This is one of the many arguments I hear from a atheist. I want to know your thoughts on this. How did the Bible or Christianity responsible to hold back humanity from progressing in technology and all that?
I have gotten a comment on one atheist (I think he maybe one)
"And my honest opinion religion is holding humanity back, yes it also can help people I do not disagree with that. But consider the things we don't quite know yet and our drive to make discoveries its what drives man to always push forward. It seems like religion can never really go forward unless somehow someone sees a new translation. Let me make an example: Just watch a children's movie its used as a device to stimulate emotion and sometimes teach us an overall life lesson either about relationships, sharing or caring for others and the thing you would do for them. Its a method humans have evolved to stimulate our minds and help us deal with situations on a humanistic level. But we all know these emotions and lessons have derived from fiction and at no point any positive outcome makes the movie more real. The problem with religion is the translation of this learning technique has been lost and at some point someone said those stories were actually real. Because come on some of those stories are just very old methods of thinking but that learning from a story technique still very much works. I love religious people just as much as my fellow atheists and I never want to change someone just help them think for themselves. Some people put religion above objective/logical thinking and when that starts to happen religion is holding someone back. Yes you may think by opposing religion will lead you into endless pain of hell but I do not have that fear because I do not think it exists. But I think anyone who uses the technique of fear of torture to not let you judge him seems like the worst kind of evil to me."
Thats a response I got asking that question.
But I also like a christian response.
Hey, David.
This is my take on the question:
First, one needs to make distinction between "religion" and "religion." Not all religions are identical, in order to apply to them "religion held humanity back." Religion is a category, and that would mean all religion, which I think isn't true. Just like science is a category, and there are instances of science, where they don't contribute to progress or human well-being - Nazi science ; weapons of mass destruction ; failed technologies and devices which killed people ; etc.
Second, your atheist dialogue partner seems to be assuming that religion is fiction. That's an assumption, because religion could very well be a real phenomena - and when the Bible says "Abraham met God," it is a historical moment of reality, that objectively took place, and not the fantasy crafting of a religious writer. It could also be the fantasy crafting of a religious writer as well, but it should be shown true, and not merely assumed as true and then reasoned from then onward(and describe movies and stuff, and how they affect human emotion, and how religion is like this, because it's fiction, and movies are fiction so... yeah).
Also, your dialogue partner seems to assume, once again, that religion advocates "putting objective/logical thinking in lower priority." This needs to be shown. I know most of the major religions, especially the monotheistic ones, use logical thinking and objective reasoning - from our shared reality, according to the almost universally agreed logical princples, etc. - in their rationale.
Now, if one follows my first point, then one ought to comprehensively examine each religion and not lump it together. I, for one, may speak from my knowledge and research on Christianity and its effect upon us:
- prior to education, healthcare and social care to become a state function, it was mostly, if not at all, done by Christians in Europe(not that they invented it, but they largely practiced these things, and they have become institutions of human society, which exist up to this day and are seen as beneficial and not at all holding back progress)
- prior to science becoming secularized, Christians were the main group doing science and contributing to human progress, and not only then, but currently there are many successful Christian scientists(about 60-65% of Nobel Prize winners - the highest reward in science - among all disciplines are self-professed Chrsitians)
- prior to Jewish government order being spread through Chrsitianity, and while it was taking place, much of human society had arbitrary rules, espoused by Kings, who saw themselves as "gods' representitives" on Earth. They were essentially making up what is good and evil, and were not subject to a standard of objectivty. That changed, because Christianity had the inherent government structure of Judaism - where everyone(the priests, the kings, the laborers, etc.) were subject to one universal standard - that of God's Law and guidance. This can be seen as foreshadowing the institution of constitution as we have it today - but a secularized version(without God mostly). However, this was an absent thing in human society prior to Judaism and its eventual spread through Christianity - where everyone is held to a universal standard.
So, I don't think all religion is harmful, and it's very deceptive to lump it all together and claim "it's all harmful," because there are SOME that are harmful, or holding back progress. Christianity, for one, has had rather positive effects. And when your dialogue partner cites some preconceived negative, he needs to show it directly tying to religious teachings of the respective religino - and when a Christian murder, he needs to show how is that promoted by his religion ; or when a Christian is anti-science, he needs to show how that's tied to the religion. And not merely claim "Christian is anti-science, since he's a Christian, it must have to do with Christianity, because I believe religion and human progress are at odds." That's begging the question. I cannot cite "Chikatilo(the guy with the largest killing spree) is a serial killer... he was a teacher, since teaching and being a non-violent person are at odds in my view, then his teaching career is responsible for him becoming a serial killer!" One cannot rely on his presupposed beliefs, which aren't shown true at any rate, but assumed, and then reason from them to his faulty conclusion.
There's religion that has held back human progress - that's something which cannot be denied. But it's wrongful to lump it all together and claim each worldview that is in the category of "religion" has done so, or is doing so, by some general rule(that some worldviews which are in the category of "religion" are holding back progress, thus it must be the case that ALL worldviews i nthis category do so), but have to show specific connections, that show that as true.
