Can secular science ever oust religious belief?

[Pyrotex]

...Communication across the globe, and access to information and other opinions is leading to less shepherd/herd groupings, and more individual thoughts. That cannot be good for religion. However, as I said, the concept of religion itself will change, and I think that science will play a role in that. Just don't know how big that role will be nor what the impact.

You are absolutely correct. Spot on!!!! :D

The impact of Science will be: it's there and you can't make it go away without destroying the fabric of civilization.

Religion's response will be to split: one portion will give up the fight and accept that Science is indeed a valid search for truth. The other portion will dig ever deeper into denial, hoping to take broad political control so they can conquer Science by political mandate.

 

My guess is, that second portion will almost succeed (in the USA) and the cost will include blood. But they will lose. And THAT will signal the enormous change in the religious landscape. Keep your fingers crossed, boys and girls. :) :D :) :) :) :)

[HydrogenBond]

The ousting of religion from culture has already be attempted in the not to distant past. One can look at these two social experiments to see what the result was. Nazi Germany was one experiment. The second was Stalin and Russia. If you look at theocracies, like in the middle east, going too far with religion was quite tame by comparison. Between Hitler and Stalin they killed 10's of millions.

 

Many of the forum members may be too young to remember the breakup of the godless Soviet Union. The breakup was ushered forward when religion was put back into the picture in Poland. This gave hope and courage and helped cause the social pendulum to swing back to economic prosperity and greater world security (ended the cold war).

 

Nazi Germany was the hi-tech king in its day, with science helping to oust religion. Things reverts to social darwinism. The superior race felt they had a selective advantage and they destiny was to rule the world. America and the Allies had religion on the side and kicked butt.

[Dyothelite]

The problem with reconciling the science and religion disconnect is that in religion you are inherently defining something that is by definition beyond empirical observation and presumably equally unfathomable.... that which was the primary cause of the creation of the universe, or the infinite eternal state of the universe.

 

If you believe in "God" then you inherently also realize that no scientific empirical observation will ever be possible to prove its existence. God is by definition not an observable object that one observes. You can only theorize the existence of a being or force that caused the creation of the universe.

[hallenrm]

Intersting posts indeed, Pyrotex, Infinitenow, Hydrogenbond and Dyothelite, but I can see several encouraging thoughts while going through them. For exmple:

 

Eventually, this inevitable evolution of religion (if we are to survive as a species) will result in religion that incorporates morality, meditation and philosophy much as Buddhism does today.

 

Communication across the globe, and access to information and other opinions is leading to less shepherd/herd groupings, and more individual thoughts. That cannot be good for religion.

 

However, as I said, the concept of religion itself will change, and I think that science will play a role in that. Just don't know how big that role will be nor what the impact.

 

A common string between these thoughts is the evolution of the concept of religion. Thus, while certain cults that go by the name of religion might have rather static ideologies, the fact remains that the society at large is dynamic and changing constantly, as does the body of knowledge that we call science. The conclusion is simple, a dynamic society would resonate much more with a dynamic 'science' then with a static religion.

 

Then there are some minor points, for example when Dyothelite says

 

If you believe in "God" then you inherently also realize that no scientific empirical observation will ever be possible to prove its existence. God is by definition not an observable object that one observes. You can only theorize the existence of a being or force that caused the creation of the universe.

 

He somehow forgets that God was and is never an object, it is a concept, (or does he:confused:) , and always has been a concept, only for the sake of illitrate it is often projected as an object.

 

And When Hydrogenbond taks about the Nazi experiments in Germany and Stalins experiments in Russia, he somehow ignores the fact that science itself has evolved a lot since then.

 

Science needs to grow and evolve a lot more before it can match the power of centuries old religions of the world! :) :) :D

[Dyothelite]

My point is that because God is not an objective observable phenomenon, it is incompatable with empirical science.

 

I never said that God is an object, actually I said the opposite

[hallenrm]

Dear Dyothelite, science is not totally empirical, it's a body of knowledge based on phenomena which are not always empirical, it develops through concepts that are introduced to explain the phenomena logically.

