What began the notion that religion is inherently anti-science?

Probably when Euclid created G the letter,
erroneously attributed to Plutarch, then
Spurius Carvilius Ruga the freedman.

God

protestant propaganda

The catholic church held too much power over kings and lords in Europe, so the ones that felt like rebelling used any opportunity they got to smear it's name.

Like during these:

The supplanting of one religion (Christianity) for another (atheism).

Who knows

And mental health

Evolution

>not one mental illness has ever been cured by science

It's a product of enlightenment rationalism, which rejected faith, and trusted only empiricism.

There was essentially no real conflict between science and religion before it came into contact with the nature of "us". Even evolution, EVEN when applied to humans being descended from apes, was a scholarly debate more than anything.

No, what caused the religious/scientific divide was the first 2 world wars and the time between. It was people taking science and using it to justify racial supremacy and mass slaughter, through social darwinism (which has nothing to do with darwinism) that people saw as being in conflict with the biblical statement of compassion towards your fellow man. That is what caused the real anti-science belief in the religious right, a need to distance themselves from eugenics.

The fall of Rome began it. But I think you have it backwards. A major obstacle to science in the west was that it was largely viewed as anti-religious. Even as recently as Kant, science functioned in strict service to principles of Idealism.

I have a request but I don't think this deserves its own thread in /r/. Somebody the other day posted an anime rendition of the Madonna and Child ikon. Does anybody have it who would be willing to post it? I forgot to save it. This pic is somewhat similar.

because it has no scientific backing so is pretty much proven by science as untrue

>believe what we tell you or we'll kill you!
>hurr u think we are anti-thought??? WE KILL YOU!

Opposition to evolution. Failure to adopt with modern science.

There was no conflict unless you don't count Ancient Greek beliefs as religion, or pre-Socratic natural philosophers criticizing retarded myths around them as not scientists.

It's all semantic play really, in this thread.

Galileo?

Galileo got sentenced because of stirring shit, not because of his theory.

When Galileo was persecuted by the Church for heresy.

>The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture
>>and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture
What did they mean by this

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

When Hypatia was brutally murdered

>primitivegual

Nothing like a public burning to dissuade intellectual curiosity.

Never mind, guys. I found it.

>There was essentially no real conflict between science and religion before it came into contact with the nature of "us".
I think we can see this sentiment from the Enlightenment onwards, the 20th Century was just when it picked up major traction.

this
P.S gas the kikes race war now

Pixelated to oblivion. Original here.
aloron666.deviantart.com/art/Our-Lady-of-Perpetual-Help-715843549

Discovered it on this thread along with more pics
8ch (dot net) /christian/res/582864.html

>weebshit
kys

When the church didn't think the earth spun around the sun fucked that one up for eternity

I thought we were specifically talking about the modern perception of religion as anti-science and where that came from/

You've enriched my digital collection. Thanks user.

Can the validity of the scientific method be proven with the scientific method?

Of course it can't, what kind of dumb question is that, christcuck?

Look at this hot shot

just #asking, how can one claim the veracity of one religion over another without resorting to empirical observations?

I'm not sure but I do know that the media played a key role in popularizing that idea.

You can't apply empirical observation to monotheistic religions' gods, as they have been defined with the same attributes of the nothingness and death. And no scientific means can prove that "nothing" does not exist.

>You can't apply empirical observation to monotheistic religions' gods
then how do you determine that the religion you follow is correct?

The moment church became butthurt over Darwin's theories.

And why did the Roman Inquisition investigate in the first place?

>"Why is religion seen as anti-science?"
>"It is"
>"DUUURRR READ SOMETHING BEFORE SPEAKING, AQUINAS AQUINAS AQUINAS"

Quality debate, user.

And religion is anti-science because of differing concepts of understanding truth - Revelation vs. Observation, Belief vs. Certainty, etc. Also, you know... setting people that don't agree with your worldview on fire stifles scientific progress kinda.

Democritus.

Hume was maybe the first thoroughly naturalistic philosopher in modern times. He didn't necessarily suggest religion was anti-science, but rather defined what we could know very narrowly, so that religious beliefs fell very far outside it.

This is the kicker. This is why Christcucks say "they're not anti-science!" you're right, they're anti heresy. They just so happened to claim everything that didn't align with their views as heresy, which generally included science, becuase their views were retarded and mislead by a fake book. Imagine that.

