Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Ok here we go:

So what?
For example: Quantum Mysticism -
Um, no it doesn't. At all.

So, I don't mean actually explains all the details, but it reaches to understanding higher than what quantum physics have reached so far; Buddha did spoke much about the emptiness behind the form, about the illusion of matter behind the vibrational energy. Now in regards to quantum mechanics, scientists are able to measure and quantify subatomic particles behaviour and how these particles interact with each other in some sort of "emptiness", but they are still far from understanding how it all comes together. That is why so much "mysticism" has entered into science with quantum mechanics, because scientists are still at wonder about their findings not knowing what exactly is what they found and much is still to discover.

But the occasions where science contradicts religion far outnumber the agreements.
No. Please provide actual examples, as opposed to nebulous claims.

You may have heard about Hermes Emerald Tablet, where Hermes speaks about "everything is mind", and "how it is above it is below". Those are teachings from thousands of years ago, and science is still to find these things on their own.

The problem with the whole religion Vs science argument, is that scientists tend to be too literal. Like the whole garden of eden thing, if you take the parable literally, then you can contradict the whole thing with scientific arguments. But religious men from thousands of years ago did not speak literally and they were not concerned with how a man and a woman ate a an apple at the beggining of human history.
The garden of eden is a parable that explains, quite good in fact, how we create our own hell in this life by confroting what happens in reality with what we think it should happen according to our personal expectations.

Love is a measurable chemical imbalance (as was shown decades ago).

Love is measurable by current technology; but it was not measurable a hundred years ago. Does it mean a hundred years ago people didn't experience it? Science advances hand in hand with technology, and with better technology there will be more discoveries about this reality.

So you are betting that with this discoveries, science will keep contradicting religion. But I bet that quite the oppositve will happen, and as time passes, science will bring men closer and closer to real religion or spirituality.

 

[Michael]

Religion IS a mental illness. And it's contagious.

:thumbsup:


Religion is in the process of dieing away as we speak - with access to information and advancement in technology people no longer feel the need for religion. The speed at which superstition is collapsing is astounding and it will be very interesting to see how a truly secular public deals with superstition in the near future. That said, those religious paradigms that are able to adapt will probably grow. I'm thinking Christianity, which is extremely mailable, and more than likely Buddhism - which actually is value additive due to reflective practice.

 

[Randwolf]

But religious men from thousands of years ago did not speak literally and they were not concerned with how a man and a woman ate a an apple at the beggining of human history.

I know you're not a "literal" kind if guy, but if you do a little research, you may find that the fruit in question was a fig not an apple.

Figuratively speaking, of course...

 

[wynn]

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.

"Dignity and intelligence of human beings" - according to what moral standard?

Not that I agree with every standard that is proposed by various religions.

It is that when we venture into the discussion on what is "arbitrary" and what is "natural" and what is "artificial," we are left to judging things by a moral standard which we cannot actually justify as absolute, and are thus left simply with one arbitrary moral standard fighting another arbitrary moral standard.

 

[praty]

Unfortunately, you snipped out my next remarks in which I said this:

Of course I snipped cause I was addressing only to that part.

"No religion people are on the rise" where? Everywhere on earth uniformly? In particular countries and cultures? There are parts of the world (like Scandanavia) where theistic religion appears to be in real decline, but there are also parts of the world (like sub-Saharan Africa) where it appears to be strongly rising. It isn't entirely clear whether there's any overall global pattern, or if so what it is.

"No religion people are on the rise" defined and measured how? By lower rates of conventional church membership and participation? Or with lower rates of underlying religiosity?

In Europe (which seems inordinantly proud of its atheist credentials), church adherence and participation have indeed fallen dramatically in the last couple of centuries. But if researchers word their poll questions a little differently and ask Europeans if they believe in "a higher power" or some vague and generic religious idea like that, then positive responses tend to pop right back up.

And it must be said that Europeans have shown considerably more interest than Americans in new (and Europe-spawed) eschatological quasi-religious movements such as Marxism and Naziism. It probably isn't coincidental that conventional religious adherence hasn't fallen quite as dramatically in America as in Europe during that period, leaving Americans feeling less in need of utopian emotional substitutes.

It's still an open question whether the elimination of traditional religion would be a uniformly positive advance of empirical reason, turning everyone into intellectuals, or whether it might render broader populations psychologically volatile and unstable.

Your assumption that anything that has to decline, will decline uniformly is based on what?
The education standard of the Scandinavian countries is very high, that's the primary reason for sharp decline of supernatural beliefs. So, as the education* spreads among the masses, religion will decline, uniformly or non-uniformly.

*Quality education(scientific method and it's implications), not the basic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oops, only just saw this.

