Don’t you think that you should know what that is before you sell the farm?
Islam is your best example of a religion hindering science. Contrary to the standard bleating of atheists, the RC church preserved knowledge and dispersed it. It created the educational system in Europe and founded the first universities. Judaism places a high value on knowledge, learning and achievement. The RC church was never against evolution. The Muslims had a sophisticated theory of evolution in the middle ages. Creationism is a product of the American south and really it is a molehill which has been made into a mountain.
Not everything that science does is moral and ethical. That has to be brought out in the open and discussed. Religions would not be fulfilling their function if they did not act as a moral compass.
If you had done some research, then you would know that Einstein did not say it.
There is good reason to believe that the external emphasis of Abrahamic religions and the concept of an intelligent creator God are more conducive to scientific advancement than the internal emphasis of Buddhism. From the article on the history of science in China :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … stagnation
If it was ‘due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human’ then one would expect Buddhist societies to advance at a pace which is similar to Judeo-Christian societies. In fact, one could expect faster advancement in Asian societies since Asians score high on IQ tests.
Admittedly, the interactions of geography, culture, economics and religion are very complex.
To find the truth, you have to get out of the politics.
I see people posting long, well-researched, arguments which you largely ignore. You seem to be completely enamored with your own little theory. I don’t want to waste too much of my time. For example, I did not even bother with these posts:
If you had though about it , then you would realize that both Christianity and Islam are a rewriting of older ‘immutable’ doctrines.
If God exists and if He is responsible for the holy texts then He can reappear and change the texts.
If God does not exist then humans wrote the holy texts and humans can change the holy texts. The mechanism of change would be exactly the same as the mechanism which produced the original text.
Seriously, try to think it through BEFORE posting.
Because of the proliferation of bullshit on this site, I research quite a few of the posts which are in the areas of my interest. I usually don’t bother to post my findings.
That is one reason that I continue to come to this site - it keeps me from getting complacent.
With respect to your posts … your understanding of religions and human psychology is superficial. I have researched it for many years and I know more about it than you do.
There you go again with your narrow and shallow perspectives.
I said the Abrahamic religions are inherently partly evil and also hinder progressive scientific knowledge. Why? … because the words of God is supreme while the knowledge [Science, especially those that challenges the holy texts, etc.] brought forth by man is fallible.
I was stating Buddhism all the way, but you introduced Confucius. In any case, both Buddhism and Confucianism do not hinder Science in general. The advancement of Science [despite the many inventions by the Chinese in China then] was stagnant because they did not focus in the direction of the Scientific Method and it framework, and thus did not have an efficient structure to expand Scientific knowledge.
In contrast, the Abrahamic Religions [AR] has the fundamentals in their holy texts to resist Science especially when Science and philosophy discover truths that contradict their [AR] holy texts and interpretations.
The AR has been restricting any form of knowledge other than those that conform to their holy texts. Anyone who introduced or practiced knowledge contra to the holy texts were persecuted and killed in the most horrific manner. Note the inquisitions, etc.
This culminated to the events of Copernicus.
The Church only relented where they are cornered with the truths and thus letting go their resistance to Science where the truth is so obvious. This is where the Jesuits came in later [long after Bacon, the enlightenment and other Scientific progress] with the receptiveness to some aspects of Science and technology.
Btw, I did NOT link Science with Ethics at all. Religions (Abrahamic and others) are critical for ethical issues, but they are at best transitory and relative to certain human conditions and phases. The Abrahamic Religions with their VERY rigid Ethical System are relevant for then and now but their expiry date and net effectiveness [pros over cons] is coming to an end in the advent of the trend of the exponential expansion of human knowledge.
My point, the Abrahamic Religions in general will ALWAYS resist Science in one form or another, e.g. Creationism, and others, because the Abrahamic religions are grounded on a necessary lie while Science is seeking for truths.
The fact is all the points you throw out are easily dismissed as irrelevant counters.
I have to admit, in a forum like this and as my time is limited, there is no good reasons and obligations for me to present my ‘well-researched’ views in detail. What I have presented is merely the very small tips-of-icebergs of what I know and the arguments I have on hand. The point is these tips has valid room for anyone to dive deep into the other 9/10 of the icebergs.
In any case, I am presenting (at my own pace and discretion) the details, .e.g. note I raise the thread on ‘The Complex Human Being.’ One has to clear this internal hurdle before attempting to understanding the complexity of the external.
In anycase, note the critical value of philosophy is questioning [Russell] and what you are doing is trying to kill ‘questioning’ with dead-end counter views.
First, it is your discretion whether to bother or not. I understand, this is a pot-luck sort of philosophy forum where members contribute their views and others has the discretion to pick and choose what they like to participate in within the rules of this forum.
In any case, there is a lot of truth below the 1/10 of what I presented above if only you care to dive in deep.
That is what happened to Christ, Muhammad, Bahá’u’lláh [Bahai], Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [Ahmadiyya] and many other lesser known so-called prophet or messenger of God who claimed they are the personal agent of God.
If God is to reappear and change the texts, then he has to appear objectively as real. But none of the messengers and prophets has been able to proof the existence of their so-claimed God.
On the other hand I had given many possible reasons why and how God was a necessary illusion to deal with the existential dilemma.
Actually, you are the one who is not doing any serious thinking but rather blinded by deep emotional cognitive biasness and blindness.
If it is humans who wrote the ‘holy’ texts, there is no issue at all.
How did you conclude my presentation is superficial when I have only presented 1% of what I have researched and reflected on for many years. This show your impulsiveness.
