Will science ever overtake religion?

[InfiniteNow]

And some people just tell stupid jokes... Just because the audience doesn't laugh does not mean that they didn't get it. :hihi:

[Eclogite]

A human knows what he is doing, why he is doing it, where he is going, and how he will get there. A monkey does not.

You have made two definitive statements here. I know from personal observation that the first one is false. Do you have any evidence to support the second, or is it pure speculation on your part?

[someguy]

Hey same Saitia,

Another cute name game

 

That depends entirely on what religion's account of origin you're talking about. My personal religion properly relegates science to explaining the physical universe; it isn't qualified to say a thing about the origin of the spiritual universe, which it cannot test for.

If there is such a thing.

 

If there is a joke here, it is closer akin to you using the worst possible example to make your point; a self-delusionary practice, imo. A cowardly control freak may use a religious institution that way, but a true religionist lives his truth as constantly and courageously as he is capable of, right along with a respect for true science. Bashing religionists to supposedly prove science is more appropriate makes you look disingenuous.

I suppose only you know the right religion and what day it is practiced on.

 

Science has weakened only those religions which are largely dependent upon fear, superstition, and emotion. Real religion is untouched by scientific proof, and will always remain so.

I believe you just defined every religion. Superstition?

 

 

This is ultimately a science forum; it'd be unseemly if science got its *** kicked here. :shrug: But I did notice that more people have said no, science wont overtake religion— 9— than have said yes, it will— 7.

Again you show your tendency to overlook the facts 9 said no 7 said yes 9 said it already has.

 

As well it should if it is a belief based on superstition; but real religion does not go away; it grows stronger.

If there is one then, yes, science will prove it correct.

 

 

. . . You have an explanation that is ultimately guaranteed to be wrong.:)

So science is guaranteed to be wrong?

 

 

Cheers,

Some Guy

[someguy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Humanity will surge ahead and reach heights unimagined as a species once the species can throw off the shackles of dogma and mysticism - the relics and artifacts of our ignorant past.

 

Not "past" enough; dogma and mysticism continue to plague society in general every bit as much as they plague religion. The curse of ignorance is that the ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance; and that's just as true for scientists as it is for religionists.

No scientists get relieved of thier ignorance, at least some of it, by objectivity. Eventually all of it including religion.

 

 

We are unwilling to accept the obvious, and face reality, because of the weight of generations of self-deception and delusions weighing down upon us.

 

I don't think so. For instance, you don't face the reality that God created the universe and all that's in it because you lack understanding of spirit reality; not because of the relative errors of cosmological thinking—heavy or not— of our forebearers.

NO he doesn lack understanding, you do. Or more specifically, you have more "understanding" that you accepted while suspending your judgment (on faith).

 

 

Quote:

Of course Religion is real - after all, your parents owned up to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but they still insist on God being real. So, why should you call your parents liars?

 

They "insist" God is real because they know he's real. To call them liars not only proves your ignorance to them, but causes them the pain of knowing their offspring has no self-respect.

Actually the vast majority of people do not subscribe to your idea of what is truth. To call them liars is to go along with everyone else and to prove that you do not believe everything you read or are told. It proves also that their arrogence in thinking they know the "truth" has no effect on you.

 

 

Quote:

Face facts, face reality.

 

Learn the truth; the truth will set you free.

What if the truth, and I mean the real truth, is contrary to what you have mistakenly called truth. Then the truth will set you free more than anyone else I guess.

 

Some Guy

[someguy]

I don't see this happening. I see the middle ground be reached. There will be conflict along the path however in the end the two are one and one in the same. Science and religion are destine to combine into one being. What we now distingiush as Science and Religion respectablly will be the same one day. Such is the goal of many Scientist, Einstein himself being one of the ones who openly explain that it was his goal

.

This is true science is searching to find the answers that religion already claims to have. If religion doesn't bend to science as it already has it will perish. Religion will be forced to conform to what is proven objectively through science then and only then will it combine, but that wouldn't really be combination it would be submission.

 

 

It is simply the path of science to merge with religion and for religion to merge with science. :shrug: I hope to whatever maybe that this doesn't sound like scientology rhetoric, They are a scam. :) .

Aren't they all, really?

 

I do not believe that it is in their nature for Religion's dogmas, or even some of the dogmas of Science to remain after the unification.

What is a dogma of Science?

Some Guy

[IDMclean]

I will state at this moment, Someguy, lay off. Science is not Qualified to delve into the realms that religion does.

 

I don't remember who said it or when, but science is only for explaining the observable, measurable, quantifiable, qualitiative things of existance.

 

All the biggest questions are therefore outside the purview of science. Like who are we? Why are we here? what is this all for? What is the meaning of it all? What is god? Why did god make the universe? and Who is this god anyway?