So, I don't mean actually explains all the details, but it reaches to understanding higher than what quantum physics have reached so far

No, it doesn't. You may claim it does though. Please show how it shows a "higher understanding".

That is why so much "mysticism" has entered into science with quantum mechanics, because scientists are still at wonder about their findings not knowing what exactly is what they found and much is still to discover.

This is incorrect. Mysticism has entered because of the fools that purport to explain it without knowing much about it.

You may have heard about Hermes Emerald Tablet, where Hermes speaks about "everything is mind", and "how it is above it is below". Those are teachings from thousands of years ago, and science is still to find these things on their own.

Another supposition. Please show that this "emerald tablet" has any validity.

The problem with the whole religion Vs science argument, is that scientists tend to be too literal.

Nope. The science vs. religion argument is that science tells us how things actually are (and checks, constantly) and religion tells us how things were believed to be (without substantiation).

Love is measurable by current technology; but it was not measurable a hundred years ago. Does it mean a hundred years ago people didn't experience it?

Huh? Please take a look at what you asked. And then re-read my reply.

But I bet that quite the oppositve will happen, and as time passes, science will bring men closer and closer to real religion or spirituality.

Except this has not been shown to be the case: quite the converse in fact.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

@Dywyddyr: times like these I wonder if you post just for argument's sake but you wanna go, let's go .

No, it doesn't. You may claim it does though. Please show how it shows a "higher understanding".

This is incorrect. Mysticism has entered because of the fools that purport to explain it without knowing much about it.

Physicists still don’t know the role that the observer plays in subatomic particles behavior, and that behavior constitutes the basis of what we call reality.
Buddhism explains thoroughly what the role of the observer in reality is. And the practical aspects are based on how the level of consciousness of the observer affects the world. It doesn’t explain much about the “ultimate reality” or reality without the observer, but mainly it teaches how to take your consciousness to higher levels so you yourself can experience this understanding.

Another supposition. Please show that this "emerald tablet" has any validity.
Nope. The science vs. religion argument is that science tells us how things actually are (and checks, constantly) and religion tells us how things were believed to be (without substantiation).

I cannot show you how the "emerald tablet” has any validity; it is just an example of how different traditions of religion or mysticism support each other in their most inner core teachings. The “emerald tablet” was allegedly written by “3 Initiates”, I mean even the authors are anonymous, how can validity be confirmed? It is just an example man, I can quote many other examples from other sources if you’d like.
Paradoxically, the greatest masters of history have been anonymous, because of their “surrender of the ego”. They just don’t care about their name being remembered, on the contrary, they don’t want to be followed, true masters have systematically told their disciples: “don’t follow me, come follow yourself”. But people don’t listen and always try to create their own phony organization.

Except this has not been shown to be the case: quite the converse in fact.

You are talking about organized religions; I’m talking about a new, honest religion. And science has played a major role in destroying these fake religion dogmas; it is all for the good of true religion!!! Jesus, Muhhamad, Buddha, etc. have all tried to destroy obsolete beliefs systems and organized religions, but people keep repeating the same mistakes, even against the teachings of the fathers of their own religion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

times like these I wonder if you post just for argument's sake but you wanna go, let's go

Then you can stop wondering. I "argue" because you persist in making false and/ or unsubstantiated claims.

Physicists still don’t know the role that the observer plays in subatomic particles behavior

Who says an observer does? That's one possible explanation. Try reading up on the subject.

Buddhism explains thoroughly what the role of the observer in reality is.

No, he makes claims. Which have yet to be substantiated.
BTW how can he "explain thoroughly" while at the same time not explaining the details? (Post #161).

but mainly it teaches how to take your consciousness to higher levels so you yourself can experience this understanding.

You mean it waffles about "higher levels" of consciousness so that you too can make claims.

I cannot show you how the "emerald tablet” has any validity; it is just an example of how different traditions of religion or mysticism support each other in their most inner core teachings.

Then it's not worth mentioning, is it? They may well supporteach other, but they do not support, nor are they supported by, science.

The “emerald tablet” was allegedly written by “3 Initiates”

Oops...

It claims to be the work of Hermes Trismegistus ("Hermes the Thrice-Greatest")

Or even:

12 - Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist

(From the thing itself).
Wiki. Any other source?

I mean even the authors are anonymous, how can validity be confirmed?

Forgive me. I wasn't aware this was the "Random Speculation" sub-forum.

You are talking about organized religions; I’m talking about a new, honest religion. And science has played a major role in destroying these fake religion dogmas; it is all for the good of true religion!!!

