the bible. Blind, paranoid, and unreasonable. If they would have had REAL faith as I do they would have embraced science. Some creation scientists are finding very interesting things everyday. A lot of them work completely without bias, however, you will always have those fearful of evidence detrimental to their faith. This will always be a problem no matter who is conducting the research. I've seen people defend evolution with religious ferver even after they've seen strong evidence against it.

Science is defined as - knowledge derived from study testing and observation.

Scientists in all fields are guilty of straying from the path. Sometimes this is good, but sometimes it is bad. Einstien came up with some cool stuff. Galileo did too. Some theories stick around far too long and do more damage than good.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble of belief, but there is NO strong evidence against evolution.

SAME TIME:
Consider the following:
Modern humans have existed for 4.5 million years, which is before the australopithecines existed by the evolutionists time scale.
Homo erectus maintains the same appearance over its two million year history (again, the evolutionary time scale)
Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. There is no trend for robust forms evolving into more gracile forms. In the case of Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens, the more robust forms are the more recent.
Homo habilis and Homo erectus are contemporaries; no evolution here.
Humans appear in the fossil record as already human. By virtue of being human contemporaries, the Australopithecines are disqualified as human ancestors. (Lubenow, 1992, 178-179)
At the bottom of Bed I in the Olduvai gorge is a circular stone structure 14 ft. in diameter made by humans, similar to those in use today by the Okombambi tribe of Southwest Africa. That means true humans were around 2 million years ago by the evolutionist's time scale, before Homo erectus and the Australopithecines (Lubenow, 1992, 172-173).
Evolutionists resist these conclusions. Fossils of KNM-ER 1470, KP 271 (Human elbow), Laetoli (human) footprints are attributed to other species.

SAME PLACE:
Many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same stratigraphic level (depth in the Earth), but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated by vast amounts of time. We find modern Homo sapien fossils being found with Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This problem, for evolutionists, is independent of the dating schemes (Lubenow, 1992, 180-181).

Source

Lucy and the First Family (Australopithecus afarensis)
In 1974 Donald Johanson and associates discovered about 40% of a skeleton of a short (3-4 foot tall), small brained (380-450cc) creature. This find was named "Lucy" since the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was playing on tape recorder in the tent where Johanson was examining the fossils. Johanson announced that Lucy was 3.5 million years old and walked upright.

In the following year, 1975, Johanson's team unearthed 13 more individuals; four juveniles and nine adults. They were declared to be ancestors of man (hominids) and were named the "First Family". With names like Lucy, First Family, Lucy's Child, etc., how can these finds be anything but human ancestors? Lucy and her associates were portrayed as walking upright, with small human bodies and ape-like heads. This view has been widely publicized.

Lucy, et. al. have been given the designation "Australopithecus afarensis" and their claim to fame is walking upright. It should be noted at this point that apes sometimes walk upright - in fact there has even been a case of an ape which almost always used bipedal locomotion (Gish 1985, 162-163).

The view of Lucy habitually walking upright is not a universal consensus; it is challenged by some in the field. Note here that Zuckerman and Oxnard declared that Australopithecines did not walk upright, and they were examining specimens that were supposedly 2 million years younger. If anything, they should have evolved a more erect posture.

In an extensive study by Stern and Susman, they determined that the creatures walked upright, but not necessarily in a fully human manner and that they were adapted to an arboreal (tree climbing) mode of locomotion. From the creationist standpoint, these creatures were apes and no more adapted to bipedal locomotion than chimpanzees or gorillas (Gish 1985, 162).

Source

Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
LIVING CELL -
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very misleading.
Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists.

Source

Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere
Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.
The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.

Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.

There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).

Source

I can get you more.

Dreadmoc your going more than a little off topic here, even though this "evidence" you have here can and have been refruted numorous times this is not the thread to do it, thanks.

I will add though that "holes" in evolution in no way proves creationism as you seem to propose, and if you like to look at odds I can easily tell you what the best bet would be at the dawn of time.

