TED Conversations

Albert Fuglsang-Madsen

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Has/Is Religion really a hinderance to science? What are the consequences?

Personally, I believe religion has always been a hinderance because religion always have been very unreasonable and thereby impossible to discuss things with, because everything was already settled.

Through time the church has hunted down scientists and people who believed in Darwin or back when they believed the Earth was flat and some said round.

What do you think the world would look like if religion hadn't existed?
Do you think religion is a result of primitivity?
That the human brain finds peace within rules and discipline -- that the only reason religion exist is due to these primitive needs to find irrelevant meaning?
Do you think religion today still is a hinderance to science?

Personally I believe that overall, there are more negative outcomes of religion than positive. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? (And the answer HAS to be open to discussion. NO MORE Religious "It's like that because I say so, and I won't believe otherwise and shut my ears to anything that contradicts me and the belief system I have chosen.")

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Roy Bourque 20+

    • +1
    Feb 11 2013: Religious fundamentalism is a hinderance to science. And much of organized religion is based on fundamentalism. Religion united people. It was instituted by enlightened souls who became aware of Christ (or cosmic) consciousness, and perverted by those who saw it as a means to control the masses.

    In the ancient world, there were two ways to looking at religion. The exoteric version was the simpleton's view of religion, where fundamentalism takes its cue. The esoteric version was the elite pathway that led to a much deeper meaning in religion. Eastern philosophy, ancient geometry, esoteric mythology, mysticism, gnosis and Christ Consciousness were all part of advanced schools of thought. This knowledge still exists but is known to only a few. I have a website in which I have listed other websites that cover some of this;

    http://scienceandreligionconverging.com/other-sources_277.html

    In the last century, some words have changed meaning. Theology is one of the them. The definition in the 1904 dictionary says that theology has two branches, natural and revealed. Natural theology is the knowledge we have of God from his works, by the light of nature and reason (this is where science fits in). Revealed theology is that which is to be learned only from revelation (or Christ consciousness as it is known by enlightened souls). The modern definition contains no reference to nature. And any reference to revelation reverts back to doctrine.

    There seems to be a conspiracy in modern religions to keep you uninformed because they run it like a business. If you don't need them, then their business fails is the basis of their philosophy. So they intentionally keep you in the dark so you will need them, which is their game plan.

    To reject religious fundamentalism is a step in the right direction. To reject religion altogether without ever understanding the esoteric versions of it is to throw away a gift you never knew you had.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.