Oh, okay. WTF is a "true religion"?
Science will not support one, unless you want to redefine what "religion" means.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century, and they claimed it was the essence of the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus; Hermes on the other hand, was “Thoth” the Egyptian (it is said that Thoth was an Atlantean Priest-King, who founded a colony in ancient Egypt after the sinking of his mother country), from several thousands of years ago and then the name was translated to Hermes the “Thrice Greatest” by the ancient Greeks. Myth says he was an immortal being who had conquered death.
His scriptures were lost in the great burning of the Alexandrian library.

Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject

Funny how all comes into pieces with different religions, like the "Trinity" in Christianity, or the three bodies of buddhism (Trikaya).

Anyway, back on the thread. Science will probably kill organized religions, I agree with that; but religion itself will not die.

A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual presence. [1913 Webster]

Note: we are not talking about "organized religion", "dogma", or "theology"; we are discussing religion here, therefore the emergence of a true religion, out of the removal of the hypocrisy of current dogmas triggered by science, is not at all impossible, and it is a highly likely outcome of this process.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century

Source please, since my link disagrees with that. If it was "authored in the 20th Century" how come Newton (1643 – 1727) did a translation?
How come there's references to it going back to at least 650 AD?

Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject

Right.
Keep trying.
I think you need a new definition of "knowledge".

A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God

That's enough.
What makes you think science will validate god?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Source please, since my link disagrees with that. If it was "authored in the 20th Century" how come Newton (1643 – 1727) did a translation?
How come there's references to it going back to at least 650 AD?

Right.
Keep trying.
I think you need a new definition of "knowledge".

Shit man you are right, I was talking about the "Kybalion", great book by the way. Burn to me. Pardon my arrogance, thank you for making me notice it.

That's enough.
What makes you think science will validate god?

I don’t know if it will ever “validate” god, but religion will not die. Religion is for the people who know that man’s brain is so limited and it will never understand the totality of his surroundings; with this knowing comes search, and with this search comes inner-transformation.
I do think that as science will someday “accept” religion (without all the BS off course) once an evolved religion is established. Because due to the nature of reality, science will hit with walls that are almost impossible to cross through scientific method. That is why I pointed quantum physics, because it has remained stuck for many years (no major breakthroughs) and many scientists have adopted “non-scientific” explanations for what is going on there, therefore I believe more and more scientists will be accepting religion in the future. And even more if religion becomes more natural.

But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Shit man you are right, I was talking about the "Kybalion", great book by the way.

Another piece of specious unfounded crap.

I don’t know if it will ever “validate” god

Then how will "science will bring men closer and closer to real religion"?

Because due to the nature of reality, science will hit with walls that are almost impossible to cross through scientific method.

Supposition.

That is why I pointed quantum physics, because it has remained stuck for many years (no major breakthroughs)

It's a relatively new branch. Rome wasn't built in a day, as the saying goes.

many scientists have adopted “non-scientific” explanations for what is going on there

Really? Link please. Or are you just taking the word the idiots that publish the "quantum theory and telepathy" type rubbish?

But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.

You mean you believe that to be the case.

 

[SciWriter]

But what I do know for sure is that religion will not be eliminated by science.

Religion has been full of "for sure's" that have long since fallen. The epic battle is still on, and all the more. I have enjoined myself in it.

Of course some forms of religion will survive, such as the peaceful ones.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Another piece of specious unfounded crap.

Have you actually read it?

Then how will "science will bring men closer and closer to real religion"?

From my understanding, a curious agnostic is more religious than a catholic priest. In that sense, destroying the lies and deceptions of old dogmas is bringing people closer to a real religion.

You mean you believe that to be the case

Nah, people need a purpose in life that science will never be able to supply.

For the original question of the thread we have 2 likely outcomes in the future:
1. Technology will become so advanced, that science will reach a point where it has all the answers of the nature of the Universe (or multiverse). Ergo religion will die.
2. Science will come to find things that religions have been saying (some things in parables, and others literal) for millennia, and therefore creating the basis of a new understanding of religion.

And I just don't think the first one is a possible outcome. The fathers of religions spoke from their experience, and I believe most true teachings will be validated by science in the future.

 

[SciWriter]

 

[Dywyddyr]

Have you actually read it?

Flicked through it. Spent too much time laughing at its ridiculous claims.

From my understanding, a curious agnostic is more religious than a catholic priest.

Doesn't answer the question. Science is currently showing that religion is largely wrong when explaining the world. You've also said that you don't think science will validate god. Therefore I ask again: how will science bring men closer and closer to real religion?

Nah, people need a purpose in life that science will never be able to supply.

And you think religion is the only other option?

For the original question of the thread we have 2 likely outcomes in the future:
1. Technology will become so advanced, that science will reach a point where it has all the answers of the nature of the Universe (or multiverse). Ergo religion will die.

Possible.

2. Science will come to find things that religions have been saying (some things in parables, and others literal) for millennia, and therefore creating the basis of a new understanding of religion.

