if corrected would solve the rest of the 39 harmful effects...

Hell, Bruno was a friar and they still burned him alive because he picked a bit at biblical inerrancy and church dogma. Not being a Christian was a short and nasty trip in those days. I'd have been a carefully pious and orthodox Christian myself, in the mold of Abbe Meslier.

Did he pursue his alchemical interests for scientific reasons, or simply because he was swept up by the old dream of transmuting base metals into gold? Did Newton discover a secret theological meaning in alchemical texts, which often describe the transmutational secret as a special gift revealed by God to his chosen sons? Or was Newton perhaps attracted to the graphic and mysterious imagery of alchemy, with its illustrations of hermaphrodites, couples copulating within flasks, poisonous dragons, green lions, and dying toads? None of these questions are made easier by the fact that Newton's laboratory notebooks, even the one containing the first full description of his brilliant discovery that white light is really a mixture of immutable spectral colors, are filled with recipes patently elaborated from the very alchemical sources that overflow the manuscripts sold by Sotheby's in 1936. Here too, alongside sober explanations of optical and physical phenomena such as freezing and boiling, we find "Neptune's Trident," "Mercury's Caducean Rod," and of course the "Green Lyon," all symbolizing substances derived from Newton's alchemical readings. Whatever the ultimate purpose of Newton's alchemical investigations may have been, it is clear that we cannot erect a watertight dam separating them from his other scientific endeavors ... "

The Chymistry of Isaac Newton

"the sermon on the mount"

For example the sermon says that we don't need churches.

I don't remember if this is from the Sermon on the Mount, but...

"For where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them."

However, Churches are never mentioned in the sermon.

and a devout atheist but didn't Jesus say something about God being in all of us therefore therefore implying an edifice with which to worship God is redundant

Those complaints can be applied to all religions, especially Islam since about the 12th century.

See what happens when an Imam declares mathematics the work of the devil (about 6.5 minutes into the video):

But since there's no unifying thing like "Christianity" that's just unimportant.

It's necessary for Christianity to be a "thing," so I'm going to be going to my Sunday keeping church to observe the 7th-day sabbath to worship a Trinity with the father, son, and holy ghost but without the "holy ghost" (so it's a duonity, I guess) that created the universe 13.8 billion years ago around 4000 BC.

Because, really, there's a single Christianity.

(I continue to wonder exactly why some people think Xianity requires circumcision. It's a tradition, oddly mostly an American Protestant tradition, but good luck finding Christian preachers that actually preach circumcision. Now Jews and Muslims, sure. Large swaths of those religious landscapes teach circumcision. And more than a few animist traditions have female genital mutilation or male genital mutilation. But hate tends to be focused locally.)

I'm mostly wondering why the author of the article only focused on Christianity when those criticisms apply well to several other religions as well.

They apply to all religions, tmho.

religion is mostly a refuge from rational thought. Much easier to believe in some bearded old fellow watching over you than to have to try and understand the universe around you

The few brave secular Bangladeshis who haven't been hacked to death complain of Islam. People with cancer don't often write of the travails of AIDS or vice versa.

thanks

With few exceptions, the prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology, Medicine, and Economics have gone to persons in the US or in one of the states now in the EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

I see quite a few science winners from places like Japan, Israel, China, etc.

There's three total who were Muslim. In the distant past, Islam was a world leader in math and science. Taking a hard religious stance against mathematics likely didn't help matters.

They're listed under more than one country in the list.

There's also a link near the bottom for Muslim winners.

Neil Degrasse Tyson wasn't saying that Muslims are inherently inept at such things. He was saying that they've suffered from religious idiocy from the top. Christianity went through such periods as well -- e.g., the "Dark Ages" in Europe.

There are, for example, no laureates of Chinese nationality or background before 1957

The first scientific Nobel for someone with a connection to India went in 1902 to British national Ronald Ross, born in Uttarakhand, but educated in England -- but no scientific Nobel went any non-white until the Indian physicist Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman won in 1930. Hargobind Khorana (1968) was born in British India but obtained US citizenship in 1966

Looking at the scientific laureates with Argentinian connection, we find Bernardo Houssay (1947), the child of French émigrés, Luis Leloir (1970), himself born in France, and César Milstein (1984), the child of a Ukrainian émigré: Milstein joined the University of Cambridge in 1958 and later obtained British citizenship

&w=1484

As mentioned by Tyson, Islam was a world leader in science and math in the early years. That changed when an influential Imam declared math to be the work of the devil.

Why wasn't there more scientific progress during the Dark Ages of Europe?

Could it be related to this behavior?


There are also cultural influences that hold people back.

I'll concede that there's some countries so far behind at this point that it will be a struggle for their inhabitants to catch up.

