Imagine if we were able to meet the most knowledgeable and educated person from the 14th century...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]479719[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I don't agree with that.
Education used to mean, a few centuries ago, a thorough knowledge of Latin, at least one or two other "classical" languages, a very competent grasp of the scientific method (which really hasn't changed), rather advanced mathematics, including calculus-like concepts, astronomy (stars really haven't changed their position that much), enough for a good grounding in continuing with astronomy, and anatomy.

As far as religion is concerned, well, you might actually be surprised at how much that has evolved over the centuries!

 

It's an overly simplistic comparison. The chosen parameters are hand-picked to avoid things like mathematics (we use centuries-old math in astronomy, medicine, etc.), engineering (it's really only machine power that puts us ahead of the ancient Egyptians, or the ancient Romans)...

What gives away the shallowness of the statement is saying that "even a child" would be more advanced. It's basically saying that because new facts have been collected and verified, people who may have been much more intelligent must now be thought of as somehow deficient.

I'd actually say the statement can easily be put on its head thusly: Science, our knowledge of the universe, of anatomy and geography are in constant flux. So they clearly can't be trusted for more than a few years at a time. Knowledge that Leonardo Da Vinci had in his day, is in many ways obsolete. So you can infer that much of the knowledge you have now will be obsolete (and can thus be essentially counted as unreliable).

Religion (although practices may change from society to society) remains largely unchanged, and is therefore inherently more worthy of your faith and your trust. The God you believe in today will pretty much be the same God your progeny will believe in centuries hence.

 

While it would be true that there would be much that they didn't know compared to us, I would think that the stress they put on education back then (for those that could afford it) and on the way of thinking would more than equal it out.

What's more important, knowing medicine, geography, astronomy, and science, or having a mind sharp enough to grasp new concepts when they're presented to you? The way most of our schools are run these days, they focus only on the knowledge part - how much can you remember - and not nearly enough on what is most important - what can you figure out from the given data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]479719[/snapback]</div>

I would actually recommend for you a study of comparative religions between the two time periods you mention. I can tell you that my religion has changed dramatically over that period of time - Women can become Rabbis, they are now called to the Torah, etc, etc - it has liberalized itself tremendously. There are religions that per chance have not.

You also paint with a very broad brush, too broad in my opinion.

I might also suggest not being so inflammatory when it comes to religion - you are not going to dissuade someone into not believing in God if they do so; and a lot of people will find it insulting. Everyone believes in religion, some believe in one God, others believe in zero Gods - but all people believe in something.

 

Oh, I forgot to mention that, as far as religious knowledge, they'd be a bit better educated.

It's amazing to me how little the current crop of xtians know about their history, apologetics, theology, or even what the book SAYS about various things.

I mentioned a not-that-old theologian to one of our xtian family members as "a rather good apologist" and got back, "we don't have to apologize about nuthin'!" *blink*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]479767[/snapback]</div>

how do you know that what we currently understand as being true in a scientific or physical sense is really true? Have you disproved that God could exist? It is not just that someone cannot prove God exists that makes it impossible for God to exist - obviously if our science or knowledge base is so immature as it stands today.

Do not become a true believer - we will look much more backwards to those 600 years from now then those of the 14th century look to us - the rate of growth of science and knowledge change between tomorrows vs yesterdays will be staggering.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]479719[/snapback]</div>

So, I see you are once again broadening your horizons by lapping up more anti-religion "knowledge." :lol: :lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]479719[/snapback]</div>

Um . . . what????

The calendar of Shoushi is one of the most famous calendars in
ancient China (Needham 1959), which was recorded in the Lizhi
(ancient calendar book of China) of Yuanshi (annals of the Yuan
Dynasty fromAD1279 to 1367). Parts were translated by Gaubil
(1732). Almost every part of this calendar has a corresponding
section in the modern astronomical year book. It was the last
calendar formulated only by Chinese astronomers and its period
of usage (AD 1281−1644)was the longest one in ancient China.
It was also a new calendar system which cast off the traditional
method that computed from the epoch of the distant past. For
counting, the basic constants were obtained by meticulous observations.
The mathematical method adopted in this calendar
came long before the foundation of Newton’s mechanical system,
and summed up voluminous real measuring results.

