Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution

[Wisdom_Seeker]

How is science a "new religion"?

I mean with the evolution of science, much religious bullshit is contradicted. So organized religion cannot survive for the future man of science. Science will eventually destroy organized religion. And that is good.

What makes you think religion is the "culmination of science"?

Science can only get you so far, like in quantum mechanics, the terms used to described the behaviour of sub-atomic particles in relation to the observer can easily be related to the teachings of the founders of religions. Specially scientific mystics like Gautam the Buddha, who never encouraged people to believe in anything, on the contrary he always encouraged his followers to follow their own light, and to believe only what they had experienced for themselves.

Why do you think evolution makes no sense without reincarnation? What evidence do you have for reincarnation?

Do you think, that a man can be born from "nothing"? Is that scientific? Do you have evidence of where is the human being before conception? Or after death? Religion explains in methaphors and parables an existencial experience, what science cannot reach.
I have no evidence for reincarnation, obviously, there can be no physical evidence. I am neither telling you to believe in it. It is just the experience of many people.
I am just saying that reincarnation does not contradict evolution and viceversa. On the contrary it supports it, the soul is born in the lowest perception possible (non-living being), evolving to a plant and then animal, changing forms. According to the growth of the soul, it needs a different body to perceive what he has grown to perceive.
The soul evolves, and therefore bodies evolve as well in passing generations.

What do you mean by "higher planes of perception"?

I mean you have reached a higher plane of perception than a plant, or a dog. A plant has a certain perception of the world, but compared to our own it is very very limited.
And our perception is limited as well, we are not even close to be able to perceive the whole reality as it is, therefore science is also limited.

 

[Dywyddyr]

the terms used to described the behaviour of sub-atomic particles in relation to the observer can easily be related to the teachings of the founders of religions.

Rubbish. Examples please. (Unless you mean "related meaninglessly", of course).

Specially scientific mystics like Gautam the Buddha, who never encouraged people to believe in anything, on the contrary he always encouraged his followers to follow their own light, and to believe only what they had experienced for themselves.

Which has what to do with science?

Do you think, that a man can be born from "nothing"? Is that scientific? Do you have evidence of where is the human being before conception? Or after death?

What do you mean "from nothing"?
Why do you assume there's a human before being born or after dying?

Religion explains in methaphors and parables an existencial experience, what science cannot reach.

Incorrect. It tells stories: which have not been shown to be true. Therefore they're hardly "explanations".

I have no evidence for reincarnation, obviously, there can be no physical evidence. I am neither telling you to believe in it. It is just the experience of many people.
I am just saying that reincarnation does not contradict evolution and viceversa. On the contrary it supports it, the soul is born in the lowest perception possible (non-living being), evolving to a plant and then animal, changing forms. According to the growth of the soul, it needs a different body to perceive what he has grown to perceive.
The soul evolves, and therefore bodies evolve as well in passing generations.

This is more nonsense. You specifically stated

evolution makes no sense without reincarnation.

Why not?
And what is a "soul"?

I mean you have reached a higher plane of perception than a plant, or a dog. A plant has a certain perception of the world, but compared to our own it is very very limited.
And our perception is limited as well, we are not even close to be able to perceive the whole reality as it is, therefore science is also limited.

You mean we have senses that a plant doesn't? Correct. How do you know we have a "higher plane of perception" than a dog?
You're speculating wildly, without foundation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you say that Jesus was not religious? But he wasn't an adept to any specific traditional religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that he was not a Jew and did not promote Jewish values?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

You mean we have senses that a plant doesn't? Correct. How do you know we have a "higher plane of perception" than a dog?

For example, a dog cannot appreciate music the way we do. The mind is the interpreter of the senses, and our mind is a bit more evolved than a dog's.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For example, a dog cannot appreciate music the way we do.

You assume.

The mind is the interpreter of the senses, and our mind is a bit more evolved than a dog's.

Then you're talking about mind rather than senses.

And ignoring all my other questions...

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Are you seriously suggesting that he was not a Jew and did not promote Jewish values?

Yes.

I agree that he was born into a jewish family, with Jewish values; but he interpreted the Jewish scriptures in his own way, followed his own path, and critized traditional Jews.
He used jewish parables and teachings to explain his point of view, because he was speaking to a jewish audience; but most of Jesus teachings are blasphemy to orthodox Jews.
Just like Buddha used Hindu parables and teachings to explain his point of view to a Hindu audience, although he contradicted Hindu beliefs and he was not a Hindu himself (and he was born into a Hindu family).
And like Mohamad was raised as a pagan, but after his revelations he didn't preach paganism at all.
Etc, etc etc

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

You assume.


Then you're talking about mind rather than senses.

No, I'm talking about perception; the senses are just the "receptors" of certain energies, but without the mind the senses would be useless. The mind is needed to interpret and perceive the outer world.

And ignoring all my other questions...

Yes, 'cause it is useless to discuss some things. My intention is not to change your mind about things that require belief. To me belief is not a virtue but a confusing "self-hipnosis".
What I'm trying to state here is that religion does not necesarily contradict science. On the contrary, religion is thousands of years old, and it explains many things that Science is still unable to.

Science is the systematic process of discovering and explaining everything that is and occurs in nature.
The process of experimenting and experiencing without belief, is part of science, even if you cannot provide physical proof of your experience. It does not mean that it does not exists, it just means it hasn't been proved yet.

 

[Yazata]

How is science a "new religion"?

I think that it can be.

Obviously for scientists themselves, science is quite distinct from religion. It's far more rational and evidence-based.

But the great majority of the population out there has little formal education in science. They have no easy facility in mathematics, no background in basic physics and chemistry, and limited ability to comprehend science's incredible complexities or understand why scientists say the things that they do.

So in real life, what we often see is people accepting science on faith.

