Is God a logical contradiction?

[Amarok]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Religious people were the ones responsible for the witch trials (for example).  If someone does something based on their religious belief, I suppose you could make the case that the religion didn't do it, the person did.

But that's kind of problematic, innit?  Since scientifically-minded people solve problems and invent things, then we might say that 'science' did nothing, the people using science did.

I can think of a LOT of instances where deeply, sincerely religious people corrected scientific errors, a lot of them out of religious motivations. But these people were also scientists.  Which way will you have it?

Name me one time religion built something that increased freedom of thought and freely available information.

This is an easy one.  Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.  Happening around the same time as mass printing, this put spirituality into the hands of individuals as opposed to it being filtered through the priesthood.  Are you going to claim that Martin Luther wasn't religious?

Boru

Three problems 

1.Witch trials were purely religious how many atheists or agnostics  do you suppose would be hunting witches ?

2. The science in no way contributed to the discovery itself . Nothing about the scientists religious beliefs had anything to do with the conclusion that's why a Christian  and a Pagan can come to the same conclusion 

3. Putting the Anti freedom doctrine of Protestantism  in the hands of more people seems counter to freedom even if it lessened catholic tyranny

[mordant]

Name me one time religion built something that increased freedom of thought and freely available information.

This is an easy one.  Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.  Happening around the same time as mass printing, this put spirituality into the hands of individuals as opposed to it being filtered through the priesthood.  Are you going to claim that Martin Luther wasn't religious?

Boru

The printing press did not arise out of religion. Once it was in place, sure, one religious faction used it to partially bypass the Catholic clergy as mediators of holy writ. That just reflected a religious power struggle.

The church has been happy (sometimes) to take advantage of technology to pursue its ends, and unhappy (always) when technology or scientific discovery contradicts it.

[Anomalocaris]

Name me one time religion built something that increased freedom of thought and freely available information.

This is an easy one.  Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.  Happening around the same time as mass printing, this put spirituality into the hands of individuals as opposed to it being filtered through the priesthood.  Are you going to claim that Martin Luther wasn't religious?

Boru

Uhhh, that is quite a misconception, albeit common one.

Conceptually basically modern movable blocks printing press suitable for mass printing had invented in China by no later than 1040 AD.   In Europe basic movable block printing had been in use no later than the 12th century, and the Gutenberg screw printing press had been invented in 1430s.  Martin Luther wasn’t born till 1483.

[The Grand Nudger]

Protestantisms foundational myths and legends are no less silly, tenacious, or self aggrandizing than those of any other religion.

No more historically accurate, either.

[Anomalocaris]

Religion has never invented or innovated anything, and its explanations and predictions are no more accurate than random happenstance.

Religion can’t invent or innovate, but it can motivate people to do so.  This is all any human institution or ideology can possibly do to contribute to increasing the rate of innovation or invention.

Religion can certainly motivate people to high level of innovation and invention when such innovation directly serve to aggrandize itself,  such as advancements in architectural engineering to facilitate more awe inspiring cathedrals.  

Religion can also indirectly motivate people to higher level of innovation and invention when it’s doctrine promotes diligence, studiousness, and reflection, as it did early Muslim era, and in parts of Protestant world after the reformation.

Where religion falls down is in its Bronze Age origin of its foundational myths, and its life or death stake in preventing the transparent baselessness of myth from being exposed as fictional.   So religion must limit human endeavor to broaden and deepen its understanding of how reality works if it were to not be revealed as a self-aggrandizing fabrication.   This limitation it must place on the scope of collective human understanding of the world also deny humanity of the inventions and innovation based on such understanding.

Because human understanding of reality is deepening and broadening all the time, while the fundamental basis of religious legitimacy remains rooted in the same past age in which it was fabricated, the farther time moves forward, the more widespread and extensive must the effort of religion to block further depending and  deepen our knowledge base, so the more would religion act as a force that attempts to,subvert the very basis of further inventions and innovations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fun facts, Gutenberg was a conman, and his press was conceived of to fleece catholics by printing indulgences, this, itself....how he secured loans to cover for his having gone tits up with other people’s money selling “holy light” captured in cheap ass mirrors. The construction of which appears to have been the basis of his typeset.

[Amarok]

Religion has never invented or innovated anything, and its explanations and predictions are no more accurate than random happenstance.

Religion can’t invent or innovate, but it can motivate people to do so.  This is all any human institution or ideology can possibly do to contribute to increasing the rate of innovation or invention.

Religion can certainly motivate people to high level of innovation and invention when such innovation directly serve to aggrandize itself,  such as advancements in architectural engineering to facilitate more awe inspiring cathedrals.  

Religion can also indirectly motivate people to higher level of innovation and invention when it’s doctrine promotes diligence, studiousness, and reflection, as it did early Muslim era, and in parts of Protestant world after the reformation.

Where religion falls down is in its Bronze Age origin of its foundational myths, and its life or death stake in preventing the transparent baselessness of myth from being exposed as fictional.   So religion must limit human endeavor to broaden and deepen its understanding of how reality works if it were to not be revealed as a self-aggrandizing fabrication.   This limitation it must place on the scope of collective human understanding of the world also deny humanity of the inventions and innovation based on such understanding.

