See, that’s the problem. It’s how we define “awareness”. It is my position that a plant bending towards the light is a form of awareness.
So you’re saying a plant altering it’s growth due to external stimulus is the same as some neurons firing differently in response to external input?
I’m saying that tropism is a “form” of awareness.
Interesting… Would you describe single-cell organisms or robots that react to light as aware too?
Oh, I was going to post that myself, but thought that was a moot point, because they, too, can only operate on their current level of efficiency due to the means of transportation and communication developed through science.
But I admit that the world religion’s basis on the principle of “love thy neighbor” and “pity the poor” has done great good for the people. Many of our current laws are based on religious morale, too. But not all of them are what I would consider to be “good” laws.
And, which is the most important point to me: Without monotheism, science would never have been developed. Because only in a monotheistic world view you can expect - as a researcher - that there is only ONE possible explanation for a certain phenomenon. Because there is only ONE god. In a polytheistic world view there could be dozens of explanations for a storm, for example. Either the ghosts of the sea are quarreling with the God of wind, or the Earth Dragon has a battle in the sky with the forces of the clouds, or one side of the god family has a feud with the other, or whatever…
If everything is considered to have come from just one origin, only then the scientific process can be born out of this religious worldview. So we owe monotheism a great deal indeed.
However, in my opinion, history has now reached a point where religion clearly does more damage to humanity’s progress than it helps. Some morality tales from the Bible are doubtlessly handy for helping children develop a sense or morale, I do not doubt that. But the rest of it belongs into a museum, not into the hands of people who will claim it as “truth”.
Great posts DansonDelta. i substantially agree with your position. But saying science is only possible as an adherent to a monotheism ignores Greek, Roman, and Chinese accomplishments. If one employs a broader definition of science like “a rational, observational approach to understanding the world” there’s no need for monotheism.
Perhaps the Romans hadn’t the mathematics to formalize their engineering methods, but that doesn’t mean that those techniques were random, non-rigorous, or arbitrary in the way religious views are.
Except that the basis for science was pretty much lain in ancient Greece, which was a polytheistic society. Oh and ancient Rome had some pretty wicked science too, and that was a polytheistic society too.
That was not science by definition, which is why I cut it out. In “The Science of Discworld” Jack Cohen and Ian Steward explain very well how “science” is different from what the Romans, Greek and Chinese Doctors, Alchemists and Technicians did. I, however, find myself unable at the moment to go an find the passage and translate it from my German version of the book back into English, and then post it here.
EDIT: Well, I have at least found the chapter. It is called “the new narrativium”, if I am not mistaken. It is from the second book, “The Globe”.
I will try to paraphrase the general idea:
Archimedes, for instance, was not a scientist. From some of his inventions, it might look for us as if he had used science for their creation. But science can only exist in a certain context. He made some brilliant discoveries, but he never questioned them, never investigated the principles behind their function and never was challenged by others who did the same. Once his invention functioned, he stopped questioning it. That’s not science. It is merely engineering.
There is much more to it, and it makes a lot more sense if you read the whole chapter, but that would be several dozens of pages. I hope you get the gist of it by what I have just paraphrased as an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry :
Last I checked Aristotle was an ancient Greek who followed a polytheistic religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method :
Looks like the basics of the scientific method were already being used long before monotheistic religions had much of an influence on the cultures involved.
edit: inb4lolwikipedia
Aristotle also formulated a theory which proved that horses could not jump.
It made perfect sense. Only it was obviously wrong.
Also, if you want to cite wikipedia:
The beginnings of scientific thinking doubtlessly can be found in ancient Greece, if not even before that. But modern science, such as we know it and as it has so quickly developed progress since the end of the middle ages, had its origins in monotheistic societies.
It’s good to see mattemuse back and once again arguing for the sake of arguing.
My point was that highly advanced science and technology had already developed while polytheistic religions were still prevalent. It might not have been science quite as we know it today, but it is science nonetheless.
I think the only thing science needs to truly develop is the realization that not everything needs to be explained by supernatural forces.
I agree with the “technology” part and disagree with the “science” part. Especially with the “highly advanced” part.
Modern science is highly advanced and superior to ancient pre-forms of science.
And my point was only that science as we know it today was developed in the middle ages, not sooner. And that this had something to do with monotheistic views of the world. Actually, that’s not exactly my point, but rather that of Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart.
I just wholeheartedly agree with them.
Two comments:
a) My point was only a quibble; as you say, ancient Greece had the beginnings of science.
b) To quibble further, just for fun: your statement is absolute. Let’s say for the sake of argument science was exclusively developed by monotheists. That is not logically equivalent to science only possibly being developed by monotheists.
This thread has really restored my “faith” in Black Mesa forums. 
Anyway, i’ll have to get “The Science of Discworld.” Thanks for the reference.
Well, until I see something to convince me otherwise, I disagree, and I cba to look for it myself!
It is a common misconception that what ancient Greek philosophers and inventors did was science. It closely resembles science, from our point of view, but it lacks certain criteria. This misconception has been spread through popular pseudo-scientific articles and documentaries in the mass media, and it is therefore not uncommon for people to think it is true.
In a scientific process, for example, observation is what comes first. The scientist observes something and then has an idea about it. This idea is elaborated into a hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested through the means of experiment. The outcome of the experiment is then to be analysed. If the collected data corresponds with the hypothesis, it may become a theory. This theory is then to be questioned, analysed and challenged by peer review (other scientists trying to disprove the theory). If counterevidence is found, another hypothesis has to be stated (mostly a modified variant of the current, established theory), and the process begins anew.
Even this is but a simplified version of the scientific process, but it is detailed enough to show that what Archimedes, Aristotle, Socrates and Co. did, was not science.
Their philosophic ideas, inventions and technological advancements involved one or more of the steps of this entire process, but not all of them. Especially not the last two bits, which are crucial for science to happen and progress. Science cannot happen if there is only one scientist to do it.
Invention & Technology =|= Science, basically.
I would say that they have a form of awareness, yes.
That’s just ridiculous, by your logic every single piece of junk would have some form of awareness - e.g. a gun, because it reacts when you pull a trigger, or even a rock, because it moves when you kick it. IMO, awareness can’t exist without some form of neural network. This is what distinguish as, humans and other animals, from other forms of life. No neural network - no information processing (processing in a not determined way, not programmed!), no information processing - no awareness, this is how I see it.
Again, it has to do with the vague definition of “awareness”. What, exactly, is awareness and how do you recognize it when you see it? If it’s simple “information processing”, a computer can process information (and humans, by the way, process information in a “determined”, “programmed” way). Is there a clear demarcation line on what is “awareness” and what isn’t? Or is it a gradient?
Sure, the definition can vary, but the definition you are trying to use is nonsense as Seba clearly points out.