Members of the public embrace science because of its cultural prestige or because all of the smarter people are supposed to believe in science. And that's not really a whole lot different than medieval people flocking to Christianity, for very similar reasons.

Street-level scientism takes on other characteristics of religion as well. There's a faith in progress and sometimes kind of a paradisical eschatology of a future scientistic Kingdom, when the forces of obscurantist darkness have finally been vanquished and everyone finally bends a knee. If we hope to improve society, then we need to reshape it in what is believed to be the scientific image. There's an implicit trust that science is capable of answering all questions and satisfying every conceivable human need.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, I'm talking about perception; the senses are just the "receptors" of certain energies, but without the mind the senses would be useless. The mind is needed to interpret and perceive the outer world.

Double talk.

Yes, 'cause it is useless to discuss some things.

Yet you persist in stating these things as if they were fact.

What I'm trying to state here is that religion does not necesarily contradict science. On the contrary, religion is thousands of years old, and it explains many things that Science is still unable to.

Nonsense. Please give examples. Science has a history of contradicting religion. As you have acknowledged.

The process of experimenting and experiencing without belief, is part of science, even if you cannot provide physical proof of your experience. It does not mean that it does not exists, it just means it hasn't been proved yet.

It also doesn't mean that it does exist and is yet to be proved. This is where you appear to be confused.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But the great majority of the population out there has little formal education in science. They have no easy facility in mathematics, no background in basic physics and chemistry, and limited ability to comprehend science's incredible complexities or understand why scientists say the things that they do.

So in real life, what we often see is people accepting science on faith.

Then, strictly speaking, they aren't accepting science on faith so much as the results (what they are told science "says") of science (or, rather, the results as explained by newspapers, pop science books and TV programmes).
They are going on the word of those who promote/ propound science (often with little actual science knowledge/ background themselves)...

Edit: yes, I realise this is whole other argument. But still...

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Nonsense. Please give examples. Science has a history of contradicting religion. As you have acknowledged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

It also doesn't mean that it does exist and is yet to be proved. This is where you appear to be confused.

Have you ever been in love?
If the answer is yes: you cannot prove it, yet it does not mean love does not exist.

 

[Dywyddyr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

Yes, unfounded claims and analogies. So what?

Have you ever been in love?
If the answer is yes: you cannot prove it

Arrant nonsense.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Yes, unfounded claims and analogies. So what

You cannot say that if you didn't even read it, the bibliography and related articles explain much about the subject as well; and you didn't read any of it.

Arrant nonsense.

Defense mechanism

 

[Dywyddyr]

You cannot say that if you didn't even read it, the bibliography and related articles explain much about the subject as well; and you didn't read any of it.

But I did.
I suggest that, on the contrary, it was you that didn't read it.

most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism and the methodology of science.

Defense mechanism

Pardon?
You made a claim. Back it up.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

But I did.
I suggest that, on the contrary, it was you that didn't read it.

In the same article,
See also

Relationship between religion and science
Buddhism and Evolution
Buddhism and psychology
Issues in Science and Religion
Quantum mysticism
Religious Science
--------------------------------
Buddhism, quantum physics and psychoanalysis have much in common as well. Better: Buddhism explains quantum mechanics.

However, I am not 100% for Buddhism, and not a Buddhist myselft; I'm just stating an example of a religion out of hundreds of religions. They don't necessarily contradict science.

But I consider it a clear example since Buddhism explained various aspects of quantum physics and psycology thousands of years before these sciences existed.

You made a claim. Back it up.

What i mean is that you cannot answer a question by attacking the questioner, that is an ad hominem argument. That is a defense mechanism, an old one.

It is as if:
Galileo: The Earth rotates around the Sun.
Pope: That is arrogant nonsense.

But you still can answer if you want, can you prove love? Can you prove embarrasment?

 

[Dywyddyr]

In the same article,
See also

Relationship between religion and science
Buddhism and Evolution
Buddhism and psychology
Issues in Science and Religion
Quantum mysticism
Religious Science

So what?
For example: Quantum Mysticism -

Many ideas associated with "quantum mysticism" have been criticized as either misinterpretations of quantum mechanics or as pseudoscience

Better: Buddhism explains quantum mechanics.

Um, no it doesn't. At all.

They don't necessarily contradict science.

But the occasions where science contradicts religion far outnumber the agreements.

But I consider it a clear example since Buddhism explained various aspects of quantum physics and psycology thousands of years before these sciences existed.

No. Please provide actual examples, as opposed to nebulous claims.

What i mean is that you cannot answer a question by attacking the questioner, that is an ad hominem argument. That is a defense mechanism, an old one.

There wasn't a question: you made a claim. A false one.

But you still can answer if you want, can you prove love? Can you prove embarrasment?

Certainly. Love is a measurable chemical imbalance (as was shown decades ago). Try Googling instead of making irrational claims.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

The conversation is going in circles; peace, out!

 

[Dywyddyr]

The conversation is going in circles; peace, out!

In other words you can't back up a single one of your assertions.
Well done...

 

[spidergoat]

There are many things that believers and non-believers agree upon. For example, both agree that friendship is good, and murder is bad.

The question is only which explanation (the one from the believers or the one from the non-believers) makes the most sense of the values and virtues that we all agree upon.

Can the non-believers really produce such a justification for moral behavior that would make the moral behavior obligatory and justify sanctions for transgressing it?

Yes, many secular nations have laws that enforce moral standards. The problem with religious morality is that it's arbitrary. If the holy book tells you to mutilate the genitals of babies, you will do it. That's basically immoral and it disrespects the dignity and intelligence of human beings. Religion was invented by some self-righteous idiot in the first place.

 

[NMSquirrel]

In other words you can't back up a single one of your assertions.
Well done...

...