Will science ever overtake religion?

[hallenrm]

Let's face it, science is lagging behind religion in terms of popularity globally. Religion finds many more followers than science. The reasons are not very hard to discern. Science is a much later development than religions. Literacy is an essential prerequisite for science, while majority of world population is still illiterate. Science does not appeal a hungry stomach, large sections of people still go to bed hungry.

 

The present world scenario is appalling, it is under a spell of the likes of Al Quaida or the Roman Catholic church (not to mention the clergy in India and the middle east).

 

Is there any hope???

[Jay-qu]

I say yes, though it is a biased opinion - I just think the trend of the average person becoming smarter will get to a point where most people will not believe in religion any longer.

[Loricybin]

i answered this in a different context than i think it was asked.

i say science is far ahead.

 

i suppose what i meant by that is: science has advanced unbelievably, where as religion just kind of . . . sits there. so i, personally, favor science.

 

i think that's one reason i don't subscribe to any kind of religion. what i personally observe, and learn, is what i believe to be god.

not god of course, but the closest thing you could call god in the existance of existance.

[Tormod]

Comapring apples and oranges if you ask me. Science and religion are two different things and the "popularity" is hard to measure.

[Eclogite]

Comapring apples and oranges if you ask me.

Drat. You are quicker with the cliche gun than I, though I was going to go for comparing avocados and oryxs.

[Jay-qu]

Comapring apples and oranges if you ask me. Science and religion are two different things and the "popularity" is hard to measure.

they are both fruits, both sweet, both come from trees.. :D sometimes things have a lot more in common than on first inspection

[Zythryn]

Science and religion are two seperate things as already stated by others. There is no Science vs Religion except in a few cases where people attempt to replace science with religion.

 

Many people appreciate both. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I think intelligent/logical people will gain knowledge through science, and spiritual people will gain spiritual peace and comfort through whatever religion they follow.

 

Please note, there are many spiritual, intelligent, logical people, these again are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

Mark

[Pyrotex]

Science and religion are two seperate things as already stated by others. There is no Science vs Religion except in a few cases where people attempt to replace science with religion....

There is more Science vs. Religion than is obvious at the surface.

 

The ongoing battles in America over the teaching of biological evolution and "intelligent design" is the tip of an iceberg. Many fundementalist churches have been arguing for several generations that Science "seduces" their children away from "true faith" and is to blame for corrupting the minds of their youth with "worldly wisdom" like materialism, humanism, hedonism (my personal favorite), relative morality, situational ethics and atheism.

 

Is this true? Not in any significant sense, no. But for centuries, religion has been promising the "better life", freedom from fear and disease, even affluence--and it has been Science (more or less) that has delivered on these promises. Stealing God's thunder, so to speak. Not nice. You go to hell for that!! :surprise:

 

So, at the core of this "battle" is resentment, and loads of it. And this gets expressed as accusations that scientists (or "Science") is involved in an intentional conspiracy to destroy religious faith in the classrooms of America's schools and colleges. I heard that as a boy, and half a century later, I read it in books and magazines. What we are seeing today is a whiplash effect of Science's major advances in evolution, cosmology and technology over the last 50 years, a swinging of the pendulum--but it's not "new".

 

Perhaps, as some others have said in this thread, the pendulum will swing back the other way. My opinion is that it will, but not before "big religion" and "political religion" and "godly politics" and "religious militias" do serious, serious, serious, serious damage to this country and its infrastructures.

 

Consider Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s.

[hallenrm]

I think it is opportune for me to vote:)

 

Well I have voted "can't say":) Let me explain!

 

It is true that science and religion are different from one another in many respects, but so is a tortoise from a hare, and we all have heard of the proverbial race between the two:) :shrug:

 

Religion and science do share some common traits. They both rely on hypothesis to explain phenomena. The most powerful hypothesis of religion is concerning the existence of God, and perhaps the strongest hypothesis of science is that all phenomena can be explained in terms of concepts of force, energy and atoms.

 

Religion has had an headway in the present era because of the missionary zeal of many of its devout. Just imagine what would be impact of Christianity but for the missionary zeal of missionaries, the Islam without its madrases, Buddhism without its monks, Hinduism without its purohits.....

so on and so forth.

 

What pulls science back, is the lack of such cults. Well some developments have been promising, George Gamow, Jacob Brownoski and Carl Sagan et. al to name just a few. On the Hypography itself we have some notable personalities like CraigD, Clay and Tormod, again just a few.

 

What science needs is people like them to carry it forward to the masses.

 

I think I have made some point!:hihi: :D :hihi: :hihi:

[Boerseun]

This is a meaningless question. As stated above, it's like asking if a brass trumpet will ever overtake a rubber duck.

 

But seeing it in the context it was asked, I'd have to say no, because the entrance fee for Science is much, much higher than that for religion.

 

Religion appeals to the masses, and the masses can't be bothered to go through the rigours of studying and using their heads. It's too much effort, and believing the universe is handed to you on a silver dish by some benevolent entity is much easier.

