Science, Religeons prodigal son

[Magnumopai]

Science originated in religeon because religius teachings were bases for most philosophical thought in the ancient world.

maths like algebra were develped by islamic scholars, geneology riginated in cathlic abbeys.

without abbeys, the rebound of literacy after the dark ages may have never happened.

one of the first peple to a scientific method for solving problems was a catholic monk of the Franciscan order.

the ORIGINAL natures of religeon and science went hand in hand. learning about, utilizing and appreciating the world, learning new things and adding that knowledge t a strong basis of faith is what made some ancient nations great.

I've come to understand this truth very deeply...

but... y'know

I'd like to hear what you think...

(I wrote this in a rush, disregard my spelling)

 

[bodyklok]

I'd like to hear what you think...

I'd like to know what your point is?

 

[Magnumopai]

simple, my point is the thought that originated the quest for truth that is science began with religious thoughts towards the unknown.

like I said, Religion-->philosophy-->science

 

[VitalSigns]

Science has facts
religion has Faith

if the winner isn't clear, your crazy.

 

[razer17]

so essentially you're just pushing your religious views onto people, by saying your views are right, and that science only exist through religion.
edit - And this

Science has facts
religion has Faith

if the winner isn't clear, your crazy.

 

[Redingold]

simple, my point is the thought that originated the quest for truth that is science began with religious thoughts towards the unknown.

like I said, Religion-->philosophy-->science

And?

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

I'd like to know what your point is?

Indeed.
I also think the OP has missed the point of science.

Please, don't make broad generalisations when starting a topic; examples prove points.
Spell checking is also nice.

 

[S.H.A.R.P.]

What about ancient Greek philosophers? Were they religious?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

simple, my point is the thought that originated the quest for truth that is science began with religious thoughts towards the unknown.

like I said, Religion-->philosophy-->science

But how did religion start? Lack of scientific understanding.

In ancient times they never said "Don't go near the fire! It'll burn you!" they went for the easy option and said "Don't go near the fire! The God's will kill you!" Because kill is scarier than burn and takes less explaining.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

aah, but without religion, we wouldnt have great works of art

religion's odd, but it provides inspiration
without it, something else would cause all the same problems
stop bashing it, just accept it as something others believe in
it's not like it affects you

(who's this aimed at?)

 

[Redingold]

Oh, and this guy is not forcing any religious views onto anybody. He is merely pointing out that religion was simply an early form of science, if you take science as a quest to understand more about the world. Unfortunately, it then got all social and political.

 

[bodyklok]

Religion-->philosophy-->science

And which religion are you referring to?

 

[bue519]

Religion is really only a method of social control not a forerunner to science.

 

[sallene]

religion =/= science.

One asks why
One says because.



if you dont know which is which then I cant help you.

 

[Legion]

I'd like to here what you think...

What the point of this thread is please.

Also what you have against the letters 'i' and 'o'.

Science originated in religeion because religious teachings were baseds for most on philosophical thought in the ancient world.

Maths like algebra were developed by Islamic scholars, geneology? originated in Catholic abbeys.

Without abbeys, the rebound of literacy after the dark ages may have never happened.

One of the first people to a scientific method for solving problems was a Catholic monk of the Franciscan order.

The ORIGINAL natures of religeion and science went hand in hand. learning about, utilizing and appreciating the world, learning new things and adding that knowledge to a strong basis of faith is what made some ancient nations great.

I've come to understand this truth very deeply...

but... y'know

I'd like to heare what you think...

Religion is really only a method of social control not a forerunner to science.

What nonsense. Reported for flaming.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

 

[Redingold]

You guys are missing his point. Religion was a set of stories to explain why things happened (e.g. rainbows are a sign of God's promise not to kill us all). It may have been inaccurate, but that is not the point.

 

[El Poncho]

What about ancient Greek philosophers? Were they religious?

They did believe in the greek gods so i guess they were religous,but they did it in sand and stuff.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

While I understand and can accept parts of your hypothesis as true I would argue that "religion" as a whole has done just as much to discredit the advances of science as it has to further them.

Religious figures that you have attributed scientific advances to were the only people of the time with the access and freedom to pursue these interests. In these time frames, there were two classes of people: the working class and religious leaders. The workers were only concerned with their survival and their piety, while members of the religious class were free to explore the nature of the universe because they had both the time and wealth to do so. My point is, we would have eventually arrived at these levels of knowledge with or without religious intervention. This does not in any way discount the individuals who sparked these revolutions, they were just the only one's that ever had the chance to discover them.

Unfortunately, when science came up with any information that attempted to discredit religion it was persecuted and demonized.

 

[bodyklok]

prodigal adjective 1 recklessly wasteful or extravagant. 2 lavish.
(Source: Oxford Australian Student's Dictionary 2nd ed.)

Know the words you use.
It helps with clarity.

Well, he may be right, science could be described as lavish at times. But the title really falls down because Science hasn't returned 'home' yet and I drought it ever will. Nor is it repentant.