 

I am an avid supporter of science and a strong backer of Logical theories. However I am also a backer of every Belief, Ideology, Methodology, and otherwise ephemeral Mind creation there is. If you wish to be athesistic, or agnostic. Then do so, just don't impead on the freedom of other's to believe what they will believe. All it serves to do is hurt them, and to alienate yourself from them.

 

One day the advances of science, of Philosophy, and of religion will meet. We do not have a concept currently for that creation. We do not know how or why or when such a concept will come about. I could not even venture to guess the implications of such a thing, I only know it will come to exist.

 

If you wish for your word to be respected, then respect the word of others.

 

-May you live long and prosper.

[Jules Grimm]

And some people just tell stupid jokes... Just because the audience doesn't laugh does not mean that they didn't get it. :)

 

Ok, ok - i plead guilty to making an absolutely rotten joke :shrug: - i apologise.

 

I can't promise not to do it again because unfortunately a strange sense of humour runs in our family. But i will try not to inflict the bad jokes on the poor people of this forum. :)

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: Religion doesn't attempt to address any of those questions. Religion makes assertions and sticks to them.

[Akw2000]

The moment that Science can explain the whole universe in a way that ordinary people can understand, religion will become meaningless and fade away.

 

But we do not know if we can ever explain our universe, altough I want to believe that there is logic, not magic, that is behind it's creation and workings. If we encounter an alien species with religions VERY much like our own, like Christianity-Islam, then maybe we SHOULD consider that there can be another world, call it supernatural if you like.

 

But until we gain such proof of gods existance, I think that we should stick to science because it is the only thing that you can trust to be correct.

[Boerseun]

But until we gain such proof of gods existance, I think that we should stick to science because it is the only thing that you can trust to be correct.

You can't trust Science to be correct - a lot of theories have been changed as the evidence came in.

 

You can, however, trust Science to be self-correcting over time.

[IDMclean]

Minor correction, as a person of many religions my self I will point out that some religions make assertions and stick to them, others ask those questions, more religions I think, provide possible answers, parables, proverbs, myths, stories, lessons, and many other forms of information.

 

My favorite religions are those that point out the big questions but then do not answer them. Like Taoism for instance. There are answers that people have given but nothing concrete.

 

I will accept that religions have taken stances on things which have turned out to be patently false, however i will point out that such things are simply that one Religion over stepping it's own mission statement.

 

Christianity is the one I am most familiar with, and as such I can see many places where it contradicts itself. Many places where the word has become so dilute that not even the most learned can distingiush junk from wisdom.

 

For some, Religion is what give them meaning. I know that I was strongly hurt by religious troubles, and as such I have since turned to other sources to give my life meaning, however outside of the junk that hurt me, I found wisdom.

 

That which didn't work for me I chose to ignore and it helped me to better understand.

 

But until we gain such proof of gods existance

This is not the point of religion, infact many religions teach that this is an unprovable. One either believes or one does not. It's all built on something Science does not have. Faith.

 

I ask that all here concider the words said before your existance. All Religions, Philosophies, and Sciences have their place. To harshly and unfairly tare them down is to cast out important something important to so many.

 

It is solely your choice to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish to.

 

Science, Religion, and philosophy are all simpatico. Each a compliment to the other, they are not Mutually exlusive. You can, and often do, have one with the other, or all three.

 

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.

[Saitia]

KickAss,

 

My favorite religions are those that point out the big questions but then do not answer them. Like Taoism for instance. There are answers that people have given but nothing concrete.

Yes; answers that you must reflect on: are they true for you like they were for them.

 

Christianity is the one I am most familiar with, and as such I can see many places where it contradicts itself. Many places where the word has become so dilute that not even the most learned can distingiush junk from wisdom.

That is the rub with evolutionary religions; they are only relatively true; they are a composite of revelatory religion and the ideas of man all rolled together into creeds and dogmas which usually suffocate any real truth in them in short order. Which only heightens the need for religion to become a personal religion, a personal relationship with God.

 

Science, Religion, and philosophy are all simpatico. Each a compliment to the other, they are not Mutually exlusive. You can, and often do, have one with the other, or all three.

Exactly right. If God is indeed the first source and center of all things, then all real truth of science and religion, even diminished as relative and temporal human concepts, takes origin in him.

 

Science and religion both need more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of how incomplete they both are. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment they depart from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

 

Cheers,

—Saitia

[InfiniteNow]

A human knows what he is doing, why he is doing it, where he is going, and how he will get there. A monkey does not.

 

I would like to see support for the above claim. What is the evidence for such an assertion?

 

I appears you have none? Or, perhaps I am too quick to judge and you just missed my question. If that's the case, please consider this a follow-up request.

[Eclogite]

You have made two definitive statements here. I know from personal observation that the first one is false. Do you have any evidence to support the second, or is it pure speculation on your part?

