robzo100 said:
yes, that too! lol. Funny how I forgot some of the more obvious ones you pointed out.
One other thing I want to add, just because I think controversial debate is important, is that science owes much to ethics. A lot, or maybe all, of the ethical concerns holding science back today are a product of the values that have been endowed upon us by religion. And in that sense science owes much of it's initial progess to religion. How? Well, suprise suprise, much of science throughout history was funded (not really money per say, but resources in general) by the religious institutions. Science used to be thought as a studying of God's creations. In other words, to study God was to study the universe and it's many principles, patterns, and laws by which it obeys. Somewhere along the 17th century these two sides began to split and go their seperate ways and so that has been something swept under the rug imo. But discovering God was the "end game" of science even when it was just religion and not religious institutions. People felt they were studying something mystically important and so they scientifically progressed because of that religious passion. Not trying to completely make this a scienve vs. religions debate, but whenever "ethics" are thrown around it's almost impossible not to forget about religion being the biggest role player in history's (then and now) conception of ethics. Just some food for thought. |
That view seems somewhat Eurocentric.
While it's true that essentially the only ethical system in the Western World was created by Judeo-Christian values, other continents morals developed differnetly.
For example Confusinism which is essentially an aethistic moral code.
The same holds true for religions place in science.
Practically every huge early scienctist had some connection to the church... but that's every early western scientist.
