Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[ChristineM]

Of course they don't believe in techno gods, but what a person puts first in one's life is their god.

My children, my husband, my friends. Not gods by any means, no need, i am quite happy without

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My children, my husband, my friends. Not gods by any means, no need, i am quite happy without

There is nothing to indicate one can't be happy with or without having a god / God in one's life.
What the Bible is saying that if one ( whether happy or unhappy ) wants a resurrection that is where the God of the Bible enters the picture - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.
And as 1 Corinthians 15:32 B says if the dead do not rise then as the old adage goes, eat, drink and be merry.........

 

[Jumi]

Of course they don't believe in techno gods, but what a person puts first in one's life is their god.

Not for me at least. God is God, doesn't matter if you sacrifice everything for it and become miserable. It won't change or help God.

 

[Earthling]

So you imagine the post you wrote was magically converted into binary, magically identified and packeted, magically transmitted on the internet through several magic internet servers to end up, by magic on the RF server. It then had its headers stripped, the binary portion that was your text msgically recoded to ascii, then stored in exactly the correct locaton in an sql database so that it could magically appear on a readers screen (i wont go into how it displayed, but needless to say, it also requires vast amounts of great computer god magic.

Food science is based on many years of study. Glad you find looking after yourself to be funny


Edit : oh yes, it was not the food science god that magicked your post to RF, it was most definitely the computer god

Excellent! Thank you for such an articulate and well thought out and informed response, but . . . alas . . . it's bull****.

Saying that science is responsible for the complex process of posting on an Internet forum on the Web is like saying music is responsible for The Bohemian Rhapsody. It has no real meaning. It's like saying that trees, mountains, canyons and life are evidence of a creator.

 

[Jumi]

Saying that science is responsible for the complex process of posting on an Internet forum on the Web is like saying music is responsible for The Bohemian Rhapsody. It has no real meaning. It's like saying that trees, mountains, canyons and life are evidence of a creator.

Scientific theories form the basis for why we are able to communicate here. Without science there would be no internet, no computers, or even The Bohemian Rhapsody.

 

[ChristineM]

There is nothing to indicate one can't be happy with or without having a god / God in one's life.
What the Bible is saying that if one ( whether happy or unhappy ) wants a resurrection that is where the God of the Bible enters the picture - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.
And as 1 Corinthians 15:32 B says if the dead do not rise then as the old adage goes, eat, drink and be merry.........

I am also happy that my atoms will go on to create new live and last for ever... No god needed.

 

[ChristineM]

Excellent! Thank you for such an articulate and well thought out and informed response, but . . . alas . . . it's bull****.

Saying that science is responsible for the complex process of posting on an Internet forum on the Web is like saying music is responsible for The Bohemian Rhapsody. It has no real meaning. It's like saying that trees, mountains, canyons and life are evidence of a creator.

Without quantum mechanics (science), materials engineering (science), software engineering (science), control of electrical signals (science) both locally in your computer and wider, by the internet you would still be banging on drums to send messages

How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?

We know how trees developed and grew, evolution
We know how mountains developed, plate tectonics
We know how canyons formed, erosion
And we know how life developed, abiogenesis

 

[joe1776]

...The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

I'm an agnostic not a theist but your OP sounds like scientism to me.

scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Science, which deals with conscious reality, is probably done in the left side of the brain and it doesn't have access to the powerful unconscious which probably resides in the right side of the brain. People report some strange happenings which science can't study because they only have crude tools like fMRI to work with. Then of course there are those phenomena which might exist apart from the human brain.

 

[Fool]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

the craziness of this question is that religions arose from just such a situation; if you follow the science of anthropology and sociology. as evolution evolved mankind's religions and understanding of the natural world evolved too.

a baby observes and then hypothesizes and then augments the hypothesis for a better hypothesis.

changing the word hypothesis for theory doesn't change the idea drastically unless the idea is totally discarded.

 

[charlie sc]

I think that 'examining *my* deity" is a bit off topic, actually. Remember that I AM a theist, a True Believer. My own opinion is that if something happened to wipe all memory of God or religion from the communal memory/psyche of the human race, God Himself would call a prophet and reintroduce Himself. That's my belief.

But note; even though that is my belief, very firmly held, I also allowed for the possibility that there is no God, and that people made Him(Or Her Or It) up. This is more than any of the atheists I have debated with have done, actually...that is, allow for the possibility that they are wrong about this stuff.

What I WILL say is this: I can't think of a single bit of proof of some sort of supernatural deity more telling than waking up one morning and finding out that all memory of deity or religion is wiped from human memory. I mean...think about it. How in the world would someone explain the vaguaries of human history without bringing religion into it somewhere?

Human sociology, culture, learning, it all would have to be rewritten; a labor of fiction that would make Tolkien look like a first day kindergartener; Russian literature would have nothing on it.

Only a supernatural being could pull it off, come to think of it, and y'know what else? Nobody would be able to prove it.

Huh.

Anyway, I don't have to worry about it, myself, because whether one is a theist or atheist, the above hypothetical situation simply couldn't happen without some sort of deity being involved.

But hey. Let's do it your way. Let us hypothesize, for a moment, that there is no deity and people made up the whole thing. All the different religions, all the different deities, all the different belief systems. What in the name of all that is logical do you think would change about HUMANS that would keep them from doing it all over again? All you are suggesting is a wholesale memory wipe, not a fundamental change of being.

Your reply was very thought out and, I think, You’re the most intellectual honest theist I’ve met! You’re right, we might do it all over without some sort of deity intervention. However, don’t you think a deity would show themselves now to sort out the thousands of denominations, religions and non-theists? I don’t see why they’d show up in this hypothetical. in fact, with the rise of atheism, I’d think now would be a good time to show up.

