SPIRITUALITY & FAITH: Role in your music?

michael_m

@scrape said:
You’re proving my point in that your not willing to try it for yourself and are therefore not the authority you think you are. I can’t prove to you what has worked for me within my own consciousness, I’m suggesting you give it a go and make up your own mind.

I could also try dousing, phrenology, crop circles, or go to a John Edward show. Because I am unwilling to spend my time testing fringe theories and dubious practices, it doesn’t really prove your point.

Also, I made no claim to be an authority - that is your invention.

I’ll give anything a go if it hasn’t already been investigated and tested to death.

If you can’t prove to me that your experiences are valid, how do I know that they are? Simply making a statement then being unable to back it up still leaves the burden of proof with you.

michael_m

@knewspeak said:

@michael_m said:

@scrape said:
If you don’t do the work, you don’t get the results. You can read the books and have all the theories in the world about why those people engage in that nonsense but if you haven’t actually done the work, then what do you really know?

You think that controlled studies of religious practices and mysticism haven’t been carried out?

Sometimes people DO do the work and consistently DON’T get the results. Praying is a good example.

Besides the above, if you’re expecting others to prove mystical assertions, you’re shifting the onus of proof. If you have evidence that magic works, cite some concrete examples that have statistical significance.

Prayer is mainly an inner reflection of your actions and intentions.

Then why do the holy works of Judaeo-Christian religions state that prayer is a request to a god that will be granted every time? Those statements are peppered throughout the Bible in quite clear terms.

knewspeak

@michael_m said:

@knewspeak said:

@michael_m said:

@scrape said:
If you don’t do the work, you don’t get the results. You can read the books and have all the theories in the world about why those people engage in that nonsense but if you haven’t actually done the work, then what do you really know?

You think that controlled studies of religious practices and mysticism haven’t been carried out?

Sometimes people DO do the work and consistently DON’T get the results. Praying is a good example.

Besides the above, if you’re expecting others to prove mystical assertions, you’re shifting the onus of proof. If you have evidence that magic works, cite some concrete examples that have statistical significance.

Prayer is mainly an inner reflection of your actions and intentions.

Then why do the holy works of Judaeo-Christian religions state that prayer is a request to a god that will be granted every time? Those statements are peppered throughout the Bible in quite clear terms.

I think you’re conflating prayer and a list for Santa.

michael_m

@knewspeak said:

@michael_m said:

@knewspeak said:

@michael_m said:

@scrape said:
If you don’t do the work, you don’t get the results. You can read the books and have all the theories in the world about why those people engage in that nonsense but if you haven’t actually done the work, then what do you really know?

You think that controlled studies of religious practices and mysticism haven’t been carried out?

Sometimes people DO do the work and consistently DON’T get the results. Praying is a good example.

Besides the above, if you’re expecting others to prove mystical assertions, you’re shifting the onus of proof. If you have evidence that magic works, cite some concrete examples that have statistical significance.

Prayer is mainly an inner reflection of your actions and intentions.

Then why do the holy works of Judaeo-Christian religions state that prayer is a request to a god that will be granted every time? Those statements are peppered throughout the Bible in quite clear terms.

I think you’re conflating prayer and a list for Santa.

I think you’re not reading the text I referenced.

10 seconds of Googling gave me this:

Mark 11:24 - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Actually, you’re right - the Bible is asking to treat prayer like a letter to Santa.

knewspeak

This is just a certain Christian interpretation.

https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/prayer

michael_m

@knewspeak said:
This is just a certain Christian interpretation.

https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/prayer

So Bible verses should not be taken as fact then? Just individual interpretations of the various concepts contained therein?

gusgranite

Damn thread…

I revert back to my first statement 😂

Stuntman_mike

@gusgranite said:
Damn thread…

I revert back to my first statement 😂

😂

dendy

Discussions like this always inevitably ends in mess and arguing, cause most of people are conviced they are true and others are wrong, when in reality probably absolutely everybody is wrong :-))) I am more and more convinced we are missing som important part of puzzle and our wars about who is right and who wrong are laughable. Both sides are completely wrong.