>muh utility

Meanwhile, the largest charities in the world are religious, which essentially means that religious people are more moral.

Do the largest charities spend more than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? And anyways, the Red Cross and whatnot, get donations from secular people. All the same, that has nothing to do with religion being anti-science or not.

>Charity makes you a moral person
That's factually false. A large percentage of "mein Kampf" Goes towards charities. That doesn't make Hitler a moral person. Morality is subjective.

>What began the notion that religion is inherently anti-science?

Abrahamics insisting that people must believe that which isn't true.

youtube.com/watch?v=c2QDY0kqZzo

>A large percentage of "mein Kampf" Goes towards charities. That doesn't make Hitler a moral person.

No, but it does make the people who are in charge of the proceeds from Mein Kampf more moral.

Because they are fundamentaly different modes of through. Even as far as ancient Greece philosophers are religion were opposed.

No it doesn't. Morality is subjective. Did you miss that part of the lesson? I think it makes then immoral. That money shouldn't go to charity, you shouldn't take someone else's work, and let someone else profit off of it. Those people are highly immoral.

I truly believe this notion of putting Religion and Science as adversaries is a product of the XX century because it's the point when we disregarded spirituality in favor of vulgar utilitarianism, let us remember that many scientist pre 1900s were also religious such as Isaac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Aquinas (he was a naturalist not only a theologician) Mendel or even more recent ones like George Lemaitre who came with the Theory of the Big Bang.

but then the rising of Capitalism, Communism, Modernism, Post structuralism, Post modernity and all those post WW2 ideologuies came the divorce of religion and science because the international system no longer concerned itself with spiritual matters of the populace but turned it's eyes into reducing society to nothing more like cogs in the machine... workforce, and now the God was not Allah, YWHW, Buddah or whatever religious deity a culture could come up with, now our "God" became the Government, the Economy which in turn gave way to the idiocity that was the Sexual liberation, moral and cultural relativism because they (the international system) convinced us that "If there's no God, why bother? you only need us live your life however you want but don't forget SCIENCE, everyone who is religious is retarded and unscientific, who cares if the basis of the scientific method was created by a muslim theologician and scientist" and in their way of "emancipating" us from our religious and spiritual "ignorance" they needed a cornerstone to replace it and it came to demagogues like Dawkins (superb scientist but his takes on religion are reductionist and retarded) to preach to us the new gospel of science

You don’t. Religion isn’t something that can be “proved” with science, just like it cannot be disproven. All debate about the existence or not of God (or the divine in general, this isn’t specifically about Christianity here) is futile and ultimately more philosophical than anything else. It’s called Faith for a reason. You can debate about the influence religion should have on society, things like that, but faith? It’s not bound by logic or reason or anything, that’s just not the point of it.

It’s why people asking for help finding the True Religion with evidence and proofs will go nowhere. You can’t choose a religion. You can choose it’s tenets, it’s philosophy, it’s rituals, but you can’t choose to have faith, and ultimately any of them is potentially the “right” one. Or maybe there is no God. In the end we’ll never know in this life.

The Catholic Church provides every day for the poor, the hungry, the lost, among tons of other charitable initiatives, like education or medical care. For most of European history, they were the only ones to do so. I don’t know if anyone has ever tried to calculate how much this would/has cost, but I’m confident this would dwarf anything any man or even a huge organisation like the Red Cross could ever put together. And I’m sure other Churches, and probably charity coming from other religions (Sikh and Buddhist temple come to mind, but that’s just one example) as well.

>Muh charities
Band-Aid™ of Capitalism.

French revolution

I found an article claiming that the Church could be spending 170 billions a year in America alone, from the Economist.

economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/08/catholic-church-america

These people are either dishonest or has never come across religious nuts who add a lot of retarded shit in elementary school science textbook just so that students hopefully (they think) become more religious or something.

I’m glad we agree that a corporatist society would be more just.

Probably when Catholics kept executing scientists.

Well you're just a pedantic faggot, and nobody cares about your opinion.

I went to Jesuit schools for most of mt life, and not once has religion ever impeded on their teaching of science or History or anything. I even had sex ed, where they didn’t hide anything though of course they still reminded us that the best contraception is abstinence and that it would be better to wait until marriage and all that. I was taught big bang, evolution, with also catechism once a week and mass.