1)A big bang that gave life the possibility to evolve in the right curconstances over huge amounts of years, conditions from lifeless sources all the way down to atoms.
2)An INTELLIGENT and consciouss entity that suddenly popped up and started to create stuff around it out of nowhere.

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Source

Alright. back to the topic. Just trying to prove a point. You can't say there is no evidence and then not let me answer because it's off topic. There is the evidence against evolution. I do not propose it proves creation. It disproves evolution. Nothing else.

I hope this is not going to turn into another evolution versus creation thread !!!!!!




fullywired

I don't really like religion. But I don't really care if someone is religious unless they try to force it on me. As long as people keep religion (beliefs) to themselves I guess it would not slow humanity down. But unfortunetly, the way the world is shaping right now it doesnt really matter because we might not last that long......

Yay for stereotypes Good to see that in the few days since I've been away things haven't changed around here, and people are still just as likely to generalise all religion under the same banner, highlighting things like stemcell research - which FYI is not actually condemned, but only the stemcell research done with aborted foetuses, which many non-religious people are also very much against.

My opinion - humanity is what has kept us back, and it is humanity which will also push us forward (technologically speaking, at least).

That's a very Westernised view, seffy. If it was religion in the Dark Ages that kept mankind back, then why didn't the Eastern World, which (at the time) had no contact with Christianity or Catholicism, make leaps and bounds in technological advancements? Shouldn't the East be 500 years more advanced than the West if what you are saying is true?

But since it did not happen that way, does it not make more sense that it is humanity which slows down our advancement, and not the religion? That said, it is sad that religion (or more correctly, individuals within the religion) has sometimes tried to slow the advancement of humanity, but I think that is more a product of humanity's fear of the unknown rather than the religious dogmas purported.

Religion has not slowed down humanity and it never will. During the dark ages the people in power were the ones who slowed humanity down. They only focused on their own personal gain and not what was good for humanity. If they would of practiced what they preached then we might be more advanced then what we are today.

In my opinion, religion do slow down human advancement in some field...for example clone, religion sure make this field of technology halted, well not completely halted, but significantly slowed down due to religion way of seeing this as an "act of advancement towards the boundary of human and god"...and another example is the Galileo trial in 1633, that's the example of how religion slowed down human advancement and it happen when science is not in the line with religion...

I would say religion can be inherently conservative and wishes to retain the status quo. Not always a bad thing mind you.

Following a book (that in my opinion was a guide for how to live 2,000 years ago) will keep you in a state of moral, ethical and scientific suspension.

Regardless of that we push on hurrah!

Hahaha, those wacky creationists and their bogus pseudoscience are hilarious

Too bad they are a threat to civilization and an insult to human intellect :|

Those very same steroetypes that have been and are being used today? I just didn't randomly pick and choose things I just thought up but real facts and news stories in the last year or so. It's that ignorance and unwifullness to think that is hurting humanity has a whole.

Your opinion doens't go far when the facts of history are so clearly out there... Assassinating and opressing people who would even dare to think outside the box. Not so much these days because thinking has become more common place. But the forces against evolution, progress, basic decency and freedom are still there.

Humanity has done it's part but you simply cannot flat out deny or even ignore the disease religion has been for so many thousands of years against mankind as a whole.

Deny, no. Ignore, no. As I said in my post after this, I do grieve that people have used religion to stunt the growth of humanity. But if it were really all the fault of the big bad Abrahamics, then one would expect areas not affected by Abrahamic belief to be significantly more advanced, would it not? But unless Buddhism is also the scourge of advancement *(damn those Easterners seeking enlightenment), then the argument really holds no water.

Your arguement is that the booming science advancements in Europe and in the Middle East couldn't have been held back because the east didn't make any more progress? What about the underground and the so openly hatred against all others that didn't fit their view or for thinking outside their view? You can't push the issue to another part of the world just because the evidence in the world you're trying to hide is so widely known. One of the biggest examples I can think of is Da Vinci and his works. That's just one guy though that got lucky enough to survive for so long...