[arkain101]

My opinion, anyone that uses a a peice of technology is following science. Be it a wrench, a fork, a lever or a computer that works from electricity.

 

Everyone follows science whether they know it or not, however not very many study it because it requires alot of thinking, and for alot of people thinking is too much effort, or it very well may be they dont have the mental capability to understand.

 

Religion on the other hand is different. You can follow it, or not, and you can follow it or not whether you understand it or not.

[Pyrotex]

In my opinion, very few people "follow science". Actually, I would say, "engage in science".

 

I have 3 cats who drink out of an advanced technology stainless steel bowl. I dare say, my cats do not follow science. Looks like we need a definition or two around here.

 

I offer this: can we agree that "following science" must in some obvious way be parallel to "following religion"? Just because I have six-pointed stars on my black leather jacket does not mean I follow Judiasm.

 

Okay. Following religion implies some degree of choice, or at least informed acceptance. Perhaps it means study, maybe not. Therrefore "following science" should imply some degree of choice, or at least informed acceptance. To follow science, you must be aware of what science IS, and accept it as a source of information and policy, even if you don't understand why or how. I would suggest that it also means that your "acceptance" implies approval--you like the idea that your source of information comes from science--you like the idea of science itself, and you are to some degree interested enough in it to read and enjoy scientific writing, at some level.

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Like every one who has given an opinion; Science or being interested in science is different than religion. One must have some exact scientific reason before ffects religion. If I'm interested in the freezing point of water I won't reference the bible.If ,Truck missdmy car by an inch, I won't reference the atomic table. I guess "overtake"is confusing . Do we mean instead of religion, or inplace of? if so I say NO.. especially if you have "moderaters" who claim to regulate you opinions because they are cluless jerks, and want you to respond in their way. Religion is founded on ancestoral cognizance and I feel science has "overtaken" the word of mouth or song and dance method of communication and teaching, if the question is going in that direction, I feel science won't slow down, and religious belief will need to be proving because science is what science is. Certain people we know would replace because of the lack scientific proof source some of the beautiful things we want to believe in. Can't you see some fool saying you can't weigh hope so it is invalid, therefore it does not exist. In this case science or we should realy say scientist could take over (a hostile take over) religion. Lastly

religion has no cost, it is free and already yours , scientific stuff has a cost and a greater level of conformmity. 1 + 1 = 2 and that the whole story, now what do we learn today, once you know the whole story the story is over.

 

DORSEY:( :)

[infamous]

Do we mean instead of religion, or inplace of? if so I say NO.. especially if you have "moderaters" who claim to regulate you opinions because they are cluless jerks, and want you to respond in their way.

And just which moderators are you calling "cluless jerks" Mr. Dorsey?

[UncleAl]

"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity," Harlan Ellison. Technological civilizations will always fall to gods and their self-righteous mobs. This is called bad luck.

[hallenrm]

Let me try to get the thread bad on track!:)

 

The question posed is with regard to the popularity of science versus the popularity of religion amongst the population of the world at large.

 

Given the present state of literacy and the economic status of a large fraction of the population, it is a foregone conclusion that religion rules the roost.

 

But, is there any hope for the science to replace the religion. I think there is.

 

I live near an urban village in Delhi, that cannot be said to be really developed in any real sense, but a large section of the people living in it are semi literate, they are also the consumers of filtered water, electricity and telephone services.

 

Yesterday while passing by, I heard the words about a state sponsored campaign. It was about malaria eradication. The campaigner was telling the characteristics of the mosquitoes that can cause malaria.

 

That's science!

 

It goes down the throat of even semi literate people, because malaria affects them. So they remember and also internalize the info.

 

This is a scenario very similar to the scenario when religions flourished worldwide. They offered solutions for the problems people faced.

 

Science can (and I hope it will) overtake religions which are getting rusted. They do not take in new information, to provide new hypothesis, something that science does all the time.

 

What is required is to raise battalions of good science communicators who talk the language of the masses, a science away from the ivory towers, that seem to dominate science today.

 

Anyone listening?

[ronthepon]

Science is something that we are building on now, just the way religion has been been built upon for many years.

I think that science is not behind religion in any respect, other than rigidness and lack of proof.

 

The basic reason about this is that lately, free thinking has become a large stress point. Today when little kids ask "Daddy! what was god doing before he made earth and heaven?" they are answered by something like "god only knows." But just three to four centuries ago, they would get "He was preparing hell for those who ask such questions"

Which answer would you prefer?

 

A kid will learn what he is taught whe he is young. And when he grows up, he becomes fixed and rigid about his beliefs. It takes a lot of power to change that belief. But a believer will try to affect the people aound him with his beliefs. I think that this is the factor that will determine the speed at which science prevails over human belief.

 

Anyway, this is the time when science ad rationalism are expanding and working their ways into the darkest of caverns of human civilisation. I bid it good luck in it's quest to enlighten us mortals. (Ahem, I think that im beggining to feel the begginings of rigidness)

 

Science is a religion like no other.