The development of the sciences depends on a number of conditions, not all of which are present at every place and time

One of these factors is leisure time with adequate resources. Ancient Greek science was a product of the free citizen class, rather than of the slave class -- which, of course, did much of the work. Medieval European scientific work was accomplished by clergy and various university faculty, not by the farming serfs. As we begin to move into the modern period, European scientific work is also accomplished by aristocrats like Lavoisier: Robert Boyle was a son of the Earl of Cork; Henry Cavendish's father was a son of the Duke of York and his mother a daughter of the Duke of Devonshire

The European colonial expansion brought fabulous wealth to Europe at one time -- and this provided some persons the resources and related leisure necessary for scientific progress. The industrial revolution similarly provided some persons resources and related leisure: this perhaps explains somewhat the rapid scientific progress after 1850 in Germany, which had earlier been a largely rural collection of states

Cultural exposure to new ideas also matters. The Italian Renaissance is related to the early influx of classical ideas, mostly lost to the Europeans but transmitted from translations of texts saved by the Islamic world, as well as the introduction to Europe of Arabic numerals, which made commercial record-keeping much simpler. The European colonial expansion brought unusual materials (such as rubber) to Europe, which had not only economic effects, but taxed imaginations for uses of the products

Wars can have various impacts. The Islamic expansions, from 622 to 750, brought Greek, Indian, and Chinese ideas and technologies to the Islamic world, while the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 left a city of ruins and decaying corpses, where there had once been a significant center of learning

... with no interest in science or mathematics.

Meanwhile, there's examples of scientific geniuses like Isaac Newton (born to a poor farming family and whose father died before his birth), Michael Faraday (born to a poor family and provided with little formal education), George Washington Carver (born into slavery and denied an education in his early years) and many others.

The main obstacle is outright opposition to science. In places where people in authority value science, it's more likely to flourish.

My parents strongly discouraged me from pursuing college, but I overcame it and earned degrees in math and physics. I fortunately had teachers and others to encourage me or it would have likely been impossible.

I'm aware that some people throughout history have been dissuaded from intellectual pursuits from everyone, or nearly everyone, in their lives.

My parents were correct in a way. Other than part-time work as a statistician during graduate school at my university's medical school, I've never applied my education anywhere in the work world. I've been in factory jobs most of my life, on my feet in hot conditions and never earning more than $30,000 a year. Thanks to your post, I suppose that I can at least take some pride that my manual labor is helping others to pursue scientific advancements.

EDIT: I'm 48 years old now.

36. Know that the sciences of the philosophers, with reference to the aim we have in mind, include six divisions: mathematical, logical, physical, metaphysical, political, and moral.

37. The mathematical sciences deal with arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. But nothing in them entails denial or affirmation of religious matters. On the contrary, they concern rigorously demonstrated facts which can in no wise be denied once they are known and understood. From them, however, two evils have been engendered.

38. One of these is that whoever takes up these mathematical sciences marvels at the fine precision of their details and the clarity of their proofs. Because of that, he forms a high opinion of the philosophers and assumes that all their sciences have the same lucidity and apodeictic solidity as this science of mathematics. Moreover, he will have heard the talk of the town about their unbelief, their negative attitude, and their disdain for the Law. Therefore he ceases to believe out of pure conformism, asserting: “If religion were true, this would not have been unknown to these philosophers, given their precision in this science of mathematics.” Thus, when he learns through hearsay of their unbelief and rejection of religion, he concludes that it is right to reject and disavow religion. How many a man have I seen who strayed from the path of truth on this pretext and for no other reason!

39. One may say to such a man: “A person skilled in one field is not necessarily skilled in every field. Thus a man skilled in jurisprudence and kalm is not necessarily skilled in medicine, nor is a man who is ignorant of the speculative and rational sciences necessarily ignorant of the science of syntax. On the contrary, in each field there are men who have reached in it a certain degree of skill and preeminence, although they may be quite stupid and ignorant about other things. What the ancients had to say about mathematical topics was apodeictic, whereas their views on metaphysical questions were conjectural. But this is known only to an experienced man who has made a thorough study of the matter.”

40. When such an argument is urged against one who has become an unbeliever out of mere conformism, he finds it unacceptable. Rather, caprice’s sway, vain passion, and love of appearing to be clever prompt him to persist in his high opinion of the philosophers with regard to all their sciences. This, then, is a very serious evil, and because of it one should warn off anyone who would embark upon the study of those mathematical sciences. For even though they do not pertain to the domain of religion, yet, since they are among the primary elements of the philosophers’ sciences, the student of mathematics will be insidiously affected by the sinister mischief of the philosophers. Rare, therefore, are those who study mathematics without losing their religion and throwing off the restraint of piety.