Stuntman_mike

@dendy said:
Discussions like this always inevitably ends in mess and arguing, cause most of people are conviced they are true and others are wrong, when in reality probably absolutely everybody is wrong :-))) I am more and more convinced we are missing som important part of puzzle and what we are arguing is laughable. Both sides completely wrong.

Yup.

Stuntman_mike

All we are can’t be happenstance… our bodies are very intentional, whether or not we utilize all we are afforded as humans is up to us. Organisms, animals, ecosystem are all very intelligent designs. I’m sure about one thing: we have only scratched the surface of our abilities to connect to each other and life in general 🙌🏽

Just like most of the challenges we face as humans, we often get in our own way being over confident. It’s like being too close to an object and expecting to see it in its entirety. We have to step back and see more. We are not just what we see, we feel and sense more than physical stuff.

I’m also sure it’s unsettling to not have ALL the answers, but this is all we got: questions.

michael_m

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

espiegel123

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance… our bodies are very intentional…,

You are certainly entitled to your belief AND an awful lot of people who have devoted their lives to the study of this question would disagree.

I hope you acknowledge the possibility that life evolved as a part of natural processes.

michael_m

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance… our bodies are very intentional…,

You are certainly entitled to your belief AND an awful lot of people who have devoted their lives to the study of this question would disagree.

I hope you acknowledge the possibility that life evolved as a part of natural processes.

Unfortunately seeking explanations for the unknown is often cut short by turning to religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

wingwizard

@Gavinski said:

No, interesting! Would be a good conversation to have over a coffee or something, too deep to do justice to here. Western Buddhists, yeah…I feel you! Massive generalization yes, but I know where you’re coming from - again, only in general though and in my own experience. ‘I’m interested in truth/beauty’ - you definitely sound more like a Platonist than a Buddhist. Doesn’t there need to be a ‘if you see the Plato on the road, kill him’ attitude too? The whole ‘kill the Buddha on the road thing’ though is also one particular - historical - version of Buddhism. But Buddhism and Platonism are mostly incompatible philosophies. The main point of Buddhism is that everything is conditioned. But you are writing as though there is some pure version of Buddhism unsullied by any contact with the conditioned. I’m not sure where you think you will find it. Not in early Buddhist texts I think, which were cobbled together by one particular sect of Buddhism and were only written down centuries after the Buddha’s death (if he ever really existed) and were written down in a language the Buddha did not even speak. Probably not in meditation either, which has a tendency to reveal what one’s teachers have said one is likely to find. Meditation is not some kind of objective science of the mind, free of its own conditioning - this is a very naive view and one that study of different Buddhist traditions, their practices and beliefs can help to deconstruct. You write yourself that beliefs are self-affirming. Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning there though.

Maybe Buddhism and Platonism do have more in common than they should, because there is that cop-out - at least to me it’s a cop-out - where Buddhism somehow manages to fit in this idea of reaching the ‘unconditioned’. I think it would have been far superior had it just stopped at the ‘everything is conditioned bit’. Enlightenment seems to me as much of a fantasy as heaven or hell. Note that the Dalai Lama doesn’t even think he’s enlightened. I think some people might be a bit more free and less conditioned than others - though I’m not even sure about the possibility of free will at all - but complete freedom? Doubt it exists and don’t think it is even necessarily desirable. Believing that one is enlightened seems like a recipe for disaster, as the downfall of so many Buddhist masters’ reputations in recent times, mostly due to allegations of sexual or other forms of abuse attest. I remember Jason Siff - I think he has an interesting approach to meditation by the way! - said something like, I pray no-one ever tells you you have reached a formal Buddhist attainment (stream entry etc).

The alignment of the true, the good and the beautiful - I don’t know, sounds nice, but I don’t see any reason to believe that they go together, personally.

@Stuntman_mike thanks! What a lovely message, You seem like a really decent guy, I must say.And definitely there are dangers in being too sure about things, yes. Well, there can be…I don’t think it applies equally to everything as a general rule, does it?

You’re right, we can’t do it justice here. No, I don’t have that platonic philosophy and I fundamentally disagree actually his entire philosophy of idea/ideals. I think, anyway. But I was never interested enough to bother reading much, I think the moment you mention an ideal it’s the antithesis of form so I’m kind of absolutely against that notion. That’s quite a big thing for me actually and the way I think about things. But I’m not really into that stuff.

