religion is slowly dying?

[Brandywine]

The world in general is getting more religious, and more religiously conservative.

 

[Midget01]

Knowledge is power, and science can give us the power to change the world to suit our needs and is therefore potentially an instrument of progress. But science is amoral, and the scale of scientific and technological change has given us great power. At the moment the greatest enemy of progress isn't science but mankind themselves as we have not learned the humility and wisdom to exercise that power. Knowledge is not inherently dangerous- what people can do with it certainly can be.

It is possible science could be used to provide answers to moral questions and therefore incorporate an 'ethic' in the process of discovery itself, rather than coming from outside sources such as philosophy or religion, or even politics. But that represents a revolution in scientific thinking which we are a long way from achieving right now. necessity is the mother of invention, so maybe we will have to figure it out as time goes on and the growth of our powers becomes dangerous to it's own creators. We seem stuck in a time where we are frightened of unexpected consequences (e.g. Jurassic Park) and treat science with great suspicion and fear because we treat science itself as Frankenstein's monster, when in fact the problem may well be our own "Jekyll and Hyde" nature. Beyond a certain point, secularization poses great risks because the questions stop being about how we have control over the external world and instead become about having power over ourselves as the means towards further progress. So I agree it is dangerous, but not aimless.

Yes knowledge is power but as stated in the book of Genesis is also destroys. Knowledge when done and controlled by God survives and allows people to grow and care for those around them. When seen in the way the serpent suggests that God is holding out your power then it can destroy all of us. It has left a deep desire and mark on our soul to be determined to out wit God and in the process we are not doing too well at winning our souls back to the gift God has offered us in the beginning. I firmly believe God intended to give this knowledge to His people in due time. But Adam and Eve were not ready for all this power at one time. Obvious the devil thought otherwise and that is why he doesn't reside in Heaven with God. Eventually he could return but to do that he has to admit he was wrong and that doesn't appear to happen in human time. But Power of knowledge such as Science will not replace God and all of His infinite Wisdom. All the weird ways we see science running amuck has more to do with Scientists letting the power go to their heads much like Adam and Eve who received a gift but were told not to unwrap it just yet. We can't trust mankind to use this powerful information wisely. Greed Comes into play as well as power for control. So more then not knowledge is power and yes it can be inherently dangerous.

 

[Quintessence]

The world in general is getting more religious, and more religiously conservative.

Do you have any evidence of this? I've never seen any statistics indicating this to be the case, and it would be very hard to make a case for that given the heterogeneity of the world's religions. Conservatism in Buddhism would look very different than conservatism in Neopaganism or Judaism, for example. It's also difficult to define what "religious" means across the heterogeneity of religion.

 

[Quintessence]

Science and religion have no intrinsic conflict? Revelation and miracles are huge conflicts, their source being 100% hearsay.

Hearsay doesn't conflict with the sciences. It just isn't science. Further, considering there are plenty of religions that don't rely upon revelation or miracles, the issue wouldn't be with religion, it would be with specific aspects of certain religions. Nothing about religion, broadly, as a whole, intrinsically conflicts with the sciences.

 

[Laika]

Yes knowledge is power but as stated in the book of Genesis is also destroys. Knowledge when done and controlled by God survives and allows people to grow and care for those around them. When seen in the way the serpent suggests that God is holding out your power then it can destroy all of us. It has left a deep desire and mark on our soul to be determined to out wit God and in the process we are not doing too well at winning our souls back to the gift God has offered us in the beginning. I firmly believe God intended to give this knowledge to His people in due time. But Adam and Eve were not ready for all this power at one time. Obvious the devil thought otherwise and that is why he doesn't reside in Heaven with God. Eventually he could return but to do that he has to admit he was wrong and that doesn't appear to happen in human time. But Power of knowledge such as Science will not replace God and all of His infinite Wisdom. All the weird ways we see science running amuck has more to do with Scientists letting the power go to their heads much like Adam and Eve who received a gift but were told not to unwrap it just yet. We can't trust mankind to use this powerful information wisely. Greed Comes into play as well as power for control. So more then not knowledge is power and yes it can be inherently dangerous.

