UyiIredia:


And I don't agree it is often. The correct word would be 'some times'. To show that it is often, you'll have to show that in most contexts where all religious claims were held true persecution, tyranny resulted because of it.

Ok, fair enough. I see what you mean. "Sometimes" is probably more appropriate.

UyiIredia:

I don't. But I think the statement is less true of the economy than it is of science.

Agreed.

UyiIredia:

Agreed with some misgivings.

BTW what's your take on the OP ?

Per the original post, I will comment on that sometime in the next couple hours (assuming you are asking in good faith ).

UyiIredia:
I have issue with several statements you made.
Actually, your statement again is partially true. The key word there is 'often'. The problem is that you focus only on instances where that problem with religion gave rise to persecution, tyranny etcetera and ignore many other contexts it didn't. For example, many ethnic groups in pre-colonial Africa, and Nigeria, took their religion as a given, that didn't give rise to the effects you mentioned.

The key word is "often", which is what I wrote. I didn't write "always"; you are preaching to the choir.

UyiIredia:

This is debatable. Indeed, Saudi Arabia's strict Wahabbi school of Islam has much to do with the level of repression there. But I would also argue that some of the problem is also socio-political, monarchies are very prone to be repressive and Saudi Arabia is a constitutional monarchy.

More importantly, davidylan was using Saudi Arabia to show that a society can be superstitious and successful. You ignore the fact that man's progress into civilization occurred while still superstitious.

Yes I agree that the mix of monarchy and extremist Wahabbism have much to do with the level of repression in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabbi part makes my point. Political Islam as well as political Christianity have often led to persecution and repression. One can be religious and admit this.

Yes I agree that progress can occur while still superstitious; I didn't say that superstition is a binary attribute. My point is that economic and scientific advancement are impeded in Nigeria partially due to the extent of our society's superstitious tendency. Do you disagree?

Yes, Saudi Arabia is economically successful, so what? I did not say scientific progress can not occur in the presence of superstition, I said it slows down (I used different words like "impede", "slows down", "the extent", "lag" etc); I deliberately qualify my statements in order to be nuanced and not absolute, yet you infer absolute meaning from them. This is my problem with davidylan's responses; he seems to read absolutism where there isn't any, so I had to stop feeding the troll.

Note that I am not saying that religion is always bad, so don't artificially project this upon my statements. I will assume your misunderstanding is in good faith.

UyiIredia:

I have already stated why your prediction is wrong. We can and have actually progressed economically and scientifically under a superstitious context.

Ok, your conclusion is based on a misread of my position. I didn't say economic and scientific progress are impossible under a superstitious context. I state that the extent of scientific progress is negatively affected by the extent of superstition of said society.

Thank you for your diagnosis. I'll let rational readers judge.

lol @ dishonest weasel! that was a good one.

davidylan:


You're simply a dishonest weasel and i'm not willing to play your game of musical chairs anymore. I think it is quite clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. If religion is the reason Nigeria is backward then why are the even more religious in Dubai prospering? We have oil too.

If religion is the basis for tyranny then ergo... china?

The point is simple, as Uyi iredia has tried unsuccessfully to tell you - you're conflating causation with association. This is what happens when non-scientists play with words they dont understand. There are plenty of superstitious people in the US... so they are unable to analyze things critically? You're an atheist... what have you analyzed critically that we can point to as an example of why you are right?

davidylan:


Actually not really... because i notice you cleverly pretended not to see where i clearly showed that North Korea and China are two nations that put a lie to that fact. They are as atheist as you can get and have a far worse civil rights abuse record than Saudi Arabia... but it seems your bias is clouding your sense of judgement.

Once again, you are talking past my point. I never claimed that persecution and tyranny are exclusively due to religion, neither did I claim that atheist leaders can't be tyrants. Here is what I said: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth." I deliberately included qualifiers in most of my comments but you seem to disregard this.

Saudi Arabia is a specific example of how when a religion's truth claims are taken too far, persecution and tyranny result. That you deny this is disingenuous.