Seems a bit odd considering the east had it's own share of superstitions and religious beliefs. They had empires and harsh rule in the east as well.


If you also notice I didn't solely blame the 'big bad Abrahamics' either I hit on a varity of different faiths. I'm also talking about all of humanities time on earth... Just not the dark ages. Today's religious fights are still here and they're holding back progress today... Not just 500 years ago but still today.

The Spanish Inquisition set humanity back eons...imo. Fear is not compatible with progress.

Fear can be your best friend ,but it has to be rational fear.

I'm not denying that those in control of religion did not try in the past to stifle progress. It is a part of life that there are those who are afraid of the unknown. I'm just suggesting that it was more a fact of human nature rather than religion that was the cause.

Which again proves that it was not religion but humanity that was to cause.

Really? The only group I could see in your post that I could specifically identify as being "different" to the Abrahamics was the Jehovah's Witnesses and their stance on blood transfusions, and as I'm sure you are more than happy to point out, they also use the Bible. Could you explain which "variety of different faiths" you "hit on", because I can't see it (though to be fair, I've never actually heard that story about certain religous groups shunning vaccines because of some evolutionary detail - if that isn't Abrahamics, then my apologies).

And so are the non-religious fights. Ever heard of Pol Pot? Kill anyone who had an education, keep the masses as ignorant as possible

In order for great scientific leaps to be made, you first need the scientists and the scientific institutes to make the leaps. Even today, where in the Middle and far East are such institutes? You want proof? How many Asian scientists are there and where are they based. I think you'll find there are quite a few and they're all in the Western world. This is why those areas not affected by Christianity are no further forward.





Any organised religion will follow the words of their leader. So, in effect, the leaders 'are' the religion. So saying that it was the people in power who held Humanity back is a misnomer, those people in power are religion as far as their followers are concerned. When the Ayathollas (sp) in the Middle East order their Fatwas (sp), it's their religious followers who carry them out. When the Pope says that all clone experiments should be stopped, it's their Catholic followers who do the protesting. It is still religion that holds us back.

So you keep blaming human nature... Which is true in some cases but you're doing your best to take off the blame of religion to shove it all on other people. Even the basic items in religion like the earth is flat or about creationism has and is holding us back.



No, it proves there are other factors other then religion that haven't helped. It doesn't give the free and clear to religion at all.



I did use mostly all abramhamics, I did throw in some native american mythology in there for they're refusing the genetic testings for our patterns of movements to know more.



Indeed, he was a real jerk... Though because other people did things to hold back humanity, does not excuse the very real fact that religion had a heavy handed role in history.

I'm not sure we would have lost artistic acheivment. the reformation saw the loss of alot of books and art. and what art wasn't destroyed was covered up. heck religion is still book banning and banning art.

art without religion would have done well - the subject matter would have changed is all.

Undecided

i beleive what holds us back is
fear the oppressor
prejudice the divider
greed the enslaver
death the ender

I think any distraction from progression in the sciences and so forth could be considered something that slows scientific progress down.

We're going around in circles. You are missing my point, either purposely or not. By showing that people of all spiritual beliefs (and no spiritual beliefs) have held back humanity, that is proof that it is human nature and not religion. Religion is just a vehicle, neither a help or hindrance to science. It's people who have used it that is at fault, not the religion itself.

Couldn't agree more with you. Once oraganized religion began to form man of power ran and controlled the rituals often becoming advisors to the ruling classes. As everyone knows power corrupts and this is where our advancement was held back not the religion itself but by men using it as a tool to control the masses. I think my signature says it all really! Seneca the younger you rule!

I think you fail to understand the true nature of humanity.

