An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Belacqua]

Because it generally was. From the times that long predate Christianity. 

Well, "it just was" doesn't really answer my question. How and in what way did religion work to oppose science? Names, dates, stated policies would be helpful here. 

Yes, there were times and places in which Christians didn't want certain kinds of research to go on. But this is different from stating that religion is always, fundamentally, or essentially opposed to science. 

Aeschylus wrote in "Prometheus Bound" that Prometheus is the source of all knowledge about medicine, and that anybody who claims to have discovered some cure by himself is lying.

This may be mixing up categories a bit. 

The fact that all knowledge is said to originate with the gods doesn't mean that we shouldn't do research or apply what we learn. It only means we have to be humble about the source of the knowledge. Plato tells a myth in which all knowledge is remembered from a time before our birth. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remember it, only that it isn't something we came up with originally ourselves. 

Granted, this might mean that an ancient Greek receiving the Nobel Prize might have to thank Asclepius for his assistance, but it doesn't mean that research is bad. 

Anyway, nobody does discover anything by himself. Shoulders of giants and all that. The myth seems to be more anti-hubris than anti-science.

[The Grand Nudger]

Science , and knowledge in general but particularly forbidden knowledge is and has always been hubris in western theocracy.

Anyone remember what Socrates is said to have been charged with?

The only difference between theocrats then and now is their ability, not their willingness, to close Pandora’s box.

[FlatAssembler]

Science , and knowledge in general but particularly forbidden knowledge is and has always been hubris in western theocracy.

Yes, I think that's what's going on. Religion is based on the idea that certain things must not be questioned. Even Christian Science, despite denying that, clings somewhat to that idea (comparing their failure rate to the failure rate of hospitals is considered sacrilegious). Sure, science doesn't really test everything. But it's the opposite of what religion is doing. Science doesn't attempt to test incoherent hypotheses, like that plants feel pain, because attempting to test incoherent hypotheses is unscientific. Religion usually doesn't test anything. And when it does test something, it tests incoherent hypotheses (ghosts, psychic powers...). In some sense, it's not just anti-science, it's also anti-intellectual.
Of course, anti-intellectualism is not just limited to theocracy. China is, despite being secular (if communism is not a religion, and it seems to me that, to a large extent, it is), quite anti-intellectual. I mean, banning Wikipedia just because it contains some inappropriate content. Future intellectuals need to learn how to deal with small amount of inappropriate content.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC, it might just be that people are anti-intellectual.

Religions are just ornate expressions of human cognition and behavior, after all. To find that an anti- intellectual population has an anti-intellectual religion wouldn’t be surprising.

That’s the only trouble with theism, really. More accurately, it’s the fundamental issue that every problematic effect of theistic belief and authority reduces to. It encourages us. It asserts that the fabric of reality does -and should- conform to the basest impulses of man. OFC the gods dont like uppity creatures poking their noses where they shouldn’t, learning things they ought never know.

Neither do we. As you note, this isn’t limited to religion, it’s just that religion provides great examples of it. Beautiful and poetic and culturally important examples, lol.

The lesson of classical antiquity, which is the basis of all western theism, was that man had a place....that place was below the gods, and that reaching further than that would bring misery and misfortune. It was evil.

[Belacqua]

Religion is based on the idea that certain things must not be questioned. 

This may need to be demonstrated, I think. "Based on" is a big claim. 

Granted, ideas of accepting things by faith is a part of some religions. Perhaps by "religion" you mean a certain kind of anti-intellectual Christianity? In that case you should be more specific. 

Are you aware that Christianity has always had within it critical and questioning movements? Historically, it is a constant truth of Christianity that dissenters tell the mainstream they are wrong. Nearly every part of Christianity has been questioned and criticized in history. In fact it's usually the names of these questioners we remember, far more than the mainstream. And yes, the mainstream sometimes takes extreme measures in fighting back. Those measures were bad. The fact that such extreme measures were deemed necessary shows the danger of the questioners to the mainstream.

Religion usually doesn't test anything. And when it does test something, it tests incoherent hypotheses (ghosts, psychic powers...). 

Can you cite a case in which "religion" tested the reality of ghosts? Does this mean the Vatican did it? Or some ghost hunter on TV? 

There are things which can be tested by scientific means and things that can't. For example, you could test anything quantifiable and repeatable, probably. 

Can you test whether it is good to commit yourself to the good of others, as many religions say you should? Can you test propositions which are inherently metaphysical, like the relation of the Logos to the material world? These are more fundamental to "religion" than ghosts. 

In some sense, it's not just anti-science, it's also anti-intellectual.

Of course, anti-intellectualism is not just limited to theocracy. China is, despite being secular (if communism is not a religion, and it seems to me that, to a large extent, it is), quite anti-intellectual. I mean, banning Wikipedia just because it contains some inappropriate content. Future intellectuals need to learn how to deal with small amount of inappropriate content.

