Does the progress of science and technology in the West affect your choice of religion? In other words, is one of the reasons that you are Roman Catholic or Protestant, and not Orthodox – that you are proud that science and technology have developed in the West more than in the East?
I misunderstood the scope of this thread by first only reading the title, so I’ll go ahead and answer both questions: the one I thought you were going to ask and the one you actually asked.
- Yes, science and technology has informed my choice of religion in general. To be more precise I’d say they have informed me of which religions I can not be a part of. I’ve been a Mormon all my life but thanks to the DNA revolution, advances in linguistics, stylometry, textual criticism, and a host of other academic pursuits, I’m absolutely confident that Mormonism is utter hogwash.
To a lesser extent I couldn’t be a member of any religion that would
require me to profess disbelief in biological evolution. I’m a professional biochemist and I’m far too familiar with the evidence for the theory that there’s just no fathomable way for me to engage in the cognitive dissonance necessary to be aware of such evidence while claiming disbelief in the theory. Joining a church that required explicit disbelief in evolution, for me, would be like joining a church that required me to believe the moon is made of cheese (and this is not hyperbole).
There are also certain beliefs that I have always held
a priori with which any prospective religion I’d join must be congruent. For example, I firmly believe that any technology that facilitates or improves the human condition (especially human longevity) without any
rationally deduced moral dilemma is
ipso facto good, and any religion that concludes otherwise is obviously false. Blood transfusions in and of themselves are wonderful enhancements to the human condition that I do firmly believe any God worth worshipping would not forbid without just cause. I also firmly believe there is no just cause in deeming blood transfusions bad or immoral. For this reason I could
never be a Jehovah’s Witness. I won’t even humor the possibility. It therefore goes without saying that I also could
never join the Christian Science church, or any other “Faith Healing” advocating religion that eschews modern medicine. In fact, I have some
very strong, very negative opinions about such religions due to such beliefs. I find such religions to be destructive and their teachings to be so immoral that it’s very hard for me to have a dispassionate discussion about such religions. I truly have nothing nice to say about them.
In these ways the progression of science and technology absolutely informs my choice of religious belief.
- To answer your actual question, no, the progress of science and technology in the West has not informed my decision on whether to join the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church. In fact I still can’t decide which communion to join and am still fleshing out the differences between the two and weighing the arguments of both sides.
The mere fact that modern science, technology, and medicine has (for the most part) been developed in the West is quite inconsequential. I think Western Christianity is accidental to the rise of science and technology in the West. Arguing that modern science owes its existence to Western Christianity simply because modern science arose in the West would be logically fallacious. It’s as silly as the Muslim apologists’ argument that one should give Islam extra consideration simply because the Arabs had a scientific golden age while Christian Europe was stagnant during the Middle Ages. Furthermore if we want to get real technical about it, most historians of science consider the Scientific Revolution to more closely coincide with the Age of Enlightenment, the philosophers of which were quite indifferent to Christianity and if anything held beliefs contrary to traditional Christianity and who today would likely be classified as Deists (if not atheists or agnostics).
Greetings. Why do you think that rationalism is good? The Holy Scripture says that we mustn’t be attracted with it: “Let no one deceive himself: if anyone thinks that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise.” (1 Cor. 3:18)
I think you’re reading a lot into that proof text that simply isn’t there. Where does it say there that rationalism isn’t good, or that we cannot know
anything by reason? At best all I can flesh out from that passage is that we all need to adopt a bit of humility in our assumptions and modesty in our conclusions while using our God-given reason, much like this sentiment:
I think that every good scientist realizes that there is a whole lot that he does not know.