Because human understanding of reality is deepening and broadening all the time, while the fundamental basis of religious legitimacy remains rooted in the same past age in which it was fabricated, the farther time moves forward, the more widespread and extensive must the effort of religion to block further depending and  deepen our knowledge base, so the more would religion act as a force that attempts to,subvert the very basis of further inventions and innovations.

The funny thing is for 99% of Christain history they were playing catch up with the ancient world

[Anomalocaris]

Religion can’t invent or innovate, but it can motivate people to do so.  This is all any human institution or ideology can possibly do to contribute to increasing the rate of innovation or invention.

Religion can certainly motivate people to high level of innovation and invention when such innovation directly serve to aggrandize itself,  such as advancements in architectural engineering to facilitate more awe inspiring cathedrals.  

Religion can also indirectly motivate people to higher level of innovation and invention when it’s doctrine promotes diligence, studiousness, and reflection, as it did early Muslim era, and in parts of Protestant world after the reformation.

Where religion falls down is in its Bronze Age origin of its foundational myths, and its life or death stake in preventing the transparent baselessness of myth from being exposed as fictional.   So religion must limit human endeavor to broaden and deepen its understanding of how reality works if it were to not be revealed as a self-aggrandizing fabrication.   This limitation it must place on the scope of collective human understanding of the world also deny humanity of the inventions and innovation based on such understanding.

Because human understanding of reality is deepening and broadening all the time, while the fundamental basis of religious legitimacy remains rooted in the same past age in which it was fabricated, the farther time moves forward, the more widespread and extensive must the effort of religion to block further depending and  deepen our knowledge base, so the more would religion act as a force that attempts to,subvert the very basis of further inventions and innovations.

The funny thing is for 99% of Christain history they were playing catch up with the ancient world

That is a considerable exaggeration.  Even in parts of the Christian world that had to climb out of the deep hole left by the collapse of Roman Empire, it would be hard to argue they had not largely caught up and surpassed the ancient world by the beginning of the 18th century.   That would mean the western Christian world only spent of 70% of its history playing catch up.

But you forget during much of the time when the western Christians were playing catch, the majority of the world’s Christians and the center of gravity of the Christian world, was in fact in the east in the Byzantine world.   Byzantium wasn’t exactly playing catch up with the classical world.   It was playing out the long slow eclipse of the ancient world itself.
You forget the Byzantine world, which for most of the   It is arguable the Byzantine world represented the slow motion death of the late classical world rather than The degree to which Christianity is responsible for the deep hole from which Chris

[Belacqua]

That is a considerable exaggeration.  Even in parts of the Christian world that had to climb out of the deep hole left by the collapse of Roman Empire, it would be hard to argue they had not largely caught up and surpassed the ancient world by the beginning of the 18th century.   That would mean the western Christian world only spent of 70% of its history playing catch up.

But you forget during much of the time when the western Christians were playing catch, the majority of the world’s Christians and the center of gravity of the Christian world, was in fact in the east in the Byzantine world.   Byzantium wasn’t exactly playing catch up with the classical world.   It was playing out the long slow eclipse of the ancient world itself.
You forget the Byzantine world, which for most of the   It is arguable the Byzantine world represented the slow motion death of the late classical world rather than The degree to which Christianity is responsible for the deep hole from which Chris

I wonder what metric you're using here? I agree that 99% is extreme, but why 70%? Not 80% or 60%? Or 73.268%?

You're certainly correct though to mention Byzantium. Those guys get forgotten way too much. The group of theologians known as the Cappadocian Fathers, for example, strongly advocated in the 4th century that people should study the processes of the natural world, and specifically recommended human dissection. For them as for many Christians after, it was just assumed that to know the natural world would be to know God better -- his ways and methods. It would be interesting to know better why, with by far the most influential theologians advocating scientific research, the economy of the time didn't support it. 

The so-called "dark ages" in Western Europe didn't have the energy to do much research, but the revival of Greek philosophy caused theologians in the high Middle Ages to agree with the Cappadocians. God operates in nature in rational and knowable ways, and it is good to know these in order to know God. This helped to motivate Leonardo, among many others. 

Fortunately the theologians at Oxford in the 14th century started doing a combination of experimental and mathematical work to show that Aristotle's views of motion were wrong. Their work made Newton's later work possible, when he wasn't writing Bible commentary, or discussing revelation with John Locke. 

And of course the Franciscan friar Roger Bacon was instrumental in getting the whole scientific project up and running. 

It's a fascinating history.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bit of a misnomer, the dark ages. That’s when the second agricultural revolution occurred. We made huge leaps in applied tech, and plant and animal breeding. The world would continue to run on the tools and methods developed then until the advent and deployment of petrochemical ag in the 40’s. Then, there were the military advancements and everything they entailed. Food and war, food and war. A predictable arc for discovery given the political situation over that period.

In any case, advocating for research while threatening the lives of anyone who dared to discover anything that ran contrary to dogma is some weapons grade gaslighting, just as your (and organized religions) penchant for reimagining religious history is.