 

I would suggest that you read my article "the fascination of Science" on the articles subforum on HSF.

 

So your statement

 

because God is not an objective observable phenomenon, it is incompatable with empirical science.

 

exposes that you are still somewhat ignorant of the ways of science. For example we really cannot observe an atom or energybut they are neverthless an integral part of science! :)

[Dyothelite]

Thank you for pointing out my ignorance in science. However, the fact I was referring to is that God is not a phenomenon that exists objectively in this universe. It's very definiton is that it is unfathomable and transcendental to the physical universe. Not that it isn't omnipresent, but observing true eternal beingness that exists outside and before the creation of the universe is impossible. Therefore, you are forced to believe in it rather than observe it.

 

Where you cant observe an atom or energy, you can in fact observe its relationship to other events and objects. The only observable interaction with God happened at creation, and presumably through Jesus, or whatever figure you believe was divine. Well I take that back a little.... but my point is you can't perform an experiment and say there's God!

[Qfwfq]

Dear Dyothelite, science is not totally empirical, it's a body of knowledge based on phenomena which are not always empirical, it develops through concepts that are introduced to explain the phenomena logically.

True, but I wouldn't conclude from his sentence that he's "still somewhat ignorant of the ways of science". :hyper: I would only say "beyond the scope of" in place of "incompatible with".

 

For example we really cannot observe an atom or energybut they are neverthless an integral part of science!

We do observe them!

 

You might say that we cannot see them but the meaning of observation isn't limited to that. They are phenomena. They are manifestations of something in reality.

[hallenrm]

They are phenomena. They are manifestations of something in reality.

 

Sorry. But I cannot agree with you. Energy and atoms are concepts of science, like time, they are not phenomena.

 

A penomenon is an observable event, concepts are introduced to explain very many phenomena in a logical manner.

[hallenrm]

God is a concept very much like energy and time, it was introduced to explain very many common phenomena that could not be and often cannot be satisfactorily explained by science.

[Qfwfq]

Atoms have been observed as much as quasars have. Both are objects as much as is the PC you are typing into. This is so according to the lingo of modern researchers (which includes many of my old cronies).

 

While quasars were discovered directly by observation, atoms were consisered only a concept (or model) before they were observed. Energy and time can be measured (observed) but it wouldn't make sense to consider them objects, they are quantities.

 

God is not an object and isn't observable. Unlike energy and time, God can't be measured.

[ronthepon]

How atoms have been observed...

 

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm

[Qfwfq]

How atoms have been observed...

 

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm

The scanning tunneling microscope is one of the things that came to my mind... and wow! We can not only observe the layout of the crystal lattice, but even that one of the atoms is missing! In the hexagon to the lower right. From what I've read, it might even have been picked out by the STM itself, which can also be used for manipulating single atoms.

[hallenrm]

God is not an object and isn't observable. Unlike energy and time, God can't be measured.

 

I never said that God is an object, all I said is that God is a concept. As regarding the definition of a concept, I am sure any book on philosophy can be of help. For now, I would only like to quote the introduction of the aricle on concept from Wikipedia

 

A concept is an abstract idea or a mental symbol, typically associated with a corresponding representation in language or symbology, that denotes all of the objects in a given category or class of entities, interactions, phenomena, or relationships between them. Concepts are abstract in that they omit the differences of the things in their extension, treating them as if they were identical. They are universal in that they apply equally to every thing in their extension. Concepts are also the basic elements of propositions, much the same way a word is the basic semantic element of a sentence. Unlike perceptions, which are particular images of individual objects, concepts cannot be visualized. Because they are not, themselves, individual perceptions, concepts are discursive and result from reason. They can only be thought and designated by a name.

 

Concepts are bearers of meaning, as opposed to agents of meaning. A single concept can be expressed by any number of languages. The concept of DOG can be expressed as dog in English, Hund in German, as chien in French, and perro in Spanish. The fact that concepts are in some sense independent of language makes translation possible - words in various languages have identical meaning, because they express one and the same concept.

 

evidently it is not essential that every concept be a measurable quantity, for example art is a concept, can anyone measure it?! :hihi:

 

Please give me a refrence that shows that an atom, not the manisfestation of atoms, that is of phenomena related to atom can be observed directly.