You have repeatedly claimed that since I said B is sometimes due to A, that I am saying that B is always due to A and that B can't also be due to anything else. This is a significant misunderstanding and fallacy.

davidylan:

You keep caterwauling about "correlation-causation mixup" yet you keep making the same fallacy... assuming that the decline in state-sponsored religion in Europe somehow had something to do with its industrial revolution. It is true that you have not said that religion is exclusively the cause of tyranny... the problem is that i have not accused you of saying so either. The other problem is that you're trying to split hairs... you are clearly insinuating that the level of religion has something to do with the level of tyranny... that is demonstrably false. Seriously, i am not insulting you... just that unlike most here, i have very little patience for people who think they are smarter than they actually are. You cant spend time posting demonstrably false nonsense and then cry when you're called out on it. We can have a civil discussion, what we cant have is one based on revisionist history and dishonest histrionics.

I never said that scientific advancement (or the industrial revolution) in Europe was due to the decline of religion. I said scientific advancement increased once people started thinking outside the box of the then traditional Christianity. There is a marked difference between these two statements. You assume I said the former, which is incorrect.

Glad to hear you think you are a good arbiter of "smartness". I'll let rational readers judge.

davidylan:

You've been busy playing musical chairs with the issues. You complain that Africa is an example of religion restraining technological advancement, when i bring up the fact that Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are and far more technologically advanced, you avoid that entirely and start pointing at tyranny... when i bring up china as an example that religion and tyranny are not mutually inclusive, you suddenly pivot back to technology... perhaps you should figure out what argument you really want to make and think about it deeply first.

I did not claim that religion and tyranny are mutually inclusive; I don't know where you are pulling this from.

You claim I am playing musical chairs with the issues, but I posit that you perceive my arguments this way because you are treating as absolute my deliberately qualified statements. I carefully qualify all my comments but you consistently mis-attribute different notions to me.

Ok, yes, Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are though far more technologically advanced. So? What did I say that this disproves? I said "Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited." I also said: "Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically and rationally", as well as "Note that I particularly emphasize superstition (lazily ascribing occurrences to spiritual entities) not just religion.".


At this point, I don tire of separating what you claim I said from what I actually said.

I rest my case.

KingEbukasBlog:


Sorry , but it seemed you were one



Luck goes beyond randomness going for/against your favour .Because it begs for the reason of favour for/against . If the reason of an outcome is not sensible or logical it is irrational thus unscientific .




Same way it does not affect your ability to think or innovate irrespective of your region .




That crossing over you does not stop your growth



So how does the belief in God stop a set of Nigerian scientists from discovering the cure for cancer



You have to convince someone that your statement is right

davidylan:


My mention of Saudi Arabia was to counter this point you made - "Europe's economic and scientific advancement blossomed once people began to feel free to think outside the box of the then traditional Christianity."

Your Saudi Arabia mention confirms the following statement: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth"

Your Saudi Arabia mention does not counter the reality that Europe advanced greatly (in the sciences) during the Age of Enlightenment.

davidylan:

Its quite silly and revisionist history to claim that Europe only started to bloom once people started to think outside Christianity. Most of the early scientists who formulated the scientific theories that are the foundation of science today where in fact christian. Remember Sir Isaac Newton?

I never said that Christians can't be great scientists. There are different doctrines and movements of Christianity and some are more superstitious than others. Also, some Christians are quick to reject certain truth claims of the faith and not become atheist in the process (though many in this day and age become agnostic or atheist). The Christianity of pre-Reformation Europe (rigid, dogmatic, and ruthlessly authoritarian) was vastly different from Christianity thereafter (more open to criticism, thanks to Martin Luther and other such trailblazers).

In my comments about Nigeria's scientific advancement, I contextualized this aspect of my position to Nigerian Christianity/religion and its highly superstitious nature (read my comments in this thread); I further stated that the extent to which a person is superstitious is related inversely with their rational thinking. Where did I say you can't be scientist and "Christian"?

Also, here's a quick Wikipedia quote about the Age of Enlightenment: "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by philosophes and local thinkers in urban coffee houses, salons, and Masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, especially the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism."

Scientific curiosity blossomed during this time.

davidylan:

The China and North Korea reference is quite simple really - you said this - "the problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth."... China and North Korea are relatively atheist nations and yet are two of the most repressive societies on earth... like i said, you dont seem to be thinking through your comments at all... its not an insult, just fact.

Correlation-causation mix-up here. Once again, I never said that the truth claims of religion are always and exclusively the cause of persecution and tyranny. Please post where I wrote this.

You are welcome to continue the unfounded insults, perhaps this is what you think is necessary to defend your deity.

davidylan:


So perhaps you can tell us the state religion in China or North Korea?

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are streets ahead of us and yet are probably far more religious than we are...

Saudi Arabia. You just proved the point of my statement (see: persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth).

Please explain the China and North Korea reference? I don't see the point. Where did I say that religion is exclusively and always responsible for tyranny and the like?

davidylan:

the problem is you are not thinking through your arguments at all. You're simply repeating what you've heard someone else say...

I have consistently kept the conversation with you civil but you repeatedly attempt to insult my intelligence. Why not just respond without the ad hominems? Once again, would whichever deity you worship approve of this?

I'll have to stop responding to you if you continue to respond this way. The goal here is not to win an argument, the goal is to explain my point and you explain your point. We don't have to agree, but we can respect each other in the process even if we have to point out logical inconsistencies wherever they may exist in either of our positions.

KingEbukasBlog:


No no no , you got me confused cos I see contradiction.Take a look at these :

1. As an atheist , haven't you wished someone good luck before ? I mean luck is unscientific

I am indeed skeptical about a lot of religious claims, but show me where I claimed to be atheist.

Luck is not unscientific; it is an acknowledgement that "randomness" can go in your favor (good luck), or against your favor (bad luck).
Luck acknowledges the role of probability and statistics in certain event outcomes. Randomness is not unscientific; in science we often can describe randomness pretty well over large sample sizes either through extended observation or through comprehensive understanding of the underlying physical phenomena.

Randomness would be unscientific if it were non-physical (could not be explained by physical laws), however, this is not the case.

KingEbukasBlog:

2. A quick example : As kids we believed that when one crosses over your head or any part of your body , that part stops growing . Now that's a superstitious belief because science refutes that belief .

Superstition does not interfere with physical laws. This is not the issue of contention.

KingEbukasBlog:

So now that we've known the truth , how did our superstitious belief stop our advancement in the knowledge of science ?

What truth?

KingEbukasBlog:

3. I believe in the existence of God- which is seen as superstitious- but I make use of smartphones , an advancement in communication , technology (applied science). So according to you , why didnt my "superstitious belief" reject that advancement

4. Sorry am just saying your statement is wrong - superstition does not hinder scientific advancement to any extent

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I used the term "scientific advancement" separately from "economic advancement". I was referring to Nigeria's collective ability to make scientific discoveries, advance global scientific knowledge, and create technology innovations. This is different from being able to afford or push buttons on a smartphone.

I won't argue further on this; see my prior statement: [T]he extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

I assume you are asking these questions in good faith, in which case I should let you know that my prior comments on this thread already address your questions. Please read my previous comments.

KingEbukasBlog:


Pls what do explain what you see as

1. "scientific advance"
2. superstition
3. And how you think ' 2 ' at this present time can stop '1'

Thanks.

UyiIredia:


I think you should appreciate that people can be think rationally while holding superstitious beliefs.

I agree in the sense that it is not binary, but, rational thinking ends where superstition begins.
The extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

UyiIredia:

I disagree, it could hinder scientific advance to an extent but our scientific underachievement is really a failure of governance and it is reflected in how much of our budget goes into education compared with other areas.

I didn't say that superstition is the only reason for our underachievement, the emboldened is my point.

Wow, you didn't have to attack me. I wonder if whichever deity you serve would approve of this attitude.

