Kieran Wrote: "And once again, you quote opinion as fact. Prove this. You would probably argue that virtuous man would no doubt have utilized to the full all the knowledge contained in that library, and would have shared it with all if it hadn't been for that nasty, repressive religious leader. I could counter just as easily a secular leader may have come along and done the same thing- and it would be just as provable.
But Keiran, a secular leader didn't burn down the Library, it was done in the name of religion. That is a fact not an opinion. Whether that knowledge could have brought on the industrial revolution sooner is a matter of opinion. I choose to believe that more knowledge would have been beneficial. duh!
Kieran wrote: Take the Mayan society. It developed its science of astronomy as a direct result of its religious beliefs, yet the system that was developed is technically very sound.
True, but the knowledge of that system was passed on to only a select few based on their religious beliefs. Only priests or higher ranking members of the community could even read their petroglyphs. So religion once again was a stumbling block to furthuring knowledge. To top that off the Spaniards went on a book burning spree when they entered the new world so that almost all Mayan codices are now gone. I believe 4 exist in the world. So the Mayan religion suppressed knowledge and the Spaniards continued it in the name of Christianity.
Religion doesn't stop knowledge from expanding. It hinders it.
And Kieran wrote: The great pyramids of Cheops are architectual wonders- built as burial temples for god-kings.
Yes, but the plans and methods for building those pyramids are still somewhat mysterious 3000 years later. These plans and methods were all kept in the Library of Alexandria and have been lost to us.
Toad wrote: I'm saying that all those "giants" you so revere (and want US youth to emulate) were probably, almost certainly. exposed to some religion's Creation Myth in their youth.
Almost certainly.
Nonetheless, and for better or for worse, that did not stop them from "thinking the deep thoughts" and "making the world/society a better place".
Some paid the ultimate price for those deep thoughts - Bruno for instance was killed by the church for touting the Heliocentric theory.
Some will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have driven their wonder and thus their desire for research.
Others will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have hindered their wonder and thus their desire for research.
The search for knowledge will only move forward if the "faith" required by all religions is suspended in return for experimentation and question. It could be argued that all of these men and women either forsook their need for "faith' or were limited by it.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably some truth in each camp.
As I said, though... it just doesn't matter.
The world progresses as the world progresses.
It would be further along without the actions of many religious zealots over the past centuries. (See earlier posts but here is another)
Everyone knows Gregor Mendel established the science of genetics through his experiments on string bean plants. He was actually never published in his lifetime, and his writings were ignored until long after his death. You see Mendel was a Monk, and as such did not feel the need to push his discoveries on the world. He was also largely ignored because he was a monk. A little reverse religious chauvenism.
It might be possible to show where teaching a "Creation Myth" hindered man's progress. I'd also wager there's examples where such a belief may have driven and advanced man's progress.
True but not by design. Linnaeus was probably the greatest biologist of his time. And a staunch Creationist. He designed the system by which we still name plants and animals by genus and species. It was this staunch creationist that opened the eyes of another great scientist of his day named Darwin to the possibility that species may indeed not be fixed. This wasn't Charles Darwin btw it was Erasmus. This eventually opened the eyes of this staunch creationist to admit that "maybe the species within a genus can change". It was a small step, but about as big as he could take within the bounds of his religion.
Perhaps the world isn't meeting YOUR personal need to see progress but once again, I personally feel that there is "no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should".... despite your feelings or my feelings about teaching a Creation Myth in US schools.
As I said... I don't really care. I don't think it is/was/could be much of an obstacle to the progress of mankind. Teach it or don't... I just don't care. Because it really won't make any difference in the "big picture".
I think we should always fight for the advancement of knowledge Toad. I never equated religious zealots to Creation Myth. I was mearly answering a question. Creation Myth is not science and should not be taught as such.