I think it is fair to say that we're still very naive about the nature of power. But the fear of power is not simply a fear of it's consequences but a fear of ourselves and what we may become if we are corrupted by it. There will eventually come a point where man will have near god-like power because of our scientific and technological discoveries. It will never be truly 'god-like' because we are constrained by physical limits, whereas god would belong to the realm of the transcendent. We are pretty close now in terms of the responsibility we already have for nuclear energy (and weapons) and how we have found a cheap source of energy from fossil fuels which affect the climate, our ability to mine resources or log forests or fish the oceans to the point of depletion; the magnitude of our activities is no longer simply an individual concern but is now affecting the planet and therefore everyone (and everything) on it.
Environmentalists are actually borrowing religious ideas of 'original sin' courtesy of Thomas Malthus, because many of them implicitly believe that we are sinful and destructive by nature and therefore prone to over-populate the earth and/or over-consume it resources to the point of degrading and depleting them. This same idea is also at work in liberalism with the belief that people are inherently selfish and therefore that the decentralization of power through economic competition and limited government is necessary for a 'good' society because human beings are not 'good' enough to have more power than that. Yet, there are exceptional people through-out human history who have learned how to live without such a capacity for destructiveness. I would argue they were exceptional because they were rare rather than because they were divine and therefore beyond our capacity to attain such moral knowledge. Religion provides a source of inspiration with individuals who taught us how to live, but the question now is learning how we can understand human beings to the point where they could be educated to become such people, who in turn could be trusted with the powers we already have and will continue to accumulate.
Whilst we have succeeded to a great extent in making men free, we have yet to figure out how to make them good, and most importantly- in such a way as they can continue to be free. There isn't much point to life is we can only be good if we are controlled by god (or the state) if we want to be happy, but we have to find a way to instill in people the desire to want others to be happy and free. we will only be truly human when we have learned to love and forgive ourselves. I think the often absolute nature of ethics in religion works against us so we can never be truly 'good' within that definition. So the very conception of what is good changes when it is freely arrived at rather than through divine inspiration, as it has to be what is good for man rather than god, the natural order, the state, etc.

 

[Maya Kaath]

I think there are at least two facets to that question. Or two ways of reading it.

One is that Religion—meaning a commitment to our spiritual evolution and relationship with God through following the body of teachings revealed by Beings like Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Bahá'u'lláh, etc.—is less an influence on more and more people than material and physical factors.

Bahá'u'lláh wrote in the mid-19th century that: "The vitality of men’s belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Ḥakím, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold?"

His conclusion: "The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change."

The second take on the question is that more and more people are religiously unaffiliated. Ultimately, I think the situation with religion isn't as simple as fewer people identifying with a particular religious organization. Religion first loses its hold on people who claim to be religious. This happens when manmade dogma takes the place of revealed principles. How many atheists are in the room is, IMO, not the measure of a lack of vitality in believe in God. Rather, it's the number of people claiming to believe that perpetrate acts or hold attitudes completely out of keeping with the teachings of their Prophet or Avatar.

Krishna says God is reached by an ever-living love. He calls on believers to come to Him with a love for all creatures. Buddha says that hatred does not cease by hatred but by love. Christ that love of our fellow humans is the only way to stay connected to Him and to God. Muhammad that unless one practices "small kindnesses" toward the less fortunate, one belies religion. Bahá'u'lláh that one is truly human who strives to serve and love all humankind. In that spiritual reality, hatred and cruelty against other human beings is anathema. YET, how much hatred is evinced by professing believers in these divine Emissaries every day?

Obviously a significant factor in the answer to the question is how one defines religion. If by religion is meant belief in and practice of principles set down in any one of a series of revelations or participation in a community of fellow believers, then there's no inherent reason why scientific literacy should have an effect on religion. If by religion is mean the diverse and sometimes conflicting doctrinal beliefs of this or that sect of <pick one> then science could well require at least reframing or rethinking or jettisoning some time-worn beliefs.

Science and religion are not two opposing forces. I see them as linked in complex ways, but which Einstein managed to sum up in the observation that "religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame."

What will hopeful die out as more people become scientifically literate is not Religion, but our attachment to anachronistic ideas about life, the universe and everything.

 

[roybarnes]

Your perception on this issue may depend on where you live. adherents.com suggests that atheists and agnostics number about twelve percent of the world’s population. That may surprise some of those of you who may live in Europe or liberal metropolitan areas of the USA, since those areas have more atheists/agnostics than elsewhere. As to atheists alone, adherents.com gives various figures, the highest being 4.4 percent.

You may find interesting the following two extracts from Phil Zuckerman’s chapter on “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns “, in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

"Between 500,000,000 and 750,000,000 humans currently do not believe in God ... The nations with the highest degrees of organic atheism (atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies) include most of the nations of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. There also exist high degrees of atheism in Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Many former Soviet nations, such as Estonia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus also contain significant levels of atheism. However, atheism is virtually non-existent in much of the world, especially among the most populous nations of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and much of Asia ... In many societies, particularly those in Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the rest of the world – particu- larly among the poorest nations with highest birth rates – atheism is barely discernible."