Let me first put aside my knowledge that god is real and just assume that religion; like philosophy/morality and ethics is a construction of humanity. What the pov above fails to appreciate is that science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They cannot exist or develop independently of each other because the same human characteristics drive the development of both.Science and religion seek to provide answers to the questions of life.

Because science cannot, and in fact does not seek to, provide the answers to certain questions, the same mental processes which drive the scientific mind to scientific solutions, drive the philosophical/religious mind to provide the answers.

Most religious faiths are not illogical, particularly when they begin. They all provide logical answers to questions within the context of knowledge from the period when they develop. Most actually grow and mature as the knowledge around them does. One solution is to provide more scientific/technological terminologies for the same phenomenum which have been observed over millenia.

Unfortunately another and growing tendency, is simply to dismiss as unreal any phenomenum which cannot be precisely explained by current science. This is a new and dangerous practice, displaying a modern belief that science can provide the answers to everything. Older societies understood that this was not the case. Because modern science is spectacularly successful in certain areas we imbue it with the ability to find the answers to everything.Our present science cannot do so. More to the point science as we presently understand it, cannot provide us wity the answers to certain questions.

Along with a stong science we need to develop a strong spiritual/religious/philosohical knowledge and understanding, both as individuals and society. This is particularly true as our science is now giving us the potential ability to irrevocably change the nature of humanity (through genetic manipulation) and the very habitat which supports us.Science often tells us how to do things but rarely whether or not they should be done.

This is why every hospital and university has an ethics commitee, to examine how science should be utilised and limited. On a more global scale we need to strengthen this side of the coin through the strengthening of religious/spiritual and moral ethical considerations, in individual and social issues.

I dont need you to claim I failed at understanding humanity, you try to make yourself seem smarter than me by claiming that? I asked a simple question how can you even draw that conclusion from it?

I cant say I share you veiw at how science works, its not my impression that science claims to know everything and they have the ability to know everything.
I cant say I agree religion is needed for moral and ethic, I find some religious thinkings too much for my own ethics actually.

I find religion when affecting healthcare to be a scary coctail, like in the muslim part of the world where male doctors are not allowed to look directly at a vigina of a girl so they have to excamine it by the reflection of a mirror, stuff like that is adding unnessesary increased rate of mistakes which I think is a shame.

Thanks for the answer though.

Technologically I would say undoubtedly. Philosophically is a harder question to answer, but here I would make a distinction between religion and faith. Faith allowed for great philosophical advances as we contemplated the nature of ourselves and our mortality, but religion codified those advances and actively suppressed the exploration of other aspects of our nature through assigning those aspects an external, rather than internal, cause and then politicising faith to effect a form of mind-control over the populace and engender fear through imagined post-life retribution for opposing the dogma imposed through the religious heirarchy.

Socially I believe we have been held back as well, through the repression of much of our intimate nature. The demonifying of our sexuality in religion has caused more emotional and mental trauma than probably all the wars of Mankind put together (perhaps a slight exaggeration but it gets my point across).

Is the sexuality the only aspect you feel we socially have been held back or was it just an excample?

An example, although much of the social repression has been based around sexuality and gender. The imposition or reinforcement of gender-based roles being one obvious case in point. Another would be the tendency of religion to impose a strict male-female heirarchy based on perceived male societal dominance. The unabashed misogyny of religion is hampering social development today, let alone 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

You didn't mention any specific religion, so I am guessing you mean ALL..so in that case.. as religion has held man back in the dark ages for donkeys years and as it has een at the root of so many wars...then it would be a nice world to live in, if man didnt bother his backside to INVENT it...

HOWEVER people would still believe in a creator ..and that is something you cannot hide from..so then you wouldnt be able to prevent man from starting up a cult of some kind and then like a disease..it.....spreads !!

I can see how I may have sounded condescending, "condescending."

I did not mean to.

I AM very intelligent, and I do see things differently to many people, but always my opinions are only that; opinions. They are no or less valuable than your own.

