Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Er,

As quoted from Wiki on the previous page.

I was skeptic about the Wiki reference, so I went to the root of where does Wiki get this information (References), and read carefully the articles they pointed at that was the link I provided in the answer I gave you. The devas are not “gods”, although generally translated into that stigmatic word; and besides, Buddhists pay special attention (not worship) to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, considered even higher beings that the devas.
You don’t need to believe in the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as something supernatural, but they were people.

Can't you see the problem YOU are having here? When you read Christianity and apply a Buddhist perspective don't you think it's likely to accord with with the pre-existing perspective to an extent?

I was familiar with Christianity before any other religion, but it didn’t make sense to me. After studying Buddhism, specially Zen, Christianity made incredible sense; I consider Jesus as a Zen Master. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus had contact with Buddhist Masters during his visit to India.
But Jesus was talking to a very traditional Jewish audience, and he only lasted 3 years after he opened his mouth. Imagine if he would say that god doesn’t exist, he wouldn’t even last 1 day.

If you don't use the entire definition then you might as well not bother.
If, as Wiki states, Tantra "deals primarily with spiritual practices" then how does one apply science?

I have mentioned the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra many times for that very reason. I’m not talking about the tradition of Tantra. “Tantra“means technique, method, and it is a whole art dedicated to the methods of meditation. It is focused on the use of the human body, to achieve different perspectives of reality.
And I do think that the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra can hold scientific scrutiny. Although it would take a long time and effort since the methods are not designed for immediate results, but as a constant, gradual practice. And not all 112 methods are for everybody, it is said that out of those 112 methods, only a few are designed for 1 specific individual.

If you cherry pick...

Yes I cherry picked Einstein quote to make the point of science Vs religion; but I see no point in discussing the theory of relativity here.

Then we need to agree exactly what a religion is.

Yes please; why don’t you start with the definition I gave you (the last one, not the one from the dictionary), and modify it with your understanding of religion, until we reach an agreement. Or what do you propose we do about this?
I could also elaborate my definition more.

Ah right. So there's no point conducting science because all the answers are right here inside me. What's 11[sup]4.5[/sup]? No need to work it out, just examine my inner nature.

I am just saying that looking within is the only way to get to know yourself; no need for metaphors.

It is doing so. As has been noted previously.

No, it is killing organized religion, not religion itself; there is a difference.

Do you actually read any science books?

I guess your question was born because you think that reincarnation was discarded by science, but I do not think that is the case. From a scientific perspective, evolution is both a theory and a fact, while reincarnation is just a theory; but a theory nonetheless.

How do you know they've described it accurately if reincarnation hasn't been shown to actually exist? Get a grip.

I apologize; from a scientific standpoint the correct word would be “thoroughly”.

Another wild supposition.

Why don’t you think is possible that science will someday be able to read thoughts? Sort of an evolved MRI scan; it is a known fact that thoughts trigger the function of brain activity, if it’s measurable why can’t it be perfected?

What's the difference between a "soul" and this disembodied consciousness?

Ok so let’s say “soul” is this disembodied consciousness that remains through reincarnations.

What is the mechanism for this change? How does a form alter because of a "change in consciousness"?

When one soul enters the body in the human life:
Once the sperm has implanted the egg, the soul enters as a “growing embryo”. During week 1 this embryo is composed of Stem cells multiplied by mitosis.
This embryo, by absorbing nutrients from the environment grows in a highly accelerated rate into a fetus, and then a baby.
We “evolve” from a few stem cells, to a complex organism in a few months; during our life the body is constantly changing with every breath and by absorbing nutrients from our environment. With the body/mind, our ego/personality keeps “evolving” through our whole lives, and therefore constantly changing as well. So if you say that you are the body/mind, then you are never ever the same as the next moment; and if you say that you are your personality, then the same logic applies (as it has the same ever-changing quality).
From a religious perspective, it is the soul (or “the observer”) that knows (by memory) of how to grow as an organism; from stem cells to a fully grown human being.

In the theory of reincarnation, when the soul is separated from the “universal consciousness” (or god), it is first born in this world as some sort of amoeba and learns mitosis and the absorption of nutrients from the environment; after many lives the soul knows how to grow as a plant, and therefore learns more and more advanced methods of absorbing elements from the environment to manifest more and more advanced forms of life. When it reaches the form of a human being, the soul knows how to grow from a multicellular simple organism, into the most complex living creature of this planet (in just 1 lifetime).

