Will science ever replace religion? (page 3)

Brummie

Very interesting thread Craig

IMO Science & religion could work together for the betterment of mankind, if religion takes a realist approach then we can all benifit from both sides. Science doesnt have to replace religion and vice versa

Brummie

funkyderek

Will science ever replace religion?

For the most part it already has. We see doctors when we are sick, not priests or shamans. Cloud seeding has almost completely replaced dancing as a way of inducing rain. Superstition has not yet been completely replaced by reason but it seems inevitable that one day it will be, as even the "god of the gaps" has very few places left to hide.

Elsewhere

I'm of the opinion that Religion is man's first failed attempt at science. Think about it... religion has always been used to explain the universe, where we came from, where we are going along with things as mundane as thunder.

Instead of using facts and measurements to describe the universe, people used superstitions and antidotal information.

Once the Scientific Method was discovered, myth and superstition were surpassed by fact and measurement.

Bottom line is this: The more educated a population is, the less superstitious and therefore less religious it becomes. You might also notice that as time has passed and science as been able to explain more about the universe we live in, religious explanations are being used less and less. It has literally gotten to the point where all some religious people have left is ?faith? in invisible and immeasurable actions of spiritual beings.

Sargon

It gets scary when people try to use science to prove their religion, they always seem to ignore the parts that defy all scientific logic or say that's where you need faith. yeah, sometimes a giant leap of faith.

Phantom Stranger

Science has indeed spoken to questions such as do the gods make thunder and rain, etc. However,

Has science explained consciousness? Has science explained what happens to consciousness at conception, birth, and death?

I am not advocating any religion... but as long as science fails to provide answers to such questions, religion will hold an appeal... to those in foxholes and those not.

I personally think that religion is an attempt to speak to how to live... and science is not. Science can be used to discuss how to live... but its aim is not to determine what we should do, but to determine the workings of the physical universe... and no one has determined how to classify consciousness in the physical universe.

Elsewhere

Has science explained consciousness? Has science explained what happens to consciousness at conception, birth, and death?

Keep in mind that people used to defy scientists to explain lightning, which we now know is electricity. They defied scientists to explain breath... which was thought to be the "spirit" or life force of a person. They defied scientists to explain stars, planets and other heavenly bodies... no they are not holes in the veil of night. They even defied inventors to create a flying machine... it was believed that birds had the power of flight only by devine providence.

My point being that given enough time, anything that is measurable can be accurately described using science. There was once a time that we had no means to measure radio waves... it is just a matter of time before we are able to measure consciousness and yes even love.

http://www.dailytargum.com/news/2002/02/19/News/Study.Questions.Science.Of.Love-186526.shtml

funkyderek

Has science explained consciousness?

Consciousness seems to be something that happens when a brain has a sufficiently large number of neural connections. No, science hasn't yet been able to pin down exactly what causes it but it has certainly determined that consciousness is a function of the brain, and that the larger and more complex the brain, the greater the degree of consciousness.

Has science explained what happens to consciousness at conception, birth, and death?

At conception there is no consciousness as there is no brain. At birth (in humans at least) there is a degree of consciousness but it seems that language is needed for full self-awareness, memory, imagination and the other attributes we associate with consciousness. After death, there is no neural activity, and therefore nothing that is capable of being conscious. Now you can pretend that consciousness is something other than a function of the brain, and that it somehow survives the death of the body but no evidence exists for such a notion, nor does any known mechanism that could explain it, and the fact that someone can imagine such a thing and call it religion proves nothing.

I am not advocating any religion... but as long as science fails to provide answers to such questions, religion will hold an appeal... to those in foxholes and those not.

Of course. I already made a reference to the "god of the gaps", using God as an ad hoc explanation for things that science hasn't yet fully explained. Those in "foxholes" will perhaps always clutch at straws, and those in positions of power may always exploit this tendency

I personally think that religion is an attempt to speak to how to live... and science is not. Science can be used to discuss how to live... but its aim is not to determine what we should do, but to determine the workings of the physical universe...

"How to live" is the province of ethics. Ethics based on the world as it actually is are of necessity more useful than those based on the whims of an imaginary god.

and no one has determined how to classify consciousness in the physical universe.

What do you think of Roger Penrose's theories on the subject, as expounded in The Emperor's New Mind? Or Susan Blackmore's in The Meme Machine? Granted, such theories might be speculative but they offer a far more useful basis for understanding a complex subject than anything religion has to offer.

Phantom Stranger

derek, I'd like to remind you that I am not advocating any religion or faith. While I am not a believer, I seem to lack the utter contempt for believers that many seem to exhibit. I myself classify as an atheist. The question was asked "will science replace religion", and I replied why I did not believe that it would. I did not reply, just so you know, with my own personal beliefs. I think along the same lines as you, and I think that the writers you quote are on the right track, but it's all very very early-stage theoretical.

Heinlein already wrote a story (over 30 years ago) on what happens when a computer attains enough neural connections to become "conscious" - See The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which I read when I was about 10 - so I've known the theory you describe for a while (about 28 years).

BTW, derek, your rudimentary explanation of consciousness smacks of a lot of the logic-chopping that goes on in this forum. English can only be used to "prove" so much. I see so many "logical" arguments on this board that are conducted by those who think they have "proved their point" and that anyone who disagrees with them (or even fails to be convinced) is a "brain-dead moron". Thanks for your explanation... but unless you're a neuroscientist, I don't think your explanation answers my question (Has science explained what happens to consciousness at conception, birth, and death?). The answer to my question, as of today, is "No, science has not - although they are working on it and have been for years".

mpatrick

Very interesting post!

It brought to mind a line I heard in a movie

"Knowledge is the enemy of faith". -The Order

Phantom Stranger

I prefer "One may bask at the warm fire of faith, or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both." RAH

Will science ever replace religion?

Share this