Are you sure the problem is with religion? Or is it more a few fringe American protestants?

>this is your brain on /r/atheism

My opinion? The subjectivity of morality is a fact. Are you dumb? I'm not waltzing through here calling you a retard for kicks. Go to /b/ or /pol/ if you want to be amongst your kind. You not understanding the definitions of objective and subjective isn't on me, stupid.

Do you have science to back that up?

Morality isn't subjective you fucking turd. Morality is socially constructed, which is not nearly the same thing.

I'd like to see you decide that paper money no longer has any value, and it having any effect on the world.

Morality has to be subjective or otherwise there is no autonomy and free will.

Have you even read theological works such as the bible and the Quran? They are full of non-falsifieable claims and the latter even straight up states that god messes with every non-believers head so that they won't realise the truth of islam.
Oh and they are also full of fucking magic.

What the fuck kind of retard are you?

>Never seen magic in his whole life
You're missing out a lot, man. The devils can do some shit by doing contract with them. Like, making you invulnerable by being shot point blank with live ammunition, clairvoyance, teleportation and so on.

>Subjective
Means the source of authority is the individual subject itself. This is important otherwise people would just keep blaming society, govt. other people and so on. Autonomy is derived by way of self-negativity i.e. the very outcome of transcendental subjectivity itself.

You don't even understand the meaning of subjective. How are you going to call someone else a retard?

>Jesuit school
No wonder they taught all that evil shit. Might as well have gone to the Church of Satan.

The fact that most religions make dogmatic claims about the nature of the universe, the origin of man etc. and science keeps refuting them.

They did execute scientists user, they simply did.

Like who? I'm not that guy, but stop posting this stupid shit. If you have evidence then just post it, so we can stop this stupid run around. You could have eliminated all doubt if a source had been posted in the first place.

You guys don't seem to understand what morality is.
Morality is a tool to achieve the best society, in the sense of one that maximises the wellbeing of its population. Granted that is one hell of a complex calculation to make but it certainly isn't subjective.

>the best society
"best" is also subjective too. What's "best" for one person (or society) is the the "best" for another. You're on a new level of stupid friend. There are actual grade school children who grasp subjectivity better than you. You're an adult, pretend to be smarter than a grade school child.

The polorization between secular and religious people.
You can have religious beliefs and be a great scientist, it's just that your religious side is unrelated to you as a scientist.
Because believing in something like a religion is not rational in itself, secular people often want to be associated with reason and science.
Because of that a lot of the most religious people want to push the idea that not being religious is le materialist scientism.
It don't help that the most fundamentalist are indeed anti-science and can be used as a strawman.

I don't know, but I support science and liberalism because it allows me to masturbate thinking I'm a futa girl while my (former) religion does not.

...

When science became a thing. Enlightenment.

You're wrong. Not on the subject, but on your understanding of the word 'execute'. Putting someone on house arrest is on no way, shape or form of execution. He literally had visitors, he wasn't executed.

>What's "best" for one person (or society) is the the "best" for another.
Even though this was an obvious miswriting it actually tells the truth. Culture isn't an intrinsic thing, and some of them are just blatantly inferior to others. Any society that would hinder people from non-destructive self-fulfillment is obviously not maximising its populations wellbeing.

>some are just blatantly inferior to others
That's your subjective opinion. To those people in that culture, your culture is inferior.
>blatantly inferior
Inferior by which metric? You can't empirically measure culture you mong.

That's descriptive morality, something that the person you have responded clearly didn't mean (nor are appropriate for the current topic).

Protestants trying to paint the church as evil, their plan backfired and now all religion is seen as bad except buddhism

>That's your subjective opinion.
True, however seeing as it is something that can be backed up empiricially it's also an objective truth.
>To those people in that culture, your culture is inferior.
That's irrelevant.

>Inferior by which metric?
Didn't you read my post? It clearly stated that the metric is the wellbeing of a societies population.
>You can't empirically measure culture you mong.
But you can you dingus. Cultures enforces certain behaviors and I doubt that anyone would argue that behavior doesn't have a major significance with humans.
Or are you actually arguing that all behavior is equally productive?

What the Church did with Galileo nowadays would be called "peer review". Also do you think the Pope would have ever executed Galileo, who was literally a personal friend of his? Maybe you should study the matter instead of shitposting memes about it.

K, I'm off work now. Bye.

Toodles mate!