Personally, I do not give a damn about whatever opinions others has on my views. What is important is I keep questioning [that’s philosophy] and ensure responsibility of intellectual integrity in the knowledge I seek [which I has no obligation to present the details to others unless I am presenting a paper to a recognized intellectual institution].
To maintain my personal intellectual integrity, I ensured I had covered at least many books and articles [e.g. in my Kant Folder, there are 1850 files in 31 sub-folders] on the subject and terms before I speak about it (otherwise I will qualify if I am not too sure). This is why I am very confident you will not likely to catch me [if any, will be rare] off guarded as I have many ace cards on hand.
Same for me joining a philosophical forum, i.e. to refresh and keep the knowledge I gathered in tune, besides the necessary practices.
Well, if you are going to stick around, at least learn a few of the root words, even if they don’t support your self-supporting stockpile of junkets;
You seem to be particularly weak in 1 and 2. And thus very speculative and biased in 3 and 4.
Perhaps if you adopted a standard for correctness other than, “I like what that person said about it”.
That seems to be confirmed by the experience of Islam after the Golden Age, directly contradicted by the experience of Christianity in Europe and also contradicted by the experience of Buddhism in Asia. On the whole, it appears to be an inadequate description of what has happened.
You didn’t read the quote correctly… Confucianism was a minor point.
This is a common error … the belief that everyone who thought differently was persecuted. That did not happen. Since you bring up the Inquisition … over several hundred years, there were 150,000 trials and 3,000 executions. Unfortunate but hardly a wholesale suppression of others.
Compare that to the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) when 31,000 ‘enemies of the revolution’ were killed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Statistics
The Jesuits were founded in 1540. The first failed mission to China was in 1552. The first successful contact was in 1582. Francis Bacon lived 1561-1626.
That would make an interesting thread … the new ethics that are coming real soon.
Let’s see …the Christian Church has been able to brainwash practically everyone from a young age. They controlled all the schools in the Middle Ages and founded the universities. Even now, we must be constantly vigilant since Creationism may be forced on us at any moment.
But … Western Europe and America have been the centers of science and technology. Not the Buddhist societies. Not the Muslim societies.
I must say that the Christian Church has been remarkably ineffective in suppressing science. The Muslims seem to have done it quite easily but the Christians are complete failures. 
You seem to be content to look at your construct from one vantage point. You want to limit the discussion in each thread. You want everyone to agree with you. You want yes-men.
I want to look at this from every direction. I want to see the whole picture. I think that I am doing more questioning than you.
You presented your 1% analysis of Abrahamic and Eastern religions - it seems clearly flawed. Unless the other 99% is very different, we can expect more of the same.
Unless the iceberg turns to gold below the waterline, it’s safe to say that it’s made of ice all the way through.
I’m not particularly interested in the cubbyholes that Kant has constructed. To paraphrase the Zen Buddhists : “If you meet Kant on the road, kill him.”
The above is very myopic. You mentioned ‘root’ word but instead focus on the twigs and leaves.
Whatever follow from your wrong interpretation and understanding of philosophy per se is a sham.
To the point, note;
dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy?s=t
I suggest you read and analyze at least 300++ definitions [which I have done] of ‘what is philosophy’ from all over the world in every culture and abstract the essence. Then you will get a better idea of what is philosophy proper.
IMO, from the intellectual [not practical] perspective, Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, i.e. even more systematic and thorough than the higher intellectual aspects of Buddhism (Mahayana and Vajrayana).
I quote that Lin Chi statement very often so I understand the point.
Whilst Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, he has his very ugly ‘warts’ [due to his time] and was no ‘saint’ nor ‘angel.’ Fortunately his great philosophy can stand independent in time from of his era-conditioned individual person and some ugly personal views.
Note the Buddha’s parable to “kill” [from a similar extreme perspective] his teachings, re the ‘raft and shore’ simile/parable. The same attitude can be directed at Kant’s philosophy and other philosophies.
Which “ugly ‘warts’” do you mean?
Religare - something which binds you to self.
A spiritual perspective which guides one’s life. My religion is the all- encompassing inspiring nature and the stars.
It’s anything which draws us in and binds us. It could be harmful or beneficial.
God is a realization, oh, not in the mode of an intellectual excercise, but the sudden realization that i=u=them=all=them=u=i. That this is the crown jewel of all the mantras, sutras, catholicisms, muslims,olympus’s,yehowas, christs, mahatmas,
that make possible in the creation of that magick moment where you and i can stop time by merely transposing into one another, for a moment of time, our own sense of our own singularity.-realizing that we are, for that very briefest moment, when time ceases to exist. Our love then is borne out of the despair of realizing this, that where this came from, is hidden in infinitely layered faith in one another, then rising to include more and more, .This love counterbalances Nature’s cruel evolutionary struggle, the vagrancies of the struggle for sexual dominance.
Religion is the opposite: it starts the process of desgtructuring this pyramid, culminating in arrival to the apex, where You will not again fear non existence.
You are with God.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. One might say that one trains and exercises 'religiously" but I don’t see religion as those two nouns.
It trains you to be closer to God. To listen, to see, to recognize, to understand.
That’s the religion of seekers.
It’s not the ‘go to church every Sunday’ religion. Not the ‘listen blindly to a preacher’ religion.
Peter Sloterdijk says (in his book “Du mußt dein Leben ändern” - “You Must Change Your Life”, p. 12 and p.133): "es gibt keine Religionen (translation: “there are no religions”), “sondern nur mißverstandene spirituelle Übungssysteme” (translation: “but only misunderstood spiritual exercise systems”).