You’re right about not changing the fundamentals of humanity. Consider, however, our vast knowledge, science, cultural integration, etc has already changed how humanity acts towards others and life. Therefore, it changes based on our upbringing and environment. For instance, I don’t see slavery as the norm anymore even though some religions may slightly promote it

 

[charlie sc]

To understand that which is around us is to discover what God is about.

Ok, so how can I find a deity today or in the hypothetical without examining religion?

 

[charlie sc]

the craziness of this question is that religions arose from just such a situation; if you follow the science of anthropology and sociology. as evolution evolved mankind's religions and understanding of the natural world evolved too.

Would you mind explaining this again?

a baby observes and then hypothesizes and then augments the hypothesis for a better hypothesis.

changing the word hypothesis for theory doesn't change the idea drastically unless the idea is totally discarded.

Hypothesis, in science, usually means to predict a certain phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of phenomenon or phenomena. They are different things.

 

[charlie sc]

I'm an agnostic not a theist but your OP sounds like scientism to me.

scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well in the OP. I'm saying that science does not need previous literature to renew itself. People will still discover stuff, hypothesise, verify, etc. Stuff will be discovered, inventions made and theories thought out. For instance, there were at least two people, I know of, working on natural selection, because this idea was based on observation.

scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Science, which deals with conscious reality, is probably done in the left side of the brain and it doesn't have access to the powerful unconscious which probably resides in the right side of the brain. People report some strange happenings which science can't study because they only have crude tools like fMRI to work with. Then of course there are those phenomena which might exist apart from the human brain.

You didn't make much sense here. Can you, perhaps, cite anything you're trying to get at?

 

[charlie sc]

Son: "Wow, you have a religion and have faith even though you have not seen the primordial soup which was a long time ago."
Dad: "Son, you gotta have faith."

You're saying the conclusion to this dialogue would be the inception of a deity ?

I need you to consider carefully what you're saying.

 

[Audie]

I do not think you understand. An atheist can truly believe God does not exist, however when they bump into God again, they will already know Him.

With this in mind, I think deep down everyone knows God exists. Like I said. They might not know that they know. This physical world creates so much sensory input, it is easy to ignore we are spiritual beings in our true natures. God is a Spiritual Being.

As I see it, God is nothing like religion teaches. With that respect, one who ignores much of what religion is teaching might just discover what God is really like quicker.

Still those choices are free for people to make. Believing has never ever been important to God. As I see it, atheists have nothing to fear of God.

Nah. You misunderstood, or choose not to grasp
what I said.

It has seemed to me that for those to whom the
"god" belief is central to their reality, "no god"
is just inconceivable. All is without form, and void.

"God", for all the versions that people come up with,
is completely undetectable. Nothing is known about it
including whether or not it exists. In all regards it meets
all the same specifications as anything does not exist
at all.

Just how that becomes the center point of reality for
some people is says something about the human mind,
yes. A quirk of some people's mentality does not very logically
translate into meaning that there is something greater
and longer lasting than the entire universe (multiversees).

If it does for you, it does.

I think deep down everyone knows God exists
when they bump into God again, they will already know Him.
As I see it, God is nothing like religion teaches.

Obviously this is what you think

I have encountered a lot of people who have told me in
their various ways that I really do believe, but,
wont be honest, just want to sin, am in Satan's
thrall, and all of the other things they come up
with. (make up)

 

[Fool]

Would you mind explaining this again?

you're going to get the same results, starting over. the mind fills in the blanks with what ever seems reasonable. doesn't make it a fact. so a baby starts out with an empty slate and then fills it up with preconceived notions that may, or may not, be true.

what you call the scientific methods is nothing but a human being recognizing what humans were doing naturally for thousands of years until Francis Bacon assigned a term to it. the scientific method was invented by one human. it was many humans recognizing what worked naturally.

Hypothesis, in science, usually means to predict a certain phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of this or a bunch of phenomenon. They are different things.

real science doesn't have to use a vocabulary of two different words to prove an idea exists in reality. two words still add up to only 1 idea.

 

[joe1776]

You didn't make much sense here. Can you, perhaps, cite anything you're trying to get at?

I explained to you why science can't be expected to give us theories on the unconscious mind. So, it's reach is limited to conscious reality.

 

[Augustus]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

Science very much relies on the existing body of knowledge in order to progress. Also modern science developed out of a particular set of historical circumstances rather than being something that is innate to us.

If everyone forgot about science and all the scientific literature then not only would we need to rediscover all of the lost knowledge, we would have to recreate the very concept itself.

If, from scratch, you ran millions of 'simulated' histories of human development, you wouldn't get scriptures recreating in their current form, but in some of these alternative histories, you wouldn't get the sciences appearing in their modern form either.

 

[Audie]

Science very much relies on the existing body of knowledge in order to progress. Also modern science developed out of a particular set of historical circumstances rather than being something that is innate to us.

If everyone forgot about science and all the scientific literature then not only would we need to rediscover all of the lost knowledge, we would have to recreate the very concept itself.

Which parts of the concept do you refer to?
If it can even be referred to as one concept.

 

[charlie sc]

Francis Bacon assigned a term to it. the scientific method was invented by one human. it was many humans recognizing what worked naturally.

To my shame, I have not read Bacon even though he's on my list. However, I think many people will disagree with you here. The scientific method is always evolving. For instance, Karl Popper hugely changed how science is conducted. You must remember, science is just a word, how we do it is more important. If I check Wiki, this is what is says "Although his practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method, did not have a long-lasting influence, the general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method." Therefore, you're just plain wrong to say that one person invented science, nor do I think science is an invention lol.

real science doesn't have to use a vocabulary of two different words to prove an idea exists in reality. two words still add up to only 1 idea.

Huh? This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory