Prophesy Needs Science

P

PsychoticEpisode

It is very dry in here today
Valued Senior Member
Hey, it's a science forum isn't it?

Many modern religions rely on ancient manuscripts. One job for religious leaders is to interpret the old text and relate it to the world today. Many of these bibles contain prophesies with doomsday scenarios complete with the events leading up to them.

Left to their own devices, people will contemplate the end times and provide opinion on how prophesy will play out. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that advancement in science promotes the most reactions from people that are so inclined to believe the words of prehistoric parchment.

Nothing gets the doomsayers more active than advancement in weaponry. From slingshots to arrows to poison to biological to nukes, the arms race has provided fodder for the end of the world enthusiasts. The whole gamut of scientific advancement, including the humanities, contributes to the believer's arsenal of prophetic verses.

What got me going on this is the new Hadron Collider. There are fears of mini black holes and of portals opening to other dimensions etc. I don't think its wrong to fear such things but I did read a thread on Christian Forums(not that I go there often) where some guy claims the Collider will be Satan's stargate to this world(I thought he was here already). I guess Satan is physically elsewhere right now and this will be his opportunity to be released to us. No need to say what happens next, the prophesy mongerers have it all figured out.

So without science, and let's include technology, would the words of the prophets stagnate? Does science provide the impetus for religious prophesy?
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that "prophesy" is a Product of science. In order for anything to be of use to mankind, it has to be in a form of a prediction. Physics is good, but to build a bridge, the engineer has to draw up plans based upon the physics. The plans have to predict that if built this way, it will hold up under such and such conditions. Also, the theories of Einstean were "proven" by testing. Scientists made predictions based on his theory and they proved to come out as predicted.

The reason social science theory is so low-status compared to the physical sciences is that social theorierists rationalize. So, their theories are not used to predict from because they do not work out as predicted.

The ancient "sciences" were ancient social theory we call "religions." So, they too tried to predict, and proved unable to according to our standards of accuracy.

But we all have to look to the future because we can do nothing to change the past and the present is just the razors edge between.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com
 
Charles, whether prophesy is a science byproduct or not isn't important, the fact is they are definitely related. Just makes me cringe to think of some of the religious barriers that have to be overcome by scientists, let alone all the fear created by same parties everytime something wonderful happens in science.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Hey, it's a science forum isn't it?

Many modern religions rely on ancient manuscripts.
Click to expand...
Actually many religions rely on primary bodies of texts that are complemented by commentaries that make them relevant to time, place and circumstance

given that these primary religious texts deal with the issue of conditioned consciousness (with the focus on attaining a more liberated state), what is the requirement for more modern editions?

If a person is lusty, greedy and full of avarice in 2000BC, what makes that so remarkably distinct from a person who is lusty, greedy and full of avarice in 2009?


One job for religious leaders is to interpret the old text and relate it to the world today. Many of these bibles contain prophesies with doomsday scenarios complete with the events leading up to them.

Left to their own devices, people will contemplate the end times and provide opinion on how prophesy will play out. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that advancement in science promotes the most reactions from people that are so inclined to believe the words of prehistoric parchment.

Nothing gets the doomsayers more active than advancement in weaponry. From slingshots to arrows to poison to biological to nukes, the arms race has provided fodder for the end of the world enthusiasts. The whole gamut of scientific advancement, including the humanities, contributes to the believer's arsenal of prophetic verses.

What got me going on this is the new Hadron Collider. There are fears of mini black holes and of portals opening to other dimensions etc. I don't think its wrong to fear such things but I did read a thread on Christian Forums(not that I go there often) where some guy claims the Collider will be Satan's stargate to this world(I thought he was here already). I guess Satan is physically elsewhere right now and this will be his opportunity to be released to us. No need to say what happens next, the prophesy mongerers have it all figured out.

So without science, and let's include technology, would the words of the prophets stagnate? Does science provide the impetus for religious prophesy?
Click to expand...

"The practice of violence changes the world, but the most probable change is a more violent world"
- Hannah Arendt
 
Religions are philosophies, not sciences. So no, religion doesn't need science. Well, let me take that back--some religious groups have done a hell of a job trying to prove their faiths with junk science. But really, science is the enemy of faith.
 
i look at my body and i see science, i look at a pumpkin seed and i see science, i look to the sky and i see science.
 
John99 said:
i look at my body and i see science, i look at a pumpkin seed and i see science, i look to the sky and i see science.
Click to expand...

Well, that's fine, but science is the study of those things. It's a method, not an object.

And when you actually study religion, you see through it. You can see that it's nothing more than mythology. That is why science is the enemy of faith; the closer you look, the less you believe.
 
philosophically speaking, making any claim about the "reality" of things (whether with science or religion), has some issues of "faith" at it's core
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top