The stuff you mentioned about Buddhism: I think we can say siddhartha did almost definitely exist - far more documented evidence of him than many historical figures broadly accepted. There are many things that are attributed to him, rather than others. But the one I agree with most was quite an extended conversation on his not wanting Buddhism to be written down or become a religion. That the entire point of his thinking was the opposites and that actually teh heart of Buddhism is meditation/practice and nothing else whatsoever. Literally everything else is pointless. But they lived in a society of Hindu gods and morality and codes and ideas so it ended up happening to have practical effect. I can’t be bothered with and don’t care about schools of thought and that stuff that came after though.

• just on this point. Let’s say that conversation was not from siddhartha. Let’s say someone made it up later. None of that matters, that’s the part I agree with, I love that. So whoever wrote it I agree with them. Maybe they later write stuff I don’t agree with. Doesn’t change how I feel about that idea I do like. Is the idea Buddhist or Buddhism? I think so yes. But let’s say it’s not. Ok then, that just means maybe I have less affection for Buddhism. Also good with that. It doesn’t matter at all. I mean that was kind of the meaning that appealed to me in what we’re talking about. Hopefully I’ve conveyed that well.

I actually think karma was probably made up, for various pragmatic reasons., Like I said I have no reverence for anything actually, Buddhism included, Personally, I prefer zen, i like what happened to it through the filter of Taoism. But yeah, I know cringe hipster etc so I’d like to enjoy aspects of those things quietly. I dunno people are weird. I have certain thoughts. Sometimes I see them echoed elsewhere and I have a fondness or affinity for those areas in some way. That’s the extent of it for me. Don’t get signing up for stuff.

I just don’t really worry or care about the bits of anything I think are dumb. It’s the other way round for me with everything, there are truthful things, beautiful things, and they are caught in all kinds of places. It’s like… teh least punk thing you can possibly do is be a punk. Politically, philosophically. I’ll never ever understand people having strong affiliations.

I disagree re meditation. Things have conditions. Forget karma. Anything that is affected by other things. I don’t like this as a way of thining actually, I find it ugly. This is why i like zen. None of this puffery. But the concept of dependence is cool. But anyway, in order to not have conditions you have to vanish. Meditation is that. Everything else is just an endless conversation about definitions of you I etc that don’t really mean a thing - hate academic philosophy so much, it’s like they delight in talking about trivia. There will be stressed out raging people saying you can’t vanish etc. It’s ok to say, something vanishes. Something changes. Something is gone that was there before, because same things are present but they no longer have anything to catch on. I’m honestly quite a difficult person though because I can’t stomach cliche and will leave a conversation in which people start using words like mindfulness and spiritual despite what I’ve said 😂 I just think they’re turning stuff into full David Brent . I already feel a bit sick of myself. I mean, I get not thinking the goal of that religion is possible - would personally question that but I get it. But I like the story of the monk who was miserable. Then he became enlightened. And he was miserable.

Put it this way. ‘I’ is a very elusive thing. We use it all teh time yet not one person in human history really knows what teh hell they are talking about. We build these ideas where every component part falls apart under examination, yet as a whole in motion works. So it’s really not very difficult to imagine doing away with it. I mean… we have a kip every night and I don’t see anyone writing a thesis on how nights are made up because no one’s seen one.

For me it was almost the opposite. Mysticism held no appeal. I do not like the totemic stuff, or the culture. It’s lame. Im from brighton. Everyone’s annoying and imagey. I was very caught up in reason. And that led me to it. I sound like a bellend.

one thing I do, is when I find something silly, stop go back - think about it again. Is it silly? Is it dubious how easily I rejected it? Did I really consider it’s meaning how could it be true, was I disproportionately annoyed by it, why was that, how could it mean something other than the way I interpreted it, what does the way I took it say about the concepts I come into things holding, which are false equivalences and the like? Clean up my mind a bit, let go of wrinkles in it.