According to the Shoushi calendar, the correction for solar motion
is called Richan. It has functions M(C.) and N (C.) which
were established for this calculation; they are denoted by:
M© = 10−8 × 5133200 − (31 × C + 24600) × C) × C ;
N© = 10−8 × 4870600 − (27 × C + 22100) × C) ×C ,
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin...p;filetype=.pdf

Ask a child what time it is and they may say, "the little hand is on the two, and the big hand is on the eleventeen." :wub:

Ask burritos about religion and he will point you to atheistic web link and ask, "what do you think." :huh:

If science could time transport the most knowledgeable and educated person from the 14th century, he/she would learn to use a computer, read burritos' posts, and quickly proclaim him a snobbish, ignorant, atheistic troll. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]479719[/snapback]</div>

You could meet very knowledgeable people on the subject of medicine and science in the 14th century. Of course, you'd have to learn to speak Arabic in order to talk with them, but that's beside the point.

You could also meet very knowledgeable people in the areas of math and astronomy in the 14th century. They're called Mayans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]479789[/snapback]</div>

And therein lies the rub... why must a religion decree that all others are false?

Every single person is an individual. Every person's relationship with the Divine is as individual as they are. If some with similar relationships want to get together and celebrate their similarities, that is wonderful. However, what is NOT wonderful is those groups deciding that their relationship is the only valid relationship.

It's like saying that vanilla is a real flavor, and chocolate is not.

Someday, humanity will grow up, and discover that the things that we have in common are much, much more important than the things that are different... and that the differences are what make us interesting.

 

Guys, don't feed the burrito.

I mean, troll.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 09:11 PM) [snapback]479949[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe all philosophies of Christ (or ever were, in fact), obsolete.

Religious thinking can be dangerous, true.

I would hope someday, that religion could be dropped altogether, along with the ridiculous fear of a made up hell, and we could all get along with the peaceful teachings of Gandhi, Christ, and others like minded individuals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 16 2007, 08:11 PM) [snapback]479949[/snapback]</div>

I think this statement shows you don't understand what religion or spirituality gives people...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 16 2007, 04:13 PM) [snapback]479773[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :huh: :lol: Well said.....!

 

Well, normally I'd be on the "liberal" or even "atheist" side of a discussion like this one, but your premise was so broad and so silly that I have to argue against it.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying religion is inherently more trustworthy, but that by your reasoning, science is NO more inherently trustworthy. If you bring up things that the bible still apparently condones but that might be considered crimes now, I'll have to remind you that "science" used to believe that the world was flat, that the heavens revolved around us, and that losing a lot of blood would be a good way to cure most illnesses.

My point is, if the trends in science continue (and there's no reason they shouldn't), then many of the things we believe to be cold, hard, indisputable facts today will seem ludicrous and stupid years from now. Science is really good at proving itself wrong over and over and over again, and while some facts are verified, more theories spring up to fill the imaginations of more scientists.

In fact, we'd really be nowhere without creativity and imagination in science. It's the creative leaps, and the countless wrong guesses that have gotten our society to the level of technical achievement we enjoy, and we're clearly striving for more.

So I say you're just as deluded as a nutjob religious fundamentalist if you believe modern science to be the absolute pinnacle of knowledge and fact.

If you think that so much of this world's fighting is just about religion then you believe George Bush too much. You also ignore human nature. People are going to be territorial and fearful of others no matter if religion is their religion, or if science is their religion. A lot of this fighting uses xenophobia as a pretext, when it's really enabled by wealthy people who just want to become more wealthy.

So while I may agree that religion isn't the solution to all problems, I don't agree that it's the cause of all problems, which is what you and Mr. Harris seem to suggest, through a somewhat frail argument.