• nyamlae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not really. If you read about the history of medieval universities, madrasahs, and mahaviharas, you will see how deeply and widely religious people have studied throughout history. It was customary for religious scholars to learn all kinds of topics, such as grammar, logic, and medicine.

        Religions are made up of people, and have accommodated all kinds of people. Some are wise scholars, and others are ignorant conspiracists. Religion can’t really be boiled down to one side or the other, though I understand how the rise of fundamentalist Christian fascism might make this hard to see.

        • 6mementomorib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          this is a common fallacy with religion, but basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion. just because it happened under religion doesn’t mean religion is what helped it.

          • nyamlae@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion

            In some cases, sure, and in other cases, no. For example, Buddhism is supported by nine other fields of knowledge – the vidyasthanas – including such things as grammar and logic. Religious teachers draw examples and ideas from these fields when giving religious teachings. One must study these other fields to become a “learned one” (pandita/mkhas pa).

            This is a living tradition that continues to the present day. For example, the Dalai Lama has heavily promoted education in modern science among Buddhists, and has co-authored several books on the connection between the two.

            The idea that religion is just some anti-educational brainrot is, ironically, anti-educational brainrot. Religion definitely can function that way, but it cannot be reduced to it.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          “Studying” in madrasahs is literally just the rote memorization of a version of the Koran in a language that students don’t even speak and don’t get me started on just how Christian belief was so thickly weaved into medieval university teachings that being against the Aristotelian earth-centric view of the Universe was cause to be burned at the stake (the medieval times aren’t called the Dark Ages for nothing and during the time of Medival Universities Europe actually went back a lot on technology and scientific knowledge)

          Having studied Physics at university level in a country which still back them had quite a bit of religiosity, I have come across a handful of people who were both true believer Christians and Physicists and the only way to manage it was basically to keep them apart except for the single point of contact which was “by discovering the wonders of the World, I’m discovering the wonders of God’s creation” which is not a logic link in any way form or shape, just an attempt at getting two very different perspectives to be side by side, never really touching.

          Religion simply does not inform Science in any way form or shape (and vice-versa), not in terms of logic, not in terms of information or knowledge and not in terms of methods - at best some people manage to have personal motivations to practice Science include Religious motivations, but any actually “knowledge” they have from Religion does not feed through into their Science because it doesn’t obey even the most basic criteria to work (for starters, it’s just “belief” rather than actual measurable or at least detectable effects that could not be explained in any other way than divine intervention).

          Religion is absolutely fine when it’s about how people feel, but it ain’t fine when it tries to intervene into the domain of Science: back in the Medieval times the most advance civilization was Arab and mainly Muslim (such as the Moors, who invaded and occupied the Iberian Peninsula) - they were the true inheritors of the knowledge of Ancient Greece and Rome - but at some point in the 15th century within Islam the idea that all that Man needed to know was contained in the Koran spread, hence why Madrasahs are “schools” were people rote learn the Koran and why those nations have been going back Scientifically and Technologically ever since.

        • nargis@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          While I broadly agree with the view that debate was sometimes a part of religious institutions in the past, this changed dramatically in the 20th century, especially with regards to Islam, perhaps due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When is the last time you’ve heard of a madrassah teaching that homosexuality is natural? Not to be Muslim-phobic, I am aware if the rich history of debate and science in the Middle East, but the material conditions have changed now, conservatism has been on the rise since the 70s.

          You speak of mahaviharas, but Buddhists I have met are just as conservative as the average religious person when it comes to women’s rights, feminism and gay rights. Madrassahs were not ‘open’, even during the Islamic golden age. Even when Islam was less rigid, Mansoor al-Hallaj was executed for saying ‘Ann-al-Haq’, Omar Khayyam had to go on a pilgrimage to prove he was pious, al-Qadir ordered to kill every Mu’tazilite in Baghdad and no doubt there are countless other stories of persecution. That rational thought survived when people were religious is hardly to the credit of religion, and even in periods of prosperity when religious institutions weren’t on the defensive, such things happened anyway and under the sanction of religion. As long as religion is under an institution, it is the nature of institutions to cling to power and hence, suppress dissent.

          • nyamlae@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Not to be Muslim-phobic, I am aware if the rich history of debate and science in the Middle East, but the material conditions have changed now, conservatism has been on the rise since the 70s.

            Yes, we seem to agree here. And if you acknowledge that material conditions influence how religion plays out, then you must acknowledge that it is not really intellectually honest to reduce religion to one form or another. Religion isn’t inherently either intellectual or ignorant, it is subject to the material conditions that it appears in.

            You speak of mahaviharas, but Buddhists I have met are just as conservative as the average religious person when it comes to women’s rights, feminism and gay rights.

            Yes, most old religions have unfortunately inherited prejudice and closed-mindedness from broader society. Although, I think you must also acknowledge that educated people can be bigoted, and we see this among non-religious people too.

            Mansoor al-Hallaj was executed for saying ‘Ann-al-Haq’

            A religious person being executed on religious grounds for challenging the religious state isn’t exactly an indictment of religion – both sides were religious. It is an indictment of religious ideology being enforced by the state.

            I don’t believe that religion is unique in this regard – states also use capitalism, liberalism, and other ideologies to repress proponents of competing economic + political systems. This doesn’t make economics + politics bad, and it doesn’t make religion bad either.

            That rational thought survived when people were religious is hardly to the credit of religion

            This is not true. In a Buddhist context, rational thought was taught by Buddhists like Dignaga and Dharmakirti. They studied and promoted logic + reasoning specifically for religious reasons.

            such things happened anyway and under the sanction of religion

            Yes, as I’ve said, religion includes both sides. You cannot erase the religiosity of the people that the state was trying to repress.

            As long as religion is under an institution, it is the nature of institutions to cling to power and hence, suppress dissent.

            I agree, with the exception of more decentralized and countercultural religious groups. When religious groups accrue great power, it’s a dark day for everyone. But I don’t think this problem is unique to religion. I think it’s a problem with having power over others.