When I said truth beauty it’s nit two different things, the way I was meaning it. It’s a place-thing where those two things are met that shows they’re just ways of expressing the same thing. (I see now why you mentioned the platonic thing - I’m really not at all from that background so stuff I go on about never fits with those associations).

I mean… take a story. A fictional story. An episode of the simpsons. No, rem and stimpy. Say there are a few episodes that feel contrived. That’s ugly. It juts out at unnatural angles. hThen this dumbass show has a few episodes about dumbass things. Ren is being ren and stimpy is being stimpy. That’s true. It’s true to itself. It’s nit reaching for anything else or shaped to any end.it’s as effortless as a brilliant ballerina going through her routine. As natural a bird swooping iver the surface of a lake. Same thing in Anna Karenina. When the characters are speaking and acting as they would. That’s truth. And beauty. It’s a moment of infinite speed, where there are no obstructions to its passage.

Stuntmanmikes post was very lovely.
.

Stuntman_mike

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

DNA makes me feel like intelligent design is at play. DNA is such an amazing manifestation. How did DNA start?

Found this except:
How did DNA begin?

“Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.”

michael_m

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

DNA makes me feel like intelligent design is at play. DNA is such an amazing manifestation. How did DNA start?

Found this except:
How did DNA begin?

“Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.”

So how do you extrapolate from “little evidence about how this could have happened.” to proof of the existence of an ancient Middle-Eastern god?

Stuntman_mike

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

DNA makes me feel like intelligent design is at play. DNA is such an amazing manifestation. How did DNA start?

Found this except:
How did DNA begin?

“Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.”

So how do you extrapolate from “little evidence about how this could have happened.” to proof of the existence of an ancient Middle-Eastern god?

Good question! I don’t believe earthly origin is the focus here. It’s the code itself. Many geneticists, research for yourself, have come to the conclusion that intelligent design must be at play with DNA. I’m not suggesting it is absolute truth, but it’s hard not to consider it because the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution. To paraphrase a famous quote: “it takes more faith to believe in science than to believe there is not a God…”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-the-language-of-god

espiegel123

@Stuntman_mike said:

Good question! I don’t believe earthly origin is the focus here. It’s the code itself. Many geneticists, research for yourself, have come to the conclusion that intelligent design must be at play with DNA. I’m not suggesting it is absolute truth, but it’s hard not to consider it because the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution. To paraphrase a famous quote: “it takes more faith to believe in science than to believe there is not a God…”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-the-language-of-god

The consensus in biological sciences is that natural processes are sufficient to explain the origins of life. That doesn’t mean the explanation is certsin. But I think it is misleading to say that many scientists believe in “intelligent design” (which is a flavor of creationism).

“the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution.” This is an opinion, not a fact.

Stuntman_mike

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

Good question! I don’t believe earthly origin is the focus here. It’s the code itself. Many geneticists, research for yourself, have come to the conclusion that intelligent design must be at play with DNA. I’m not suggesting it is absolute truth, but it’s hard not to consider it because the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution. To paraphrase a famous quote: “it takes more faith to believe in science than to believe there is not a God…”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-the-language-of-god

The consensus in biological sciences is that natural processes are sufficient to explain the origins of life. That doesn’t mean the explanation is certsin. But I think it is misleading to say that many scientists believe in “intelligent design” (which is a flavor of creationism).

“the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution.” This is an opinion, not a fact.

Right on, all of “this” is opinion. There are, many scientists who do believe in intelligent design. There seems to be more energy trying to discredit the idea of God than discredit science, but I don’t see reason to discredit either. I love a quote from, O’Sensai, Morihei Ueshiba, who states: “science shows us how powerful God is!”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science?wprov=sfti1

The idea of God, is beyond man made rules, theories and understanding. The finding of God is an individual experience, free will.

michael_m

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

DNA makes me feel like intelligent design is at play. DNA is such an amazing manifestation. How did DNA start?

Found this except:
How did DNA begin?

“Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.”

So how do you extrapolate from “little evidence about how this could have happened.” to proof of the existence of an ancient Middle-Eastern god?