41. The second evil likely to follow from the study of the mathematical sciences derives from the case of an ignorant friend of Islam who supposes that our religion must be championed by the rejection of every science ascribed to the philosophers. So he rejects all their sciences, claiming that they display ignorance and folly in them all. He even denies their statements about eclipses of the sun and the moon and asserts that their views are contrary to the revealed Law. When such an assertion reaches the ears of someone who knows those things through apodeictic demonstration, he does not doubt the validity of his proof, but rather believes that Islam is built on ignorance and the denial of apodeictic demonstration. So he becomes all the more enamored of philosophy and envenomed against Islam. Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed Law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.

A pdf of a translation, hosted by the American University of Beirut

This, then, is a very serious evil, and because of it one should warn off anyone who would embark upon the study of those mathematical sciences. For even though they do not pertain to the domain of religion, yet, since they are among the primary elements of the philosophers’ sciences, the student of mathematics will be insidiously affected by the sinister mischief of the philosophers. Rare, therefore, are those who study mathematics without losing their religion and throwing off the restraint of piety.

Seems like Tyson hit the nail on the head to me.

who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences"

To judge the sense of thousand year-old text from a translation, one probably should not pull out a single sentence; and one should also exercise some restraint in claiming that such a sentence has influenced Muslims for the next thousand years, up to the present day, when there are about 1.6 billion of them, scattered around the world -- especially since Islam is a rather diverse religion, which has no central authority

I'm reading more about it now.

This is an interesting article, expounding on it far more than Tyson's simplistic overview:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science

He's a is grad student in Government at UT in Austin, researching "the role of national honor in American foreign-policy"

That doesn't suggest he has the expertise or data to support his claim that "the spirit of science in the Muslim world is as dry as the desert"

Most science Nobel prize winners have a connection to the US or to the countries currently in the EU. Per capita GDP in the US is around $51K; in the EU, it's around $35K

The ten countries in the world with the most Muslims, with their approximate per capita GDP, are:

Indonesia $4K
Pakistan $2K
India $2K
Bangladesh 1K
Egypt $3K
Nigeria $3K
Iran $6K
Turkey $12K
Algeria $4K
Sudan $2K

Overall, those countries (with the exception of Turkey and perhaps Iran) don't have the economic resources to support large-scale science programs, though some do have good educational opportunities for a limited number of students: access to such programs may depend on both social class and talent

We can expect future Nobel laureates from Saudi Arabia, UAE and more wealthy Muslim countries in the future, then?

There's been 82 Jewish people in the United States who have won Nobel prizes for Chemistry, Medicine and Physics (not counting Literature, Peace and Economics).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

Not bad for a group of people that comprise less than 3% of the USA population. Granted, they also have the largest average incomes, but there's far more non-Jews here who earn more that don't pursue science.

I still think cultural beliefs, which often comprises religion, is the main factor.

I could also argue that they have the highest average IQ's in the world (at least if they're Ashkenazi Jews), but that probably wouldn't be PC on this site.

I'm with the original poster that most is "the misinterpretation of the bibles teachings to conform to a political and religious agenda by many organized religions and churches," except that some are practiced by only a very small number of churches.

I would add what is to me an important point, however, that virtually all of them are not really about redemption or spiritual health at all, but are about power, and mostly about keeping a few in power by putting the many down into servile stature.

20. Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.

But then, religion in general promotes that as well.

But few things are as effective in exacerbating that as religion.

you like the writing of a bigoted author who seems to have the same type of real world view of his subject as shown by the type of person who would write Chick tracts.

never heard that term before. I learn new things every day at DU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tract

If You're On the Fence About Your Vote, This Pastor Clarifies How the Very Future of America Is At Stake

1. The Democratic and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, in my opinion, as far apart as evil vs. good. The 51-page Democratic platform is the most leftist ever. (I don't care for the "right vs. left" nomenclature. I am far more concerned with "right vs. wrong.&quot The Democratic platform contains many points which are anti-biblical. (Time does not permit me here to identify what is meant by "anti-biblical," which is covered in my new book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today's Tough Issues.) It is thoroughly socialistic (a socialist is a communist without a gun). The 54-page GOP platform is one of the strongest GOP platforms ever. A biblically alert person could be comfortable with almost all of it. Party platforms are a big issue to me. Although some "blow off" party platforms, I do not. Nor do many people up and down the ballot who are running for office. This is a serious and very important item. I have a hard copy of both platforms in front of me now. Most people have never checked out what the party platforms say. They should. If a person is not drawn to the "top-of-the-ballot" candidate, they ought to at least consider voting for the candidate attached to the best party platform.