You're supposing that religion had the actual answers. Wow! How'd it get them? What things do you mean?

How about
3: something you haven't thought of.

And I just don't think the first one is a possible outcome. The fathers of religions spoke from their experience, and I believe most true teachings will be validated by science in the future.

Sorry.
:roflmao:
What "true teachings"?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

You're supposing that religion had the actual answers. Wow! How'd it get them? What things do you mean?

I’m not supposing that, I know religion has many answers as to the nature of this reality. I know now you will ask for examples so I think these are just out of the top of my mind a few truths that I think science will eventually bump into (or are already in the scope of science):
1) Meditation techniques and practices. (Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Zen)
2) Yoga.
3) Reincarnation and evolution.
4) Subtle body Chakras.
5) The power of mind over matter.
6) The illusionary quality of reality (our limited perception).

"For that which we cannot see, feel, smell, touch, or understand, we do not believe. For this, we are merely fools walking on the grounds of great potential with no comprehension of what is." - Buddhist monk quotation.

How about
3: something you haven't thought of.

I thought that was obvious, but in order to provide an answer to the OP I could only post what I could think of. But everybody is welcome to post other possible scenarios.

Sorry.
:roflmao:
What "true teachings"?

The true teachings are those of the sages, those that throw you into a quest to know yourself instead of looking for answers outside.

 

[SciWriter]

1) Meditation techniques and practices.

Meditation—the state of which is "not what you think"

Calming one’s mind by removing all thoughts, via meditation, results in a pervading neurological sensory feeling, yes, but it is still a felt sensation. Kind like like floating, and then even that is gone, but the ‘you are’ quale remains. Some might arbitrarily equate this to “God” or the “All”, yet, it is only a feeling induced by meditation. Simply pronouncing it to be something else is to fool one’s self, for, a sensory feeling is yet a sensory feeling.

Lab testing of Buddhist monks indicates that certain neurological areas of the brain indeed go quiet and stop reporting about the self identification and its bodily boundaries. I have had the same feelings through healthful meditation that others have had, but, I do not claim the ‘sure things’ that I am floating in outer space, have become one with the cosmos, or going to other spiritual realms, even though it feels like it, nor do I claim that I have merged with the chair, the room, the world, or the universe, even though it feels like it.

Nor any claims of “God”, nor “All”, nor merging with the cosmos. It is just a neurological feeling that’s especially induced by the quieting of brain areas for the self ID and the body’s boundaries. The feeling comes from one’s own brain; it is not an external signal sent so we can touch God, know God, or peek into God’s realm, for this is all just wishful thinking.

Here is more: Humans have become suckers for many weird beliefs. They have even been encouraged by brain systems that evolved for other things. For example, as in meditation, a bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, a region toward the top and rear of the brain, distinguishes where your body ends and the rest of the world begins, this being quite a useful feature. Without it, we would bump into everything. However, brain areas send “turn off” signals to this area when we are falling asleep, having sex, praying, chanting, or meditating deeply. One then feels part of something larger than one’s self; however, one is not.

When the brain is unable to find the dividing line between self and world, the brain adapts by experiencing a sense of holism and connectedness that then may promote other beliefs which bring a further sense of connection. The quietus of these brain areas lead some to figure that they have become one with the cosmos or with God during meditation; but, alas, it is only that induced floating feeling of oneness, still a felt sensation in the ‘state of being’ that ever resides atop the mind’s unreachable chemical-electrical state beneath.

Who then, upon recalling, or during a state of meditation, or just by living, can use experience of doubtful analysis by the mere state of being to say anything further about the true nature, why, source, how, and wherefore of reality and the conscious awareness of felt sensation without any consideration of the electrochemical states beneath?

There are those who feel they really have to say, based on introspection alone, and those who do not, for science informs us of the states beneath.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I’m not supposing that

Yet your next sentence shows that you in fact are.

I know religion has many answers as to the nature of this reality

Believe is the word you keep missing out.

1) Meditation techniques and practices.
2) Yoga.

And?

3) Reincarnation and evolution.

Evolution? Which religion? Reincarnation? Supposition. And zero evidence.

4) Subtle body Chakras.

Supposition. And zero evidence for claims made, if not actually contradicted.

5) The power of mind over matter.

Supposition. Zero evidence where not directly contradicted.

6) The illusionary quality of reality (our limited perception).

Huh?
Depends what you mean by "illusionary".

The true teachings are those of the sages, those that throw you into a quest to know yourself instead of looking for answers outside.

I meant "what are these "true teachings"?". Is it yet another supposition of yours that they are true?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Still zero evidence for evolution. We are still just as stupid as our predecessors. Generationally speaking of corse.