Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
People become atheists not because atheism brings technological progress. First of all, it does not carry – science works equally well in the hands of a believer or an atheist-depending on which believer and which atheist. Secondly, even if he carried it, he would carry it to everyone equally-believers and atheists, without making a difference – the phone also works the same in all hands. Third , an atheist would be fine if all his disbelief in God was based on technological progress – no better than a believer who believes exactly as much as he is guaranteed to go to heaven.
That is, we cannot exclude the existence of such atheists, they probably exist, but this is definitely not the main argument.
I think that people are, become, or remain atheists regardless of their attitude to technological progress. You can be skeptical about religion and progress at the same time, or you can combine religious faith with faith in progress organically.
The” atheistic equivalent of heaven on earth ” is supposedly communism. In other versions-for example, posthumanism.
It is important to understand that a) technological progress is not necessarily a blessing, and b) technological progress is not an attribute of atheism.
A vivid example of how atheists fought against NTP is the Luddites of Modern times. In the capitalist society of the 19th century, when religion is already being pushed into the background, people begin to break and destroy the machines that take away their jobs.
It is counter-incorrect to say that religion does not bring scientific and technological progress. It was religious figures who stood, for example, at the foundations of astronomy (Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and the author of the Big Bang theory Lemaitre is also a Catholic priest), at the foundations of modern biology (the author of the basic laws of genetics Mendel is a monk, and Charles Darwin in his first works did not quite oppose God and evolution). It was Monk Schwartz who invented gunpowder in Europe. In medicine, we see priests and monks much more than scientists)
It is important to understand that natural science and technology do not overlap with religion in their work. Religion is about ethics and metaphysics, natural science is about real processes, and technology is about how to apply them. Religion becomes an opponent of science and technology in two cases : when they want to prove the infidelity of religion with the help of science (Gagarin flew into space, but did not see God), or when science and technology are taken into areas regulated by ethics (to do or not to have an abortion, for example). Here, the requirement of religion is to do only what is not harmful to man and humanity, a kind of variation on the theme of Asimov's laws for science.
Atheism is not a religion, it cannot be accepted as Orthodoxy or changed to something else. Atheism is more of a mindset. And here's how your head works.
And I remember how in the 4th grade the teacher told us about Gastello's feat: “and then he ordered the entire crew to jump with a parachute, but everyone said “no, commander, we are with you to the end”. I was completely shocked at the time. The first question is: how did the military people refuse to carry out an order, and even during the war? Why did they choose to burn senselessly and uselessly, even though they could have jumped out and shot at least one German with their pistol during the arrest? And then, in the evening, I came up with a worse idea – and how did you find out about it? Did the radio operator have time to tell all this on the radio to his airfield?
This is the atheist mindset: think about every statement, every fact, and take nothing for granted.
Well, who told you that technological progress is a blessing, and even more so who told us that it is a blessing that atheism brings. and the “atheistic paradise” is very interesting , you were not afraid to use the word “Paradise” in combination with atheism, in an atheistic belief such a word should not be.
Atheism does not bring technological progress.. it is quite possible to believe in God and invent new technologies, being inspired by him.. I don't understand why such attention is paid to atheism, because it's just someone's disbelief in God and that's all.. why is there no controversy, for example, between believers in telegram privacy and non-believers in it?.. this is something like the eternal confrontation between cat owners and dog owners.. meaningless.. in fact, it's just personal preferences based on personal life experience..
Atheism does not bring any benefits at all. And Einstein was a religious man. Moreover, atheism is simply dangerous for society. Remember the 90's and the rampant mafia. Who are all these bandits? These are former Komsomol members brought up in atheism. When there was a situation that you can kill and steal with impunity, they all rushed to do it. They had nothing sacred. Rob them before they catch you. Of course, in such a society, no progress is possible. A religious person has internal brakes, and they do not depend on the concepts of “caught” and “not caught”.
The generally accepted term is “Scientific and technological progress”. And it is determined by the development of science.
There are some issues that do not concern science. Because the answer to them is impossible to get from experience. If a person somehow answers them for himself, it will be his Faith. It can also be atheism. Faith and Science do not contradict each other.
But religion is a ready – made set of answers, framed in the form of mythology and equipped with rituals. There may well be conflicts with science. And here lies the reason for the spread of atheism.
I am not an atheist because it is economically profitable to be an atheist. Just the opposite. I am an atheist because God has not yet been found. And to believe in something whose existence is very questionable is simply not to respect yourself.
It is unlikely that all atheists try not to believe in supernatural beings, God or gods, just because the religion condemns scientific and technological progress. About Orthodoxy: Patriarch Kirill in one of his sermons on Channel One said that people were sent to this world to create and work, and it is not a sin for a person to enjoy the fruits of creativity. It is important that consumption is moderate and does not become the goal of life.
God is considered a free being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And it's scary. There is no separation of powers in heaven. In ancient times, he gave people laws, rules of life for salvation. But the God of religion is a living being. God needs to be pleased through prayer and good deeds, and the more he does, the more likely he is to be liked. And, say, tomorrow morning He will want (for example) that all the righteous immediately go to hell, or add some new, strange instructions to people. (Believers, of course, should not allow such blasphemous thoughts.) And so atheism, the study of atheism (for me personally, at least) is a means of calming down, getting rid of this fear, from the bondage of God.
Duluman once wrote that good is all those human actions that lead to the maintenance and prosperity of the human race. You need to realize that if everyone makes their own good “contribution”, then in the end everyone will become a little happier. Therefore, maybe someday this ideal, comfortable paradise on earth will come, with high technologies, where people will live in peace and harmony.