I will try to restate simply my point, which was intended to suggest that your question showed a misunderstanding about the way we think. You cannot stop people thinking about religious/moral ethical problems and creating solutions, because this is exactly the same process they are engaged in when considering scientific problems. Thus engagement with religious questions has no discernable bias on scientific progress, although it may influence it one way or another, just as any social movement does. (The religion of "global warming" is about to have one of the most significant effects on the direction of science the world has ever seen)

One excellent example of this comes from the early islamic world. They were intensely religious, just like the christians of the time. However, they advanced much more quickly than any western countries, in almost all areas of science; from medicine to mathematics. Their religion valued and encouraged education and an analysis of the external world. At that time, christianity was very internalised , preoccupied with questions of doctrine and spiritual salvation.

Later during the renaiisance era and a little earlier, it was europe who surged ahead. They were still equally religious, but by now their religion had become an prosthelysing one , urging expansion for purposes of conversion and saving souls.

Thus it is not religion but its place in, and connection with, the larger society, which determines how it may influence, or attempt to influence, science.

Of course if you try to use religious beliefs to influence how we utilise science, that is a different question. But again, not inherently a bad, negative, or limiting force.

The problem is that all ethical/moral points of view are inherently, "religious."

Some will try to argue that they are really philosophically based, but that too is very close to religion. How so? Because they all investigate issues which have no scientific answer. The answers all depend on constructed belief systems, where we try to come up with logical/workable solutions to different propositions. For example, try using science to answer a question like, "why am I here?", or "what is an ethical position on poverty?"

Science is not equipped, or designed, to answer questions like, "what value does a human life have?"(except for working out the actual monetary value of the constituent parts of a human body). It is even less equipped to answer questions like, "what constitutes a human being?", and thus, "when is abortion or euthenasia an acceptable outcome?" Any debate on those issues relies on value judgements, which are inherently "religious" or "faith" based.

You are correct about religious influence on medical practice, although I believe that any adult has the right to choose or decline medical aid based on both logic and belief (that is my "ethical"position) However, at the other extreme, imagine the unbridled use of medical or other technology without any consideration of ethical issues. (Would the richest donor get the first heart available for transplant?)

On a wider scale the practice of medicine, particularly eugenics, by the nazis and soviet union (who had no religious element to their ethical system of beliefs) shows clearly why it is necessary for us to combine an ethical code with any form of technological development.

Your last example is a really interesting one, I tend to agree with you, but I am also aware that this opinion is based on my own christian/ western centric system of beliefs. Where a whole country believes that more harm may be done to a girl (holistically) by a physical examination by a male doctor, than through a slightly "offset" view, there is a real chance that their fear may become reality. (what could be the physical, social and psychological consequences for a girl placed in that situation?) Jehovahs witnesses face the same dilemma within their "society" on blood transfusions.

I think religion has stunted the advancement of civilization.

Let me clarify that I am not only talking about Abrahamic sects, but organized religion as generally as you possibly be.

Organized religion (not faith, not spirituality, which represent an individuals personal beliefs) has been in direct conflict with science and technology countless times. The sole purpose of science and technology is to gain an understanding of everything around us, which in turn progresses us forward as a whole. If something is in direct conflict with something meant for advancing humanity, then that means it hinders the action if it can.

Organized religions have leaders. These leaders and their personal gain or maintaining of power is what usually drives them to fight against science and technology. Sometimes it has been to suppress the followers from gaining information, which would allow them to see that maybe the leader or religion is not absolutely right. Sometimes it is because a certain advancement goes against what the leader or religion has tried to teach as being wrong in the first place, and science has proven otherwise. Sometimes it is because the science proves or suggests that the very basis of the religion is false.

Blanket labeling this as because of 'humanity' is moot, because we could use that to describe anything. That is the most general description of the reason behind something short of "S**t happens." Humanity is the general reason. Within that reason, there is organized religion, as well as other factors that have hindered advancement. Within those factors are other varying factors.