Skip to main content

Religion and Science

Landes, a Havard economist, has argued that the rise of Europe was partially based upon the belief that the sciences improved religion, unlike much of the rest of the world, for which science was considered antogonistic. Newton, and many of the mathematically minded of his day, proved god by finding order in the universe. Einstein's statement that "God does not play dice...", has more to do with the concept of an ordered universe than any belief in God.

In comparison, think about the period of the Spanish Inquisition, which drove out much of Spain's intellectual capital and hastened its descent from empire. Italy persecuted the sciences; of note is Galilleo. The list goes on. Northern Europe's belief that science did not interfere with god allowed both to flourish, as opposed to much of the rest of the world, where science was suppressed to foster religion. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition by Geert Hofstede My rating: 4 of 5 stars A detailed and fascinating review of Hofstede's dimensions, by the researcher himself, showing broad high-level insights into history and culture, although a bit tedious, as it often describes in detail relationships many of us implicitly understand. View all my reviews

The Right to Write - NYTimes.com

In an article,  The Right to Write - NYTimes.com , I commented on the right to write, since writers are sometimes questioned on the validity of their writing, e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe with Uncle Tom's Cabin: One, people always have the right to write, but readers concurrently have the right to reject said writing. Much personal criticism of depictions from writers is whether the depiction seems valid or plausible, but even that is an exercise in empathy, since it requires one to experience that depiction ideationally.  Two, there is a streak in Americans, and maybe anyone, that states that you cannot understand 'my pain', usually the death of a child or some horrific personal lose. Over a longer term I have sensed that people most easily accept empathy if it is expressed by someone with similar experiences, an aspect I believe is part of human nature. I find both irksome, since they deny empathy.