"Is worldwide atheism growing or in decline? This is a difficult question to answer simply. On the one hand, there are more atheists in the world today than ever before. Additionally, the nations with some of the highest degrees of organic atheism (such as Great Britain, France, and Scandinavia) have been experiencing a steady increase of atheism over the past century, an increase which shows no indication of abating (Bruce, 2001). On the other hand, worldwide atheism overall may be in decline. This is due to the demographic fact that highly religious nations have the highest birth rates in the world, and highly irreligious nations have the lowest birth rates in the world. As Norris andInglehart [Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge U. Press] observe, ‘the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population."

As for science, you could argue that Jainism has some eerie precognition of elements of modern physics and the Dalai Lam has commented that the
Buddhist analysis of reality concurs with the conclusions of quantum physics. Conversely it might be said that the Western (Catholic and Protestant) Christian tradition made the mistake of embracing Aristotle's scientific method and so has concentrated more on making God comprehensible, which has meant being more concerned with His human aspect. There is an inclination in the Western tradition to attribute human thoughts and ideas to God: He wants this, He forbids that, and so on. Orthodoxy’s God remains mysterious. Orthodoxy seeks an intuitive rather than a rational understanding of the Trinity, whose contemplation is a religious experience. Perhaps God and science are best kept separate.
Rory Barnes, author of Do you Need God a guide to spirituality even for atheists.

 

[Brandywine]

Do you have any evidence of this? I've never seen any statistics indicating this to be the case, and it would be very hard to make a case for that given the heterogeneity of the world's religions. Conservatism in Buddhism would look very different than conservatism in Neopaganism or Judaism, for example. It's also difficult to define what "religious" means across the heterogeneity of religion.

Well, here are some books you might try:

The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics Jul 16, 1999
by Peter L. Berger

Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State, from Christian Militias to al Qæda (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society) Paperback – October 28, 2009
by Mark Juergensmeyer
WHY CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES ARE GROWING: A Study in Sociology of Religion with a new Preface (Rose, No. 11)Jun 1, 1996
by Dean M. Kelley

The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy Mar 3, 2005
by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark

Religion in America (6th Edition) Paperback – June 8, 2009
by Julia Corbett Hemeyer

Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival Jan 20, 2011
by Christopher Marsh

 

[Midget01]

Your perception on this issue may depend on where you live. adherents.com suggests that atheists and agnostics number about twelve percent of the world’s population. That may surprise some of those of you who may live in Europe or liberal metropolitan areas of the USA, since those areas have more atheists/agnostics than elsewhere. As to atheists alone, adherents.com gives various figures, the highest being 4.4 percent.

You may find interesting the following two extracts from Phil Zuckerman’s chapter on “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns “, in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

"Between 500,000,000 and 750,000,000 humans currently do not believe in God ... The nations with the highest degrees of organic atheism (atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies) include most of the nations of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. There also exist high degrees of atheism in Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Many former Soviet nations, such as Estonia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus also contain significant levels of atheism. However, atheism is virtually non-existent in much of the world, especially among the most populous nations of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and much of Asia ... In many societies, particularly those in Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the rest of the world – particu- larly among the poorest nations with highest birth rates – atheism is barely discernible."

"Is worldwide atheism growing or in decline? This is a difficult question to answer simply. On the one hand, there are more atheists in the world today than ever before. Additionally, the nations with some of the highest degrees of organic atheism (such as Great Britain, France, and Scandinavia) have been experiencing a steady increase of atheism over the past century, an increase which shows no indication of abating (Bruce, 2001). On the other hand, worldwide atheism overall may be in decline. This is due to the demographic fact that highly religious nations have the highest birth rates in the world, and highly irreligious nations have the lowest birth rates in the world. As Norris andInglehart [Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge U. Press] observe, ‘the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population."

As for science, you could argue that Jainism has some eerie precognition of elements of modern physics and the Dalai Lam has commented that the
Buddhist analysis of reality concurs with the conclusions of quantum physics. Conversely it might be said that the Western (Catholic and Protestant) Christian tradition made the mistake of embracing Aristotle's scientific method and so has concentrated more on making God comprehensible, which has meant being more concerned with His human aspect. There is an inclination in the Western tradition to attribute human thoughts and ideas to God: He wants this, He forbids that, and so on. Orthodoxy’s God remains mysterious. Orthodoxy seeks an intuitive rather than a rational understanding of the Trinity, whose contemplation is a religious experience. Perhaps God and science are best kept separate.
Rory Barnes, author of Do you Need God a guide to spirituality even for atheists.

