Technology is not the same thing as science.
Will Science Eventually Drown Religion?
- Thread starter sderenzi
- Start date
Doesn't matter - still looks like it is out to be drowned
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
So you project your vindication into the future, because you can't have it now.
Nope. I seriously doubt it will happen.
Of course, the "Robo Sapiens" future on the other extreme of the spectrum is about as unlikely.
Of course, the "Robo Sapiens" future on the other extreme of the spectrum is about as unlikely.
Logical but irrelevent. Out of the ashes we will again seek the miracles of science because they are dependable.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."- einstein
Religion doesn't actually cause problems however - its only religion in the guise of gross materialism that causes problems
AHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAhaha... *gasps* AHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!
Thanks, I needed a laugh!
Problems come about when something is falsely represented - just like if a person creates several sock puppets it causes problems because the inherant faults in one person's view are artificially boosted to give a wider impact. Religion can be utilized in the same way, acting as nothing more than a sock puppet for someone's gross material ambition to be amplified- this says nothing about how religion exists in its proper state
Using knowledge alone does not help anything because it can be false. Knowledge has to be accompanied by truth, otherwise we still remain in an ignorant state (because all we have is false knowledge).
So even if we rid the world of religion, we still remain in ignorance and thus can invent new problems instead of solving any, or even exacerbate our current problems.
So in essence, what is truth? Find the answer to that question, and you will have a point of reference to the solution to every problem and the answer to every question!
Which is why - I suppose - man seeks the divine...Sock puppets, eh? Both samcdkey and you have now alluded to me having sock puppets, and I'd like some proof. Furthermore, I'd like to know where you got the idea.
That the point, insn't it? There is no proper state for religion. It's the most tired cop-out of them all: The "True Scotsman" fallacy. It isn't real communism, it isn't real christianity, it isn't real islam, it isn't real hinduism. Apparently, nothing is.Religion can be utilized in the same way, acting as nothing more than a sock puppet for someone's gross material ambition to be amplified- this says nothing about how religion exists in its proper state
Well, that's just silly. I can and do blame religion in whatever state it comes in for immense suffering. I don't give a flying fuck if you have some idealised version of it in mind. This is the real world.
Religion or God?
Both. They're built on the foundation of unquestioning faith. Which is the absolute antithesis of science...
It simply means that we haven't come far enough in our learnings to understand the science of religion.
I just don't think science and religion are enemies. Instead of trying to use science to prove religion wrong, I think the day will come where science will be able to prove religion as scientifically possible.
The above quote came from Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons". Much like the DaVinci Code, it's fiction wrapped in truth. He gives some pretty eye opening examples of how science could one day prove religions notions like Genesis, for example.
Last edited:
I've read Angels and Demons, and I enjoy it because it shows how science and religion are ultimately ENEMIES.
The experiment didn't prove Genesis. It only showed an inverse form of annihilation. The book DOES portray the inherent irrationality of religious fantics very well.
The Davinci Code was fiction wrapped in more fiction. Very little of Brown's novel was actually in factual context. Moreover, science has already demonstrated Genesis as poppycock. Indeed, when looked at as a work of literature, Genesis -an interesting bit of mythology- can only be accepted as fact by the deluded.
I believe Richard Dawkins put it quite it nicely in his interview with TIME:
"If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."
To think that science would prove only one religion true is pure fallacy.
"If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."
To think that science would prove only one religion true is pure fallacy.