Nothing has been disproven from a scientific standpoint? Then you haven't actually read the contrary views have you?

I mean in the sense for example that the human was “created from dust” in the current form, which has been disproven by the findings of paleontology.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I was skeptic about the Wiki reference

Yup, this is why I kept asking if the Wiki was acceptable. On the other hand you constantly refer to Buddhism as a religion. The lack of gods could, be one reason why it's also referred to as a philosophy rather than religion.

I was familiar with Christianity before any other religion, but it didn’t make sense to me.

Doesn't alter the fact that are looking at Christianity through Buddhist glasses.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus had contact with Buddhist Masters during his visit to India.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised at who a fictional character is supposed to have been in contact with.

I have mentioned the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra many times for that very reason. I’m not talking about the tradition of Tantra.

Oh, okay. We'll forget about these "primarily spritual practices" and just stick the equally hypothetical chakra thingies then.

Yes please; why don’t you start with the definition I gave you (the last one, not the one from the dictionary), and modify it with your understanding of religion, until we reach an agreement. Or what do you propose we do about this?
I could also elaborate my definition more.

The point is that "god" is central to the the definition of religion vs. a philosophy. Why alter the definition for everyone as opposed to YOU choosing a different word to describe what you're talking about? Why do YOU want to call it a religion (your new "True religion") instead of promoting it as a philosophy?

I am just saying that looking within is the only way to get to know yourself; no need for metaphors.

Ah, you've narrowed it down slightly then. And contradicted your previous claim for it.

No, it is killing organized religion, not religion itself; there is a difference.

Science is still reducing the hiding places for god.

I guess your question was born because you think that reincarnation was discarded by science, but I do not think that is the case.

I do. I've read the books.

From a scientific perspective, evolution is both a theory and a fact, while reincarnation is just a theory; but a theory nonetheless.

No, reincarnation is a claim, not a theory. Unless you're using the word in the scientific sense for evolution and the popular sense for reincarnation.

Why don’t you think is possible that science will someday be able to read thoughts?

I should have been clearer. The SECOND part of your sentence claimed that "reading our thoughts" scientifically would provide "true evidence for reincarnation". It was the latter claim that is speculation. MRI etc is progressing along the lines of mapping/ reading thoughts and we may get there one day.

Ok so let’s say “soul” is this disembodied consciousness that remains through reincarnations.

Um, okay. No evidence for it, regardless.

When one soul enters the body in the human life

And we come back to lack of evidence for the soul...

I mean in the sense for example that the human was “created from dust” in the current form, which has been disproven by the findings of paleontology.

I thought your reference was to the particular sub-topic under discussion in the paragraphs leading up to that statement: reincarnation. :shrug:

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

The point is that "god" is central to the the definition of religion vs. a philosophy. Why alter the definition for everyone as opposed to YOU choosing a different word to describe what you're talking about? Why do YOU want to call it a religion (your new "True religion") instead of promoting it as a philosophy?

Because this "philosophy" of "knowing oneself" is the core of most religious scriptures.

Would you say then, that Buddha was not a religious man?

From my perspective, Buddha was one of the most religious men in history.

I cannot agree that Buddhism is not a religion; and I don't think I'm alone in this one, if we cannot agree on that, the discussion is useless (with the premise that the discussion was not useless in the first place).

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

And also, the concept of a "god" as the central point of religion is weird, considering the non-theistic religions. But if you say there is no such thing as non-theistic religion, then many people may disagree with you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Because this "philosophy" of "knowing oneself" is the core of most religious scriptures.

Um, nope. Again.

Would you say then, that Buddha was not a religious man?

Did he believe in god? No?
Then he wasn't, by definition religious.

I cannot agree that Buddhism is not a religion; and I don't think I'm alone in this one, if we cannot agree on that, the discussion is useless (with the premise that the discussion was not useless in the first place).

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism in a nutshell.

It's not a religion, they insisted, the very word "Buddhism" was invented in the 19th century by westerners who were trying to force it into a Christian model. The Buddha never intended to found a religion, he was deeply critical of the Brahminic rituals of his time. What he proposed was a set of strategies to question experience and live ethically.