You implied I was trying to have it both ways. All I did was challenge the correlation-causation mixup.

Please show me where I said religion is the cause of Africa's problems.

davidylan:


You seem to not be very bright. You said that the superiority of the developed world cannot be attributed to religion... i said by the same token you cannot then claim that religion is the bane of Africa's problems. You cant have it both ways.

I never said that.

davidylan:


by the same token, christianity cannot be attributed as the cause of Africa's backwardness... you cant have it both ways.

UyiIredia:

And where did I say I don't agree. As a matter of fact, I totally agree with that statement. I don't agree though, that we should conclude from that that it would make us lag economically and scientifically. Newton believed angels tinker with planets orbits, that didn't stop him from proposing gravity. Arab countries like UAE are exceedingly religious and yet are very prosperous.

Your "yes" response implied that you disagreed (I asked "do you disagree?" ) . Ok point taken, glad we at least agree on that.

Note that I particularly emphasize superstition (lazily ascribing occurrences to spiritual entities) not just religion. Newton was likely one of the least superstitious people of his time, and this is evident in how he painstakingly strove to understand gravitation and classical mechanics. Superstitious people are quick to dismiss empirical evidence if it doesn't fit into their worldview. I used to be superstitious in some ways as well, but I actively try to dismiss this sort of thinking because I know that it prevents me from truly thinking rationally and freely. Thinking rationally and freely are key ingredients for critical thinking.

A Nigerian society in which superstition and Christian materialism (see: prosperity gospel) are interwoven into Christian life is on a path that will perpetuate our scientific underachievement, even if we had all the money and political stability in the world. I would agree though, that political stability which leads to significant economic advancement may lead more Nigerians to do away with the need for God.

I'm afraid that once superstition and materialism stop being a part of Nigerian Christianity, there may be nothing left. It appears that the most vocal Nigerian Christians go to church to stave off an imagined spiritual enemy that is in the way of their material progress.

This is not to say that Christianity can not in itself be a valuable tool for human expression of hope for justice in the afterlife. Though this is not unique to Christianity.

UyiIredia:


The Catholic church wasn't the only church. I'm sure you'd want to bring up examples like Bruno and Galileo, cases in which misconceptions abound.

I'm glad you agree, albeit indirectly.

UyiIredia:

My answer to your question is yes. I do not think you argue religion is always bad. But I don't think religious fervor is the cause of Nigeria's problems. Some countries developed whilst being very religious, some struggled while being atheistic.

I never said religion is the cause of Nigeria's problems, I think you are talking past my point. Here is what I wrote: "Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited."

Since you don't agree with the statement that "Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically", I have to rest my case. I think my point has been made.

UyiIredia:


This is debatable. The Renaissance period during which the arts and science flourished again occurred within the said box. The facts are that some technological and scientific advancements were opposed by Christians but that doesn't mean Christianity boxed in science since many scientists then were ardent Christians, some even clerics.

It is not debatable. This is historical fact. Many critics of Christianity (including Christian scientists whose scientific opinion did not line up with the papacy) were imprisoned or burned at the stake. Do you want examples? That some scientists were Christian does not negate the actions of the Catholic church at the time.

UyiIredia:

Wrong. In fact, there was some level of economic and scientific progress in the 70's. The problem is a political one not a religious one.

Please expound on why you don't agree. Many rational Christians would agree with my position. Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically and rationally; do you disagree with this statement?

Also, you claim the problem is exclusively a political one. Are you so sure about that? Religion doesn't play a role in Nigerians praying away for divine favour instead of putting their absolute best foot forward all the time? Note that I am not saying religion is always bad, but you seem to be assuming this about me and are thus too quick to disagree without carefully evaluating my comments.

Yes, totally agreed. Religion (or atheism), in and of itself, has little to do with economic success.

The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth. Europe's economic and scientific advancement blossomed once people began to feel free to think outside the box of the then traditional Christianity.

Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited.

UyiIredia:


This also applies to so-called atheistic countries. The economic success of such countries isn't caused by atheism, it only correlates with atheism.

