by D wiltshire 21 Replies latest jw friends
I feel that any Christian who has sought to suppress scientific knowledge in any way has a very weak faith.
While he may not see or understand a scientific understanding this does not sugest a weak faith, but to oppose by suppression, indicates a faith that is weak.
He would show that he is afraid of the Truth.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
rem,
i don't believe I suggested that scientific knowledge originated with Islam. I would contend that much of the Helenistic advances in thought that you would only see as secular were, in fact, inspired by the early Jewish thinkers. Many were the Athenians who made the treck south to learn from the wisened old farts. Their liberty of thought was engenderd by those who were deeply religious while at the same time were applying their thinking to the relavant issues of the day. This is exactly what the Islamic scholars did as well in a society that was much freer, able to move from Andalusia to India under the protection of the Islamic rule, share technologies, ideas, etc. while Christian Europe was buried under mideavel feudalism.
It wasn't until the Crusades that the Christians brought back new ideas that sparked a resurgence in thinking and ideas that led to Europe coming out of the "dark age". That Islam has over the centuries lost its elan and force and become the backwash of thinking and behavior, however, i would readily asceed to.
carm
Religion is indeed responsible for many negative events in world history. But let's not forget the negative side of science (e.g. nuclear bombs, killer bees, anthrax, greenhouse effect, etc.).
I think both religion and science should be carefully monitored to keep either from getting out of control. Imagine if religion teamed with science? This unholy union could potentially result in such things as humans cloned with genetic programming to become fanatical religious extremists (ultimate horror - imagine militant Jehovah's Witnesses!!).
With the help of Alan F, who can always be depended upon, I submit for your consideration in this conversation, the contents of the heading "Authority" in the McClintock's and Strong. It needs no amplification from me. It speaks very well for itself:
Authority, (1.) in matters religious and ecclesiastical, an assumed right of dictation, attributed to certain fathers, councils, or church courts. On this subject Bishop Hoadley writes: "Authority is the greatest and most irreconcilable enemy to truth and argument that this world ever furnished. All the sophistry -- all the color of plausibility -- all the artifice and cunning of the subtlest disputer in the world may be laid open and turned to the advantage of that very truth which they are designed to hide; but against authority there is no defence." He shows that it was authority which crushed the noble sentiments of Socrates and others, and that by authority the Jews and heathens combated the truth of the Gospel; and that, when Christians increased into a majority, and came to think the same method to be the only proper one for the advantage of their cause which had been the enemy and destroyer of it, then it was the authority of Christians, which, by degrees, not only laid waste the honor of Christianity, but well-nigh extinguished it among men. It was authority which would have prevented all reformation where it is, and which has put a barrier against it wherever it is not. The remark of Charles II. is worthy of notice -- that those of the established faith make much of the authority of the church in their disputes with dissenters, but that they take it all away when they deal with papists. -- Buck, Theol. Dict. s. v.
(2.) In a proper sense, by the "authority of the church" is meant either the power residing generally in the whole body of the faithful to execute the trust committed by Christ to his church, or the particular power residing in certain official members of that body. The first-named authority is vested in the clergy and laity jointly; the latter in the clergy alone. In the interpretation of Scripture for any particular church, that church's authority does not belong to all divines or "distinguished theologians" who may be members of the church, but only to the authorized formularies. Single writers of every age are to be taken as expressing only their individual opinions. The agreement of these opinions at any one period, or for any lengthened space of time, may and must be used as proof to ourselves, privately, as to the predominant sentiments of the church at that time, but no opinions can be quoted as deciding authoritatively any disputed question. The universal church deserves deference in all controversies of faith; and every particular church has a right to decree such rights and ceremonies as are not contrary to God's written word; but no church has a right to enforce any thing as necessary for salvation, unless it can be shown so to be by the express declaration of Holy Scripture. See the XXth and XXXIVth Articles of the Church of England, and the Vth and XXIId of the Methodist Episcopal Church. See RULE OF FAITH; TRADITION.
Francois
Francois,
Thanks for the cut and paste(descrimanatingly done).
So what do you think? How much has Authority(religious or secular)slowed man's understanding of TRUTH? 500-2500 years behind.
I think we all should be weary that authority not hold back free thinking. We never know where the next big break thru will come from.
One things for sure we don't need authority to decide what is true and what is false. Let the facts not authority be our guide.
"QUESTION AUTHORITY"
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
One of the greatest destroyers of civilisations throughout history was disease. Religion has held back scientific discoveries that help us to contain or eradicate disease, so, yes, religion has helped to hold back the continuous advancement of scientific knowledge. I wonder how many times in history civilisation has been set back to zero?
As for authority in general, it is needed for law and order, which science needs as much as anyhthing else. Also, there are scientific authorities that help teach the next generation, provide arrangements for peer review of new discoveries etc, as well as organise expensive projects that would be out of reach for most scientists working alone.
So I suppose i think religious authority is bad, but secular authority is (generally) good.
Religion n.
An organisation designed to promote atheism.
Mr Ben,
I agree with you basically.
When I say "question authority" I'm not saying be lawless.
I'm not saying disreguard properly placed authority for the protection and advancement of mankind,.. we need some restraint of evil, by those we choose to put in authority.
But authority of a humankind is not always exersized in a helpful or benificial way.
There are many circumstances that will require us to question authority, and even disreguared it if it is not use for the purpose for which it is given, to help and not to hinder man's advancement.
Everything is realative.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
D wiltshire,
Have you read the science fiction novel, "Nightfall," by Isaac Asimov?
I think you would really enjoy it as it kind of pertains to this theme.
Religion n.
An organisation designed to promote atheism.
Mr Ben,
I have one of his book from the libriary, I don't ever read a book from cover to cover, I just skim and look for stuff that will help me in my search for TRUTH, if you can call it that.
I will be reading more of his books in the near future, he wrote so many, very inteligent.
"Nightfall" will be in my minds list of thing to read. Thanks.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Carmel,
I wasn't trying to imply that you said Islam originated scientific thought. The point I was making is that scientific thought is areligious in nature. You were making the point that religion has brought benefits, such as the enlightenment by the Islamic followers during the Christian dark ages. I don't believe that Islam or any religion was necessary for scientific knowledge to progress, but has in fact stunted it many times in history. Just because a particular religion did not stunt rational inquiry does not mean that religion in general brings the benefit of scientific thought. I believe they are completely separate fields and you have blurred the lines. You may have a point that religion has brought benefits in other areas, such as charity and so forth, but to say that any religion was responsible for the benefit of scientific thought or the preserving of scientific thought, I believe, is going too far.
I would contend that much of the Helenistic advances in thought that you would only see as secular were, in fact, inspired by the early Jewish thinkers.I'm not sure how you could contend this. What Helenistic thought was inspired by early Jewish thinkers?
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