2. Analogy #1: Both candidates are flawed. We all know that. But permit me an analogy: As a pastor, I would rather deal with a church attendee who is blatant and brash in his sinning than one who is devious, lying, cunning and deceptive. Both are problematic, but one is easier to deal with than the other. If I were a pastor bringing correction to a parishioner, I would prefer dealing with a "Trump-type" any day over a "Hillary-type." The chances of making progress with the "Trump-type" are many times greater than the "Hillary-type."

3. Analogy #2: When my (late) wife's remarkable and much loved oncologist said, "Don't take Carol to that alternative (non FDA approved) treatment." I asked, "Why not?" He said, "The unknown." I said, "Doctor, your 'known' is much worse than the alternative treatment's 'unknown.'" I took her to that alternative treatment. One year later that same oncologist went to the alternative treatment doctor to see how it was that Carol had improved so much. While this alternative treatment did not ultimately save her life, it likely stretched two to three years of life to six years of life—by the admission of another one of her brilliant young oncologists who later said, "Without any medical training or scientific fact, you have put together a protocol of treatment that has moved her into the top fraction of 1 percent of survival rates of all patients with Carol's particular cancer. Application of the analogy: Hillary's "known" is considerably worse—many times over—than Trump's "unknown."

4. Trump has lots of sins in his past (actually, we all do), and—in the present—says things he should not say. I make no attempt to defend any of the things he has said. There is no need to rehearse the wrong things he has said. We know what they are. He should not have thought or said them. But there is no need to rehash them here. So we won't. But let's turn to the other candidate. Although America has had some scandal-ridden candidates in its history, we have never seen any one major party candidate more constantly scandalous as Hillary (along with her husband). She seems to exceed all previous boundaries for wrongdoing. The scandals just don't stop. In the same way we did not take time to list all of Trump's misstatements, neither will we here rehash the seemingly continuous string of horrific scandals of the Clintons.

5. Trump is slowly being surrounded by increasingly good people. From time to time, I receive encouraging calls regarding this. Can these good people impact Trump? We will see. In contrast, I see no reason for any encouragement regarding the people who surround Hillary.

6. Trump is right on approximately 75 percent of the issues. I wish it was 100 percent. It is not. I am in hopes that those beginning to surround him can help him connect the dots on more issues. Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues.

7. This next issue might be one of the most important, but I suspect few will understand its significance. Trump opposes globalism. Hillary thrives on it. Globalism is far more than "geographical" or "eliminating national borders and boundaries." It is spiritual and demonic at its core. Few—very few—understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think "principalities and powers." Serious. Extremely serious.

8. Not voting is not a viable option, contrary to what the "purists" claim. It is not my intention to begin a war of the issue. I know that some radically disagree with this. My view? They have the right to be wrong.

9. Voting for a third party candidate is—regardless of what is said—a complete "throw-away." No third party candidate will be elected, or even come remotely close to being elected. And yes, that matters to me. And for the record, the Libertarian ticket—Johnson and Weld—is nearly as bad on many issues as Hillary. When I listen to them, I am stunned people of their ability have ever made it to elective office.

10. Trump has moved pro-life. Hillary is pro-baby killing, and prides herself on that, and honors the organization—Planned Parenthood—that actually traffics human parts from dead babies whom they have killed. This is below anything we have seen since Nazi Germany. The gall of Hillary! The Clintons have evaded justice for decades and likely will continue to. But they will someday stand before the Great White Throne. They will have to give account of their support of the ripping babies to shreds in the womb. For the record, those who vote for those who support the genocide of pre-borns will also have to give an account.

Read more at: http://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/59206-if-you-re-on-the-fence-about-your-vote-this-pastor-clarifies-how-the-very-future-of-america-is-at-stake

Jim Garlow: America Is Dead And 2016 Is Our Last Hope To Resurrect It
SUBMITTED BY Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 2/25/2016 12:46 pm

Before the 2012 election, right-wing pastor Jim Garlow was telling anyone who would listen that the re-election of President Obama would literally spell the end of America. After Obama's re-election, Garlow even declared that America was now "clinically dead" and the only thing that could save it was a miraculous resurrection ...

on a book written thousands of years ago by people who were (and many still are) scientifically illiterate. Many of the injunctions in the bible applied to a way of life very few still practice today (nomads etc...). Now where did you find that bit about trafficking baby parts? And where do you stand on, for example, some poor poverty stricken 13 yr old having an abortion because she could not properly bring up the baby or even feed it? Will you be there to support the baby with money for feed? Probably not.
As far as hating Hillary and regardless what she might have done, I see this hate as being so vicious that there is no room for intelligent discourse and this approach harms us all.

37. Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer their suffering as a gift to her god.