Will science ever replace religion? (page 2)

Blueblades

Not as long as there are psychological payoffs.

Farkel

Q: Do you think science will ever replace religion?
A: Never. Because it doesn't solve any of the problems that religion solves, like death or deception. There is no society that survives more than a generation or two that isn't religiously based--even the Soviet Union, where half the people were religious. Thomas Jefferson's unitarian God fell by the wayside. So did the French Revolution's neutral deity. People want a personal God, for obvious reasons, to solve personal problems.

Of course the logical fallacies here are so evident, I'm actually embarrassed to bring them up.

# 1: Religion has never "solved" the problem of death. It only makes up stuff that is unproven and unprovable to explain the "solution" for death. Its ultimate argument rests in the simple word called "hope." That's it. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. "Hope" is in itself smoke and mirrors.

#2: Religion certainly never "solved" the problem of deception. Instead, it created the problem of deception by offering smoke and mirrors. See comment above.

#3: The arguer here was so so stupid as to use the argument that "since religion has been here longer than all societies, it therefore MUST be right. By that argument, prostitutes have been here just as long. Therefore prostitutes MUST be right and therefore they also offer "truth". (In fact, they DO offer truth, but true believers won't accept that their truth is MANkinds truth, but that's another subject.)

#4: And this is the crowning gem of them all: "People want a personal God, for obvious reasons, to solve personal problems." My reply? Most personal problems people have, they solve themselves, or they don't. "God" remains absolutely silent in solving the problems of most people and has done so since people quit recording the "miracles" that "God" did millenia ago. "God" has only "solved" a relative few of people's personal problems, while the majority of the true believers got screwed by others for no reason and "God" did nothing to help them. Why would "God" solve a true believer's problem of getting a job, and not solve the personal problem of the four-year-old who got raped and then stabbed to death by some psycho perp?

Obviously, the arguer is a "true believer."

"True Believers Like this Arguer" = moron and braindead idiot.

Science has advanced mankind in uncountable ways. If religion had absolute control over the world for man's entire history, we'd still be using cattle to pull plows, believe the earth was flat and we'd be burning people alive for having Turrett's Syndrome.

Religion is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind and especially womankind.

But, that's only my not-so-humble opinion, Craig.

Farkel, who is kinder and gentler these days

"My Dearest God: please protect me from your true believers."

Phantom Stranger

I would agree with the stated premise, Craig, but I would phrase it slightly differently.

Science concerns itself (in its pure form) with what is... not what should be, not how you feel about it, and not how to deal with it. Religion is popular with people, not because it does any of those particularly well, but because it does take a shot at doing them, and in that way makes people feel better in a way that science does not even attempt.

Science isn't even concerned with "right action", as the Buddhists say... I beleive that Heinlein made some interesting swipes in a few of his books at why the scientists shouldn't run everything. Anyway, that's my two cents. Glad to see you posting...

seattleniceguy

Farkel,

Aside from the stinging bitterness of a few of your comments such as

"True Believers Like this Arguer" = moron and braindead idiot.

I wish to say BRAVO to your excellent logic! Science has advanced our lot in innumerable ways. I wonder in what ways anyone would say that religion has advanced our culture.

SNG

Phantom Stranger

The church supported some rather nice Renaissance painters.

I am no fan of religion, but Hitler loved dogs... nothing and no one is just one thing.

Farkel

seattleniceguy,

You said:

:Aside from the stinging bitterness of a few of your comments such as

"True Believers Like this Arguer" = moron and braindead idiot.

Apparently, you have a tiny problem of differentiating between bitterness and facts!

Farkel

gitasatsangha

Religions tend to self perpetuate, and in that regard they exist more or less because they've existed for a hell of a long time already. They are incredibly endurable social structures. So the entire arguement that religions exist to fill a need does not take into account the fact that religions (and I am thinking more or less of theistic religiosn, but it can apply to nontheistic religions such as Buddhism and Jainism as well) have training going back thousands of years in some cases just for their own survival as independant entities. They have evolved into efficient organisms, and whether they are needed or not, religions are very good at making laity believe they are needed.

Science has a certain self interest in perpetuating itself through education, and adherance to principles of good science, but the comparisons of it to religion really end at that point. Science won't go away, because one cannot uninvent an idea. Religion will not die out for largely the same reason. Science will probably chance over time, as methods are refined. Religion will change, as it always has, to keep up with current conditions. There aren't too many head-hunting cannibal cargo cults thriving on earth right now, and I think it's fair to say that as the world population's hierarchy of needs are met, the old theistic religions will be going the way of their predecessor's into the pages of history books. It may not come across as particuarly religious to a worshipper of today (A Southern-Baptist would probably find a typical Zen Buddhist sangha to be pretty nonreligious to their eyes, now), but that is just a matter of perception. It doesn't spell the end of religion at all.

my $.02 on it, anyway.

robhic

Religions tend to self perpetuate, and in that regard they exist more or less because they've existed for a hell of a long time already. They are incredibly endurable social structures.

Interestingly, I was thinking along these lines recently.What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist,.etc.? My guess is primarily accident of birth. You're born into a family/environment that embraces a religious group (usually) so you are raised thinking this is the one and only real religion. Some more strident than others but you've got the right one and others should get a clue. You never really question the stuff that is just spoon-fed to you. It's gotta be true because your parents (and they're right about everything when you're a kid), family and teachers (in the religious schools) tell you.

You may go to schools provided or supported by this religion, your family subscribes to the beliefs. Heck you don't really know any other way. At some point, you start to question or at least wonder about some of the bizarre teachings you've adhered to as fact and law for so long. With me raised Catholic, I could never figure out why fish isn't meat and it had to be eaten on Friday when other meat couldn't. Show me that one in the bible...

Then some of the other stuff starts looking a little suspicious. Finally, I read the bible cover to cover and what I planned to be a voyage of biblical discovery turned out making me more agnostic with atheistic leanings than anything! The bible cured me and made me a world-class skeptic.

I don't fault those who believe what they do. I just don't like when they try to force it down my throat as some absolutist doctrine. Do what floats your boat and let me float mine. Other than that, I really think enviornment you are raised in is the #1 reason for religous bias thus making it self-perpetuate from generation to generation unless or until someone starts to question it.

Robert

ThiChi

NO!!! Just as Night will never replace Light......

metatron

No, it won't ...... EVER!

There are two reasons for this:

First, science has not identified/ codified/ fully explained the role of consciousness in the natural world.

Matter and energy are considered as primary constituents of reality - with consciousness as a mere secondary

effect - which will likely prove to be untrue.

Second, science is headed for an impenetrable Brick Wall that has a sign on it saying "The End of Reductionism".

The idea of trying to derive all effects from simpler causes is folly - a fact that is just beginning to emerge amidst

naive academics in genetics, artificial intelligence and quantum theory. What will finally emerge is an untidy

picture in which everything interacts with everything else - and good luck finding a bottom rung on the reality ladder.

On the other hand, religion will evolve to look more like Buddhism or Taoism , with less emphasis on a single

personal Diety. We're all part of God.

metatron

Will science ever replace religion?

Share this