Quoted from somewhere else.

And lots of dispute.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So we are looking at a paradox: there is no way to universally define the word "religion", and there is no way of agreeing on whether non-theistic religions are religions or philosophies. If the very word “religion” is extremely susceptible for redefinition; then how do you expect for religion to die?

 

[Dywyddyr]

then how do you expect for religion to die?

Well one possible clue is that I have constantly been using the generally accepted one that includes a belief in god/ deity. Or didn't you notice the number of times I stated this?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Well one possible clue is that I have constantly been using the generally accepted one that includes a belief in god/ deity. Or didn't you notice the number of times I stated this?

So you are operating under the assumption that religion will always be defined as in centered to the belief in god?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So you are operating under the assumption that religion will always be defined as in centered to the belief in god?

So you've evidently missed, ignored or forgotten the number of times I have specifically suggested using a different word for your meaning? Because the current word includes "god" as part of the definition.

I have consistently throughout this thread maintained and explained as such my use of "religion" including "god", even when you have attempted to redefine it as not. You, on the other hand, have, despite claiming there will always be religion, at no point suggested that the definition would alter in common usage.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Now before everyone freaks out on me for not having all kind of scientific evidence to support my claim let me just state now that this is more of me thinking out loud than making a serious case.
But I have this idea based on the way human progression has come about in the last few thousand years. Religion was once the center point of society. Everyone was religious, everyone believed in the gods, everyone was just about forced to. Most ancient religions were polytheist. Fast forward to where we are today and you will see a completely different world. Science has revealed many of religions "facts" wrong (such as the creation of the earth, why certain natural actions happen ect.) and much of the earth population either isnt very religious or does not believe in a higher power of any sort. My theory is this progression in the right direction will continue throughout human history until eventually the mix of increased intelligence caused by better understanding of the universe and progressive evolution causes religion to disapear completely. Thoughts?

I don't think religion will die out only because many denominations already fully accept such discoveries. Granted, some don't and that's a huge problem. I think those denominations will be diminished, but religion in general? No.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So you've evidently missed, ignored or forgotten the number of times I have specifically suggested using a different word for your meaning? Because the current word includes "god" as part of the definition.

I have consistently throughout this thread maintained and explained as such my use of "religion" including "god", even when you have attempted to redefine it as not. You, on the other hand, have, despite claiming there will always be religion, at no point suggested that the definition would alter in common usage.

Geertz (1973:90) defined religion as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [and women] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yup. That's one guy's definition.
As I noted, there are conflicting definitions. As I also noted, I have been using the standard dictionary definition.
You own link, if you go the page headed DEFINITION OF RELIGION has definitions that include "god" or at least "supernatural". At least as many as don't, if not more.

Giving a link now isn't much use, since throughout I have been consistent (and have consistently in the explanation) in my usage.
You have tended to waffle back and forth. Much as you did with Buddhism including gods. Or not.
If you'd bothered to be somewhat more specific in what you meant by "religion" we wouldn't be in this position now.

Fine, however. For the purposes of this discussion I'll accept the definition given in your post.
All that means, effectively, is that the progress of science may well not wipe out religion, merely the belief in god(s) and/ or the supernatural.

It still leaves you dangling on a number of your other claims: reincarnation, its relevance to evolution, the existence of a "soul"/ transferable disembodied consciousness etc. etc.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Yup. That's one guy's definition.
As I noted, there are conflicting definitions. As I also noted, I have been using the standard dictionary definition.
You own link, if you go the page headed DEFINITION OF RELIGION has definitions that include "god" or at least "supernatural". At least as many as don't, if not more.

Giving a link now isn't much use, since throughout I have been consistent (and have consistently in the explanation) in my usage.
You have tended to waffle back and forth. Much as you did with Buddhism including gods. Or not.
If you'd bothered to be somewhat more specific in what you meant by "religion" we wouldn't be in this position now.

Even if I provided the best definition I found with a quick googlism, I have been consistent in explaining how the definition of religion should not be centered upon the belief in a supernatural god or gods.
I was also consistent in that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion; and that the “devas” are not gods.
But I accept that you were also consistent in your argument, we just hadn’t asked the correct questions I guess.