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition. More intellectual pursuits like history, literature, and other subjects which require various intellectual skills, are sometimes devalued on this forum in favor of a faith and devotion to science. 

The classic book on anti-intellectualism is Hofstadter's. 

https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectual...filtered=1

He specifies two qualities that an intellectual must have: that she take ideas seriously, and that she take ideas playfully. 

That is, that an intellectual works on ideas as good in themselves, not only as they increase his bank account or some technological advance. Also an intellectual is willing to spend time with and work on ideas that are not self-evidently true, that despite being old-fashioned or out of the mainstream, nevertheless yield some wisdom. 

If you agree with his definition at all, many anti-religion people are wildly anti-intellectual as well. They declare without proof that only efforts at improving survival are worthwhile (I was told this straight out on this forum last week). Or they declare that a love of ancient philosophy is mental masturbation. Masturbation being the Puritan's favorite symbol of pleasure that doesn't procreate, and many atheist puritan-style anti-intellectuals echoing this judgment.

[Succubus]

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition. More intellectual pursuits like history, literature, and other subjects which require various intellectual skills, are sometimes devalued on this forum in favor of a faith and devotion to science.

You are of course referring to scientism. One of the greatest strawman arguments ever devised.
As for the bolded; who states this? Names please.

[Fake Messiah]

I actually think that art is great source to tell us about "human condition", especially secular art like in works of Shakespeare. Religion hardly comes up in Shakespeare, the greatest poet of the English language. Often romantic love is the inspiration for great poetry, as when Romeo calls up to Juliet from her garden at sunrise,

Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
That is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she.

Dumb people think of science as cold and impersonal. Reality is that scientists have pointed to the beauty and majesty of nature and the great pleasure and inspiration that science brings to its practitioners. Just think of TV show Cosmos, where astronomer Carl Sagan extolled the grandeur of the universe, life, and the human brain.
In his book Pale Blue Dot, Sagan asks, "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

Or take Richard Dawkins who wrote: "The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that makes life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living it is fragile."

Dawkins wrote it in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow" title of which he took from a poem by John Keats:

Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow . . .

[Belacqua]

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition. More intellectual pursuits like history, literature, and other subjects which require various intellectual skills, are sometimes devalued on this forum in favor of a faith and devotion to science.

You are of course referring to scientism. One of the greatest strawman arguments ever devised.
As for the bolded; who states this? Names please.

Yes, scientism is real, and it's bad. I'm glad we agree on that. 

As for who states that "only science can tell us anything about the human condition," you are right to call me out on that. It's not something that people are usually willing to say straight out, and I can't provide any links to people who say it. 

Still, I think many things that people are willing to assert aim at that conclusion, and it's one we should avoid. For example, if you keep your eyes open on this forum you'll see people asserting that only that which science demonstrates can be considered true. Sorry, I haven't kept the links. I've been told that questions not answerable by science are not even "legitimate" questions, as if it is somehow illegal to ponder them. 

If we add together the ideological position that only science deals with the truth, and that religion is only about obfuscation, I think we get pretty close to the sentence in blue. If we're paying attention, I suspect that one of the more intemperate posters on this forum will provide us with another example soon. 

It was our stem arthropod friend Anomalocaris who confidently told me the other day that life is all about survival, and any pleasure or wisdom gained for its own sake is a waste of time. 

Anyway, as I said, I'm glad we agree that things other than science can tell us important things about life.

---

Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' 

This is the opposite of what Christians say.

If we want our criticisms of Christianity to stick, I think we should make sure they are accurate. 

The sense of awe that one feels in looking at the universe is not quantifiable or testable in repeated empirical experiments. Therefore, it is not science. I'm glad that scientists feel it, but that's because they are human, not because they are scientists.

[Fake Messiah]

As for who states that "only science can tell us anything about the human condition," you are right to call me out on that. It's not something that people are usually willing to say straight out, and I can't provide any links to people who say it. 

Art gives us great look into human condition, like novels "Christian Nation: A Novel" by Frederic C. Rich and "Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood.

---

Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' 

This is the opposite of what Christians say.

God of Christianity is very small, apart from the fact that God in the Bible favours only one small group of people in one small part of the world there is also a notion that people shouldn't bother with this world and instead care for some other made-up world.

[Belacqua]

Art gives us great look into human condition, like novels "Christian Nation: A Novel" by Frederic C. Rich and "Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood.

Good, I'm glad we agree on something.

God of Christianity is very small, apart from the fact that God in the Bible favours only one small group of people in one small part of the world there is also a notion that people shouldn't bother with this world and instead care for some other made-up world.

This is your view of what Christianity says. There are a lot of Christians who think their religion is different. 

~ The God of Christianity is infinite.

~ The God of the Jews favors one small group, but the God of the Christians extends that to everybody. Like it or not. 

~ Many many Christians in history have bothered with this world, and feel that bothering with this world is what they're called upon to do.