Good question! I don’t believe earthly origin is the focus here. It’s the code itself. Many geneticists, research for yourself, have come to the conclusion that intelligent design must be at play with DNA. I’m not suggesting it is absolute truth, but it’s hard not to consider it because the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution. To paraphrase a famous quote: “it takes more faith to believe in science than to believe there is not a God…”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-the-language-of-god

How do you define “many geneticists”? If I Google for origins of DNA I don’t get any results that suggest intelligent design, or at least not as far as I looked.

If I Google for non-scientific origins for DNA, I find more results of people believing that our DNA is alien in origin than created by supernatural beings.

Not really sure what a few people having unproven alternative theories about origins of DNA really shows though.

AudioGus

"natural" - Haha!

Stuntman_mike

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

@Stuntman_mike said:
All we are can’t be happenstance

Why not?

DNA makes me feel like intelligent design is at play. DNA is such an amazing manifestation. How did DNA start?

Found this except:
How did DNA begin?

“Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.”

So how do you extrapolate from “little evidence about how this could have happened.” to proof of the existence of an ancient Middle-Eastern god?

Good question! I don’t believe earthly origin is the focus here. It’s the code itself. Many geneticists, research for yourself, have come to the conclusion that intelligent design must be at play with DNA. I’m not suggesting it is absolute truth, but it’s hard not to consider it because the complexity of DNA can’t be explained by Big Bang or evolution. To paraphrase a famous quote: “it takes more faith to believe in science than to believe there is not a God…”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-the-language-of-god

How do you define “many geneticists”? If I Google for origins of DNA I don’t get any results that suggest intelligent design, or at least not as far as I looked.

If I Google for non-scientific origins for DNA, I find more results of people believing that our DNA is alien in origin than created by supernatural beings.

Not really sure what a few people having unproven alternative theories about origins of DNA really shows though.

That’s fair: I can’t provide a hard number of the amount of scientists who believe in intelligent design, so you can strike my “many” comment.

Both ideas of religion and science have been around for a significant amount of time.

This is not really about right or wrong for me personally, it’s about possibilities. I choose to believe in the possibility of God’s existence in my life because I feel God’s presence - it’s like an additional layer of understanding. My belief has lead me down illogical paths to amazing blessings! I also have worked in healthcare since I was 16, I’m 46 now, so I’ve seen the work of science. In a hospital both “ideas” have helped patients heal. Prayer and science have offered hope and helped determine the best decision.

The part that baffles minds is “the plan.” Why did this or that happen if God loves us? We are not in the knowledge business if you haven’t noticed, we are in the faith business as humans, whether you believe in God or a microscope, nothing is promised to be an outcome you expect 100% of the time.

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 the “Nudges” lead to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

espiegel123

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

>

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 leading to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

Are you open to all notions of God or is the biblical notion the correct one?

AudioGus

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

>

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 leading to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

Are you open to all notions of God or is the biblical notion the correct one?

oh snap!

Stuntman_mike

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

>

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 leading to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

Are you open to all notions of God or is the biblical notion the correct one?

“Correct one” is too limiting for my understanding.

AudioGus

@Stuntman_mike said:

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

>

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 leading to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

Are you open to all notions of God or is the biblical notion the correct one?

“Correct one” is too limiting for my understanding.

understanding or idea? isn't this a semantic thing?

Stuntman_mike

If I were born in China or the Middle East, for example, my view of God might be under a different context, different name etc. The idea of a Presence in my life might feel the same though.

Stuntman_mike

@AudioGus said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@espiegel123 said:

@Stuntman_mike said:

@michael_m said:

>

For me, God is a Light in the tunnel we call life. The amazing effect of Light is that it can show you paths that you didn’t know existed and give you more possibilities and for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 leading to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Expanding the mind, not shrinking it.

Are you open to all notions of God or is the biblical notion the correct one?

“Correct one” is too limiting for my understanding.

understanding or idea? isn't this a semantic thing?

It could be semantics. For me, defining God, defeats the idea of the word God itself.

michael_m

@Stuntman_mike said:

for some, the Light is so bright that there isn’t a tunnel 🙌🏽 the “Nudges” lead to scientific breakthroughs and more!

Can you give me some examples of where religious beliefs were responsible for scientific breakthroughs? That seems highly unlikely to me, particularly as religion has a track record of suppression or denial of science.