Saita, the above refers to exactly the same quote as Infinite Now. You seem to have conveniently missed seeing it also. One is forced to lean towards the conclusion that you make powerfully phrased statements in the hope you will not be challenged on them. Should we conclude that you have no evidence, merely a self-generated opinion?

[someguy]

Hello KickAssClown,

I would like to respond to what you have said.

I will state at this moment, Someguy, lay off. Science is not Qualified to delve into the realms that religion does.

Agreed but neither is religion. That is my whole point. No one has the "truth" not even science. Of course, science doesn't claim to have the "truth". Everytime I see a fish with truth written on it I want to scream.

 

I don't remember who said it or when, but science is only for explaining the observable, measurable, quantifiable, qualitiative things of existance.

Which is the extent of what we can talk about reasonably. Otherwise it is speculation and should be labeled as such.

All the biggest questions are therefore outside the purview of science. Like who are we? Why are we here? what is this all for? What is the meaning of it all? What is god? Why did god make the universe? and Who is this god anyway?

Again agreed, but these questions are quite obviously out of the hands of religions as well. They have been proven wrong in many instances yet we still turn to them for the answers to the biggest questions of all. Science will be more apt to answer these questions with a more reliable system in the future. Religion is something people rely on until that day.

 

I am an avid supporter of science and a strong backer of Logical theories.

Religion is not logical.

However I am also a backer of every Belief, Ideology, Methodology, and otherwise ephemeral Mind creation there is.

A backer or believer?

If you wish to be athesistic, or agnostic. Then do so, just don't impead on the freedom of other's to believe what they will believe.

You mean like religions do to everyone. This is exactly what religious followers do. They just don't like it done back.

All it serves to do is hurt them, and to alienate yourself from them.

Ditto.

 

If you wish for your word to be respected, then respect the word of others.

By respecting their word you mean accept that it is OK for them to tell me I am wrong but not for me to tell them they are wrong. To accept that they say they have the truth and not say they do not.

 

You quote Voltaire further on:

Originally Posted by Voltaire

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.

This is to say that everyone has a right to speak their mind and this includes the athiest, as he was one. If you say to me lay off because I say that someone should not push their views upon everyone else. Then perhaps you should go back and think about that.

Some Guy

[IDMclean]

I felt that some statements that were made, were intentionally hostile. If I made err, all I can say is: I'm human.

 

You mean like religions do to everyone. This is exactly what religious followers do. They just don't like it done back.

 

I gather from your posts that you are westren taught. Correct? I will point out that this is an over reaching blanket statement, which is patently false. If you wish to discuss why then I would suggest another thread.

 

By respecting their word you mean accept that it is OK for them to tell me I am wrong but not for me to tell them they are wrong.

 

This is a straw man arguement, I did not make this statement nor does it reflect my thoughts, opinions or emotive state. Say what you will, but please do so civilally and with respect for the beliefs of others. I respect your beliefs and you obviously do not respect mine, in a reactionary way. That is within in my perspective.

 

A backer or believer?

 

More or less both, I like to try out a given ephemera before dismissing it as false.

 

Religion is not logical.

 

No it is not, that is the realm of science. Religion is Emotional, and Intuitive. Faith once again, something that has no place within Science. faith, hope, reverence, and goodwill, these are not things inherent to every facet of science. Science does not teach compassion.

 

Science is as it mirrors, cold and logical. Clean sterile and uninspired. It is clever as machines go, but it is still a machine.

 

Some like the idea of a machine controlling their destiny, and some like the idea of controlling their own destiny. Some aren't ready to step outside of the boxes they have grown up in and they will stay within always, till the end of their days.

 

Me myself, I am partial to the idea that I cease to be when I die. No "immortal" soul in any conventional sense, my ego finishes when this shell finishes.

 

This gives me comfort and purpose in life, and drives me to be a better person. There is no "reason" or logic that I am aware of that makes this so, science can not explain, as of yet why it is that I choose the paths I do.

 

What it summerizes as is:

"Whatever floats your boat, just don't rock ours without really good reason."

[Erasmus00]

Science is as it mirrors, cold and logical. Clean sterile and uninspired. It is clever as machines go, but it is still a machine.

 

This may be one of the most absurd mischaracterizations I've read. Science, like all uniquely human activities, is a creative process both inspired and inspiring.

 

As Feynman liked to point out, a knowledge of science doesn't diminish the beauty of the universe but enhances it. Consider the stars, An artist looking up at the sky might sees stars wonderous and fantastic, but the trained eye can see so much more. The scientist can picture the giant ball of luminous gas, the beauty of the magnetic field lines, feel a sense of awe at the sheer size of the universe. The scientist knows that humans are quite literaly composed of burned out stars, we are literaly made of stars.

 

Perhaps even one of the very stars he/she is looking at has long since died, burned out, exploded and those very same atoms have begun a new dance, forming civilizations, people, etc. Science doesn't render nature sterile, science opens new areas of beauty to explore.

-Will