If you state that 12% of the world's population doesn't believe in God and you give an extremely huge number then people need to realize that that leaves 88% who do believe and that number could range between 44,000,000,000 - 66,000,000,000 do believe. There will always be some one who hasn't heard or has heard and is not convinced or a person who has heard but is confused by all the data they have received or see no reason to respond and make a change. One can no longer include Africa in the atheistic area of the world. The countries faith is growing by leaps and bounds. To say that you have read this information in certain magazines of documents just indicates that they too are outdated on their information and how many other misquotes do you have. It is difficult to determine if Atheism is growing or declining because I have spoken with many and their views are distorted. To be an Atheist means they do not under any circumstances believe there is a God or that He ever existed. If one believes He started all this and left makes him a Deist. So at best some of those so called Atheist could be Deist. Then this breaks down even more when we define God. He is into polytheism, Henotheism, Animism, Fetishism, and / or Monism. what I am saying is we are trying to have a discussion but not looking at the whole basket but picking certain fruits from it and comparing while the whole basket it present and using bits and pieces of those other fruits to use as references. It's not a clear cut discussion when we generalize. To have a clear concise discussion is to have a true believer in each of the areas serve as spokesman and then use the actual dogma from each group and then compare. But this is not the case here because we are dealing with here say, and people who only know parts of the dogma's from either side. So we can't accept this information as factual or even beginning to indicate that the information leads to certain confirmations that we should accept as true or untrue.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hmm... I see essays all of the sudden!

 

[Handyman355a]

Strange, my religion seems to have outlasted some 6 civilisations ..

 

[Handyman355a]

Strange, my religion seems to have outlasted some 6 civilisations ..

I agree, Judaism has been around longer than any other theology and it is the basic foundation for Christianity and Islam. Without it they would not exist. Unfortunately as in all religions it is interpreted literally instead of an analogy or a comparison to life. I am sure these two types of interpretation have been an argument long before the Hebrew language came into existence. Since, this issue has created many arguments based upon interpretation. Judaism merely put this controversy in writing, creating a continuation of the disagreement, only at this point it is documented. Unfortunately people want to be told without thinking of what is right and wrong. When they do the consensus will always be the easiest path, a majority of the time it is self destructive. It requires no understanding but to believe what they are instructed, very simple and easy to accept. A parable requires a person to think and or use common sense to realize the solution. Literal thinking requires legislation, that imposes upon someones free will.
Many of the legislations of Judaism have been passed on to Christianity and Islam, creating the very problems that exist today from literal interpretation. Literal believers, believe what they are told without any thinking.

The alternate is to read the Torah and Bible (Christianity) as a parable or a comparing it to life. This will cause all of us to use this same form of interpretation in our daily lives preventing us from the many bad choices we make, turning them into good choices. I do not know enough about Islam to make a comment but I do think it is possible that Mohammed was aware of the inequities of literal Christianity and Literal Judaism verses comparable thinking. When a person reads each of these different theologies as a parable there is a common relationship with learning more about ourselves and how to enjoy life to its fullest. All documents and text have a parable and literal understanding to life. One is an open source to all the other is literal believe what I have to say, because I am right. The lazy person interprets them literally. Parables reveal to each individual, creating individual character with abilities to overcome inequities that exist in life.

Thank You For your religion It has created much confusion for all.

 

[dmadjzoub]

I can't remember where i read this, or perhaps heard it.. but i've heard/read that religions are slowl declining in favour of science.. would you say this is true? in 200 years from now might there be no religion ? your opinion I'm not sure, so I have no answer I guess..

I think of religion as a tree that grows from a seed, then branches out, blossoms, gives fruits, ages, withers and dies. The seed is eternal and new growth begins at or near the death of the old tree. Religion and science have always been in unity. They both quest for the same truth on a different platform. Man due to his own lack of understanding separates the two. "Truth is one, but the ignorant multiplies it." Religion is "re-ligionizing" and unifying mankind each time it appears as the old religions lose their effect, mostly due to insistance on fundamentalism.

 

[evenpath]

I can't remember where i read this, or perhaps heard it.. but i've heard/read that religions are slowl declining in favour of science.. would you say this is true? in 200 years from now might there be no religion ? your opinion I'm not sure, so I have no answer I guess..

Hi, I can't say to what degree science has to do with. Certainly, Richard Dawkins has put forth some very logical perspectives. For me personally, it was during my graduate studies in religious philosophy, when I was struck with the notion that these tired religious narratives were comprised (and redacted numerous times), by uneducated, unenlightened men with a plethora of ulterior motives concerning the formation of a particular kind of society and of course the power center of the church itself. It's also a question of modern day relevancy. Are they still relevant? To me, not so much. Do I favor the scientific perspective? I favor logic and relevancy.

"God is dead?"

 

[Moishe3rd]

I agree, Judaism has been around longer than any other theology and it is the basic foundation for Christianity and Islam. Without it they would not exist. Unfortunately as in all religions it is interpreted literally instead of an analogy or a comparison to life. I am sure these two types of interpretation have been an argument long before the Hebrew language came into existence