[cwes99_03]

You guys mind if I throw in my nickel's worth? :hihi:

 

If religion is ever to be replaced, I don't think it will be replaced by "science". It will be replaced by another religion, or even a different "kind" of religion.

 

I believe that attempts at this have already been made. History is full of attempts to replace "bad" religion with something better.

Christianity tried to replace Judaism;

Protestantism tried to replace Medieval Catholicism;

Liberal Protestantism tried to replace Calvanist Protestantism;

B'Hai tries to replace Islam;

Pentacostal Christianity tries to replace Fundemental Christianity;

Unitarianism attempts to replace all Christianity;

Buddhism attempts to replace all other religions.

 

The trend is clear (to me anyway). People are often attracted to a religion for its fire-breathing dogmatism, only to find that it has negative social and cultural impacts. (Like burning down all the libraries, and vast bloody wars!) Eventually, another religion comes on the scene that gives the same emotional and cultural benefits without the pillage and suffering. Civil liberties and knowledge become more acceptable. Inner peace becomes more important than social dominance.

 

Fundemantalism is making a GIGANTIC push for social, political and scientific hegemony (dominance & rule) in America right now. What it is destroying in the process is true faith and peace with oneself. It will almost succeed. At a horrible cost. In thirty years, the religious landscape in America will be totally different.

 

But religion will not be replaced by secular philosophies or science. It will be replaced by other religions (they may call themselves "Christianity") that have relaxed their defiance and dogma, and that emphasize the value of internal peace and fullfillment. They will incorporate an acceptance of secularism and science. Scriptures will be relegated to "inspiration" instead of "law".

 

Eventually, this inevitable evolution of religion (if we are to survive as a species) will result in religion that incorporates morality, meditation and philosophy much as Buddhism does today.

 

Sorry I think that people need to reread that.

 

You are in fact saying that philosophies are replacing religion and touting themselves as the new religion. Likewise, you say that people will turn away from their religion and put science on a pedistal (that is secularism) and in a way worship the human condition/ human thinking, as the know all answer to all of life's questions. I know you hate that line of thinking, because you refuse to call anything you do worship.

So at the end of your post, you contradict yourself and say that the new ways of thinking (philosophy) and new information on the world (science) will replace the various religions we have today with new ways of worshipping. Come on Pyro, don't you see you put science and human philosophy on high to replace the worship of any god, but then say that science and philosophy will not be worshipped because people will call it religion?

[cwes99_03]

He somehow forgets that God was and is never an object, it is a concept, (or does he:confused:) , and always has been a concept, only for the sake of illitrate it is often projected as an object.

 

And When Hydrogenbond taks about the Nazi experiments in Germany and Stalins experiments in Russia, he somehow ignores the fact that science itself has evolved a lot since then.

 

Science needs to grow and evolve a lot more before it can match the power of centuries old religions of the world! :hihi: :hihi: :cup:

 

In the land of computerworld, everything is an object. A password is an object. Thus saying that God is a concept is making God an object.

 

A concept is nothing more than a piece of paper, a thought. As people can own their "original thoughts" as intellectual property, a concept is an object. Thus you did say it was an object.

 

However, a human is an object. An animal is an object. They are living objects. A spirit creature is an object. Not an idol, but an object, a thing.

 

According to most people, their god is a spirit creature. If you wish to refer to God as a concept, don't invite religious people to comment. If you don't want religious people to comment, then you have no question at all, because in the minds of your remaining audience, science has already ousted religious belief.

[Pyrotex]

...You are in fact saying that philosophies are replacing religion and touting themselves as the new religion. Likewise, you say that people will turn away from their religion and put science on a pedistal (that is secularism) and in a way worship the human condition/ human thinking, as the know all answer to all of life's questions....Come on Pyro, don't you see you put science and human philosophy on high to replace the worship of any god, but then say that science and philosophy will not be worshipped because people will call it religion?

When are you going to stop behaving like a Troll? :hihi:

You put words in my mouth I did not say.

That's called "giving false witness".

You could not be more wrong.