Correlation does not imply causality -- this notion is vital and fundamental to science. The economic success of Europe/US/Canada may be correlated with Christianity but this does not mean that Christianity is the cause of said success.

The Roman empire and pre-Christ Greek civilizations laid the foundation for European civilization. There are other key factors that are responsible for Europe's success, however one could similarly argue that Europe became successful in spite of Christianity.

Christian popes were for centuries brutal murderous despots, European monarchs arrogated absolute power to themselves in the name of being God's representatives, Christian Europe kidnapped, tortured, and murdered millions of Africans (during trans-Atlantic slave trade approved by the then pope) for the precise purpose of gaining wealth, European monarchs murdered free thinkers who dare questioned "the divine", etc.

davidylan:


If christianity was a pestilence then how come European nations, including the US and Canada, are so much more advanced than we are? Why are atheist enclaves in Africa not examples of western Europe?

Science is indeed a real arbiter of reality, but has it only thrived in the absence of christianity? One can argue that many of the greatest scientists, on whose ideas much of what we know today rests, were very strong christians. You're atheist... yet have such a poor grasp of science itself.

First, you need to install Python; this link gives the step by step instructions. There are two Python versions, versions 2.x and 3.x. You should install the latest 3.x.x version.

Next you need to install an IDE (Integrated Development Environment, like a text editor) for the coding; alternatively, you could code from the command line console but this is messy.

A good IDE to use is Spyder (for math/scientific computing applications). To get it, go here (make sure you download the Python 3.4 version NOT the Python 2.7 version) and follow the instructions. From that link, you will install Anaconda, which contains Spyder IDE and mathematical/scientific libraries such as Numpy, Matplotlib, and SciPy.

Here is a YouTube playlist on Python with Spyder.

Next, you should google "matplotlib tutorial" or "numpy tutorial" or "scipy tutorial" to learn how to use python to do math operations.
A great resource for learning Python in general is the main Python webpage. Click on the "Tutorial" link in the page and you can start learning. (

Welcome to the world of mathematical and scientific computing! Let me know how things go.

LORDDICE:

do u have some e.books on python...

My guy, if you want to learn a programming language specifically to solve as many mathematical problems as possible, then your best bet is either Python, MATLAB, or Mathematica.

Python may be the most preferred because it is free, open-source, and has a vast range of publicly available mathematical and statistical libraries. Some of the Python libraries that would be valuable to you for mathematical or "scientific computing" are Scipy, Numpy, and Matplotlib. Python is also extremely versatile as you can also use it for back-end web programming and more.

MATLAB is an application that provides an environment to write code that can be used to solve mathematical problems. The code syntax is similar to simplified versions of java/python. MATLAB has a large range of mathematical and statistical libraries, but the catch is that it is expensive and is not open-source. Some people go around this illegally though. If it were free, I would say you should go with this.

Mathematica can be used for mathematical and scientific applications, though it is not a programming language. It shares the drawback of not being open-source and costly. Unlike MATLAB and Python, Mathematica can be used easily to "symbolically" solve (or manipulate) mathematical expressions and equations. For instance, you could use it simplify and factorize equations and so forth. You could also use it for statistical/numerical problems but Python and MATLAB are better for those scenarios.

My Recommendation:
Use Python because it is free, has a lot of libraries online, and can also be used for back-end web programming if in the future you decide to look for a side job in that area. A close second option would be Mathematica, which would also be excellent to have.

Let me know if you have any more questions. I have used all these tools.

PS: I deliberately didn't list C++ or C or Java because it would be too much of a pain to use them for scientific computing unless your mathematical problems require extreme computational speed in which case C or C++ would be best. PHP or Javascript are best for web design not mathematical/scientific computing.

Cheers.

LORDDICE:
Pls dnt get bored with me cos am a newbie, i have another problem.....







If i wanna develop a kindda program or whatsoever dat can help me do some mathematical computations...
Better still, my facebook i.d is ..Dice Dachung..

Thanks Alot




Eric Dachung