It still leaves you dangling on a number of your other claims: reincarnation, its relevance to evolution, the existence of a "soul"/ transferable disembodied consciousness etc. etc.

I never stated that those were facts; I only said that for me, it seems like a very possible scenario. And I only explained them because you asked me to, and I thought you were accepting the premise that I could not back up my claims scientifically, only philosophically. Even before you asked me what was the mechanism of how reincarnation works, and how it fits into evolution theory, you knew that for reincarnation to be explained there was something similar to a soul that persists through reincarnations, like a memory. I was hesitant to use the word soul, what I said was exactly: “It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.”.
But if we are going to continue the discussion on reincarnation vs evolution I suggest we do so in another thread, although I don’t know what would be the point. And I agree on the fact that reincarnation cannot withstand scientific scrutiny today.

Fine, however. For the purposes of this discussion I'll accept the definition given in your post.
All that means, effectively, is that the progress of science may well not wipe out religion, merely the belief in god(s) and/ or the supernatural.

Finally, an agreement to the OP answer. It was pretty instructive and cool to have this discussion with you.

 

[Yazata]

And also, the concept of a "god" as the central point of religion is weird, considering the non-theistic religions. But if you say there is no such thing as non-theistic religion, then many people may disagree with you.

And I'd most definitely be one of them. There obviously are non-theistic religions out there. Prominent ones like Buddhism, Confucianism and the Jains.

Christians, and the kind of atheist whose entire vision of what 'religion' means is shaped by the Christianity that he rejects, will sometimes insist that religion, or true religion at least, is necessarily concerned with man's response to God. Because that's what the Bible is about.

It took a long time for Western scholarship to move away from a medieval view of religiosity that divided 'religion' into Christianity, Judaism, the Saracens (Islam) and everyone else, lumped together as "heathens". If medieval thinkers devoted any thought to heathens at all, apart from killing them, they would have described them as "idolaters", people who worshipped idols as if they were gods. That's really all that anyone wanted to know about them.

That view was still prevalent at the time of the voyages of discovery and the Spanish and Portugese carried it around the world. You can still read Portugese accounts of sailing into ports in Burma or Thailand, being met by men in orange robes and shaven heads (obviously descriptions of Buddhist monks) who wanted to show them around their elaborate wats (temples). And the accounts relate the uncanny terror that the Portugese felt even approaching these unclean places filled with incense and heathen idols. Few actually dared to enter, which probably seemed inexplicable to the well-intentioned monks.

(It's ironic that some of the temples described in the 16'th century travelers' accounts still exist today and have become tourist attractions, filled with tourists from Europe, America and Australia.)

But back then, in those days, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism or any of the others couldn't be religion. No!! They could only be some dark, twisted and unspeakable perversion of true religion, of the true worship of God.

I think that the history of religious studies, the academic study of religion in its broad sense, represents a continually broadening vision of what 'religion' is, contains and can be, as scholars move away from a-priori assumptions derived from Biblical religion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Finally, an agreement to the OP answer. It was pretty instructive and cool to have this discussion with you.

Now re-read the OP: it mentions the belief in god(s) quite a few times: IOW it would appear that he was using the general definition of religion.
In which case my answer is yes.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Now re-read the OP: it mentions the belief in god(s) quite a few times: IOW it would appear that he was using the general definition of religion.
In which case my answer is yes.

You scrupulous, merciless man…

In anyway, I don't think we are in disagreement 'cause of the following picture:
* IF (for the purpose of this thread) the word religion implies the belief in a supernatural god, or other supernatural spiritual beliefs; AND we accept the premise that the meaning of the term “religion” will never change in the future in this matter, then I also think science will eventually crack it. Only philosophy will remain, and religions such as Buddhism will be called a philosophy. But this is a hypothetical, un-real case, therefore unscientific.

* But considering that the reality is that the term "religion" can also apply to non-theistic religions today, and the term itself has gone through many re-definitions throughout history; religion will remain (maybe even hand by hand with science), while belief in the supernatural will probably not. This still leaves a place for faith in god on some forms of religion, but only through the “via negativa” or apophasis.

 

[mwfleming2012]

Religion is borne of ignorance and superstition and perpetrated by fear.

One needs no scientific data to prove this anymore than those with blind faith need any for theirs. I do not seek it. Why do they?