Only if one sees oneself as the highest authority on what is moral or legal, or if one takes for granted who that authority is.
Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
Only if one sees oneself as the highest authority on what is moral or legal, or if one takes for granted who that authority is.
who's talking about (false) deities or moral codes?
I thought we were talking about how one can benefit from subservience?
You really haven't though this through.
Conflict (especially when it escalates to a national level) is built on appeal to social authority, of which religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly. Hopefully you are familiar with enough modern history to understand this basic point
Actually it is people like them who make up religious populations and not militant human bombs and what not.
I agree. Before science (and technology) religion provided answers. Now, people seem to look to science. However I also believe that there will once again be a revolution and religion will become more popular, even in the advent of science.
Those who believe that there exists two opposing sides to an issue must therefore also believe that the two must fluctuate in popularity over time, but those who believe that once an issue has been resolved then a completely new and distinct issue must rise in its place, appear to believe in an evolution rather than revolutions between the two opposing sides.
Those who believe that there exists two opposing sides to an issue must therefore also believe that the two must fluctuate in popularity over time, but those who believe that once an issue has been resolved then a completely new and distinct issue must rise in its place, appear to believe in an evolution rather than revolutions between the two opposing sides.
There is no qualitative opposition to science and religion, simply a quantitative opposition. They're both trying to answer the same types of questions, we're just at the point where science hasn't caught up with religion on the topic of morality because psychology and sociology are still quite young in their advances. Soon enough, when we understand the human brain as well as we understand the cosmos, religion will have nothing left to take claim to, and will acquiesce accordingly.
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Science is not prescriptive though. It does not tell us how we should live, it provides no comfort and solace, it merely explains. Man's default is uncertainty and fear. Religion is successful because it whispers comforting things in the ears of those who have not reconciled themselves with their mortality and the indifference of the universe. Science, by its very nature can not do this.
A further point is that most people are ridiculously ignorant of science, the scientific method and critical thinking in general. The march of science actually doesn't affect people. Yes, their cellphones now store more video and they live a few years longer, but science has yet to stake out a presence in their mind and thoughts. Every Sunday they do not dress up in suits and fine attire to attend a chemistry lab or lecture theatre. They bloody well should, but in crass terms, it doesn't get them off.
My theory is that the construct of religion is immortal.
Science only proves the how (to an extent) not the why and the more we conduct science analysis the more information we can infer from to conclude we have an illusionary nature in perception. I suspect the more we learn the more well see the illustratration that are senses are exclusive in its relationship with material(contigent matter) orbiting this planet that coexist with sustainable external factors creating essentially a closed system in a open source code.
There is no reason for this to exist in a mechanical vaccum. Yet it does. The athiests position is that there is no reason. The theiests position insists that there is.
There might be a totally scientific explanation of god being a consequence of matter evolving due to it acceleration and the motion its constantly in creating anti-particles and partiles that neutralize and create different balances eventually creating a form of matter (will, intent, consciousness) that transcends itself. Who knows.
Science only proves the how (to an extent) not the why and the more we conduct science analysis the more information we can infer from to conclude we have an illusionary nature in perception. I suspect the more we learn the more well see the illustratration that are senses are exclusive in its relationship with material(contigent matter) orbiting this planet that coexist with sustainable external factors creating essentially a closed system in a open source code.
There is no reason for this to exist in a mechanical vaccum. Yet it does. The athiests position is that there is no reason. The theiests position insists that there is.
There might be a totally scientific explanation of god being a consequence of matter evolving due to it acceleration and the motion its constantly in creating anti-particles and partiles that neutralize and create different balances eventually creating a form of matter (will, intent, consciousness) that transcends itself. Who knows.
I think you are wrong about that, science eases fear, since it can explain where natural phenomenon come from, especially things like disease.
Especially so.
They use chemicals everyday, cell phones to capture their lives for you tube and homeade movies...and they don't get off to a chemistry lab, yes. And if they had other functions to attend that have been scientifically proven to get them off, say a debate about why they exist, or a mythology story telling session, they would do that too.
I propose that given the information necessary to appeal to humans social and truly tribal propensities I could scientifically manufacture an event that would gain the attention of The masses. The media does it already without really knowing how the same way man can gaze at the stars and planets without knowing relativity, gravitational theory or optics.
as I said, we're at a stage right now where we are not sure how to live because we just do it...with insight into human needs and desires one can live in a way that statistically satisfies the optimal amount of people. Science dictates our every move. Your actions are controlled by your brain...you can't outsmart it.
Your brain has proclivities and expedients and methodologies that are slowly but surely being understood. There was a time when we didn't understand germs, weather, or cosmological phenomena, how asinine and defeating would it have been to say we didn't understand it then so only the popular mythology of the day was worthwhile??
