[freeztar]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

Does religion hinder human progress?

What is "human progress"?

It seems to me that religion and science both have a different definition for progress. They seek similar goals in completely different frameworks.

So to answer the original question...
I believe that religion is both detrimental and (maybe, or) positive for societies.

[The D.S.]

I refer to human progress as the advancement of society as a whole. New technologies, ways of thinking, and ethical values are all a part of human progress and me, and others, believe that religion has placed serious barries to civilization. People should be moral due to natures evolving sense of intelligence and for the bettering of humans as a whole. While religion is a crutch for many, it has often, in my view, held humanity back from acheiving its ultimate potential. A barbaric, archaic, and out of date of practicing of "religion" has done damage to the progress of mankind for too long.

[Buffy]

Does Art hinder human progress?

What is the nature of "hindrance?"

There is no greater impediment to progress in the sciences than the desire to see it take place too quickly,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Yes.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Yes.

Well there ya go: since only wacko liberals like Art anyway, then it'll be much easier to eliminate all energy and money wasted on Art, which will save us lots of grief and advance science much more rapidly!

Down with Art!

Every socialistic type of government where the State theoretically owns everything, and everybody does their little part to help the State, inevitably produces bad art, it produces social inertia, it produces really unhappy people, and it is more repressive than any other kind of government,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well there ya go: since only wacko liberals like Art anyway, then it'll be much easier to eliminate all energy and money wasted on Art, which will save us lots of grief and advance science much more rapidly!

Down with Art!

You aren't seriously suggesting that effect of art on society is the same as religion.


Lots of wars and mass slaughters started over the open viewings with wine and cheese and snooty rich folks, are there?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You aren't seriously suggesting that effect of art on society is the same as religion.

Of course not, silly!

The issue is "hinder[ing] human progress"
, and whether its a good idea to eliminate all things that do so.

As you know I support both truth and beauty! Even if the latter "hinders" progress!

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Lots of wars and mass slaughters started over the open viewings with wine and cheese and snooty rich folks, are there?

Well, this *is* California, ya know...you've never been to the Oscars have you?

We all have a prejudice about action films. It's sort of like, if they're beautiful and blonde, she can't act, and we should know better by now. I've heard it from people, 'What are you doing, doing a picture with Vin Diesel?' They're not giving him the credit he deserves. Sometimes, I just say, 'Wait till you see him in the picture,
Buffy

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

I refer to human progress as the advancement of society as a whole. New technologies, ways of thinking, and ethical values are all a part of human progress and me, and others, believe that religion has placed serious barries to civilization. People should be moral due to natures evolving sense of intelligence and for the bettering of humans as a whole. While religion is a crutch for many, it has often, in my view, held humanity back from acheiving its ultimate potential. A barbaric, archaic, and out of date of practicing of "religion" has done damage to the progress of mankind for too long.

I think the answer to your question is complex.

I do think all Religon is archaic and we have better explanations now than we did have.

But once upon a time we did not have explanations for how things worked and why things happened and what the universe was.

And at the same time Humanity was setting up city states across the world and there was a need for comforting explanations so those in authority made up stories to better control the increasing populace.

Things like

1. You shall not kill

are generally good ideas if you want a controllable and peaceful society that gets on with its work and pays its taxes.

2. You shall not covet your neighbours wife (or Husband for that matter)

are also good points to make as there was a great deal of coveting going on at that time which was obviously causing a lot of trouble.

All great apes are generally violent, devious, cunning , manipulative, jealous scoundrels and we need limits set on us by those who are in authority.

Religon in the first place was just a set of laws and some made up stories about the creation of the universe.

At that time we needed its simplicity.

Now those explanations are unsatisfying to us and we need a more mathematically defined world with hard facts we can use and replicate.

Religon has had its day but we are left with a vacuum whereby we have to find a replacement we can all agree on to control society.

As the increased violence in our streets testify, great apes need to be controlled.

Some only respond to threats like

1. You will go to hell and burn for all eternity.

but we need to replace these religous threats with something scientific and factual like

1. When you die, you die you only get one chance in this life so you better not F it up. (pardon my french)

Peace

[REASON]

Much of the worlds most historically beautiful art and architecture has had it's inspiration in religion.

To me, art is not at issue here.

The ability of a religion to hinder progress in any society depends on how much power it has in the governance of it's people.

In our society, scientific progress is welcomed, as long as it isn't viewed by religious fundamentalists as threatening to Biblical teaching.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by REASON

...The ability of a religion to hinder progress in any society depends on how much power it has in the governance of it's people....

I would say that this goes to the core of the matter.

How much power does a particular religion have over its people -- especially power of state?

The end of the Fifty Years War in (about) 1650 ended one of the most cruel, deadly, slaughterific, oppressive and socially disastrous periods in European history. It was the Big War between Catholics and Protestants to decide whose side God was on. After (actually more than) 50 years of bloodshed, it was a draw. Apparently God was on neither side.

The outcome of all this was the Treaty of Utrecht. The most important part of that was the ruling that religion would no longer dominate civil government in Europe. Religion could build churches and decide who goes to heaven, but the people would henceforth be ruled by Civil Law, under the auspices of Civil Rulers. This was the beginning of the separation of church and state.

This happened because the rulers of Europe finally realized that putting civil power in the hands of religion was a disaster every way you looked at it.