And thus we sit 200 years later predicting weather, eradicating germs, recreating the way stars produce light. Soon we will scientifically predict decisions, eradicate immorality and recreate happiness...and it scares most to think THEY are subject to science that their "individuality" can ever be manufactured...but it is everyday by nature...not by their own choice...the wonderful thing is people like me embrace the idea of understanding ourselves and the cosmos.
Most know and would agree that a starry night sky with the milky way visible, conditions permitting, is beautiful, but to understand the complexity behind it increase its majesty fourfold...the same would he for humanity. It's a shame we fear what we almost understand.
Bravo
I totally agree. No thinking person can believe in religion, those who do are under delusion and science is slowly lifting that curtain of nonsensical personal beliefs.
Religion will die out soon, but skyhookery will prevail for much longer.
How much time do you think, it'll take?
I totally agree. No thinking person can believe in religion, those who do are under delusion and science is slowly lifting that curtain of nonsensical personal beliefs.
Religion will die out soon, but skyhookery will prevail for much longer.
How much time do you think, it'll take?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Would you say Einstein's view of the deity did not consitute religion?
Or, phrased differently, when you say religion do you mean organised, fundamentalist style religion only?
Heavens no! As the Einsteinian religion falls completely under the laws of science, it makes sense but not the religions conceived during infancy of our species.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that's simply false. Some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, humane and compassionate people that I've ever met were religious in some fundamental sense. My thesis advisor in graduate school was a former Catholic priest with a Doctor of Sacred Theology from Georgetown. I might come close to being a "believer in religion" myself, according to some definitions at least. I'm agnostic (and effectively atheist) about gods, but I've been paying quite a bit of attention to Theravada Buddhism lately as a form of spiritual psychology.
Science is very good at revealing the regularities in how physical events correlate with other physical events. But it's not as effective at accounting for the observed regularities and for being itself in the first place.
And as others have already noted, science provides us little help in making our individual lives and the universe around us seem meaningful. Science doesn't speak to the emotional side of human beings in the same way that religion does.
I think that religion will be with us for the forseeable future. What we are likely to see are greater or lesser changes in the forms that religion takes, as it evolves, adapting itself to changed cultural conditions.
We will probably continue to see the emergence of new atheist religions.
Marxism is/was the most prominent example of that breed so far, wrapping itself in the prestige of science while still purporting to give history a broader eschatological meaning. Marxism was basically a reworking of apocalyptic Judaism, with God and the supernatural removed, but still offering humanity hope for a paradisical classless Kingdom at the end of time, with the proletariat and its vanguard party taking the place of the heavenly Messiah with his avenging revolutionary sword.
Politics in general has taken on increasingly strong religious overtones, with party adherence and hostility towards political opponents taking the place of the violent religious anagonisms of past centuries. It used to be Protestants vs Catholics, now it's Left vs Right, Blue vs Red.
The flying saucer faith still has potential, transforming heavenly visitations by supernatural angels and demons into heavenly visitations by ostensibly 'scientific' space aliens. And as the myth evolves in a conspiratorial direction, with alien influence over earthly governments and massive coverups, it has potential to give history entirely new meanings.
Psychology has clear religious overtones, providing modern men and women with newly secularized paths of contemplative inner self transformation. Fear, doubt and anxiety are reconceived as if they were medical diseases and the psychologist lines up alongside the physician promising to cure them. The white coat of the clinician replaces the Buddhist monk's ochre robe.
And on and on. It's everywhere. Religion isn't going away so much as its being redefined and reconfigured.
evolving as it should.
When all the parts of the whole Ship of Dogma have been replaced by Science then the old ship will have gone away completely and the new one will rule the seas.
I've myself come across intellectuals who are either religious or think religion is here to stay. Though intrigued by them, I feel they are under delusion. And they don't want their comfort zone snatched away.
Well, we(life and matter, all that we see and observe) are significantly small amount of pollution in the vast indifferent universe. That is the truth and it's time we accept it.
Science can speak to the emotional side, read Stephan Hawking, his description of event horizon of a black hole, see the Hubble Deep Field images, that what we see when we look small space which seems black and empty are thousands of galaxies. You won't be moved by it? Entertaining the emotional aspect of humans doesn't mean that religion is true or that it is not evil.
Same could have been said about witchcraft couple of centuries ago. Today, yes the wiccans remain, but the basic practice of evil intent or evil eye have been completely eradicated with exceptions in areas with low education and awareness.
Religion is on a path to fall.
By its nature, the dogma-godma cannot evolve, and, anyway, the dogma has already been run over by the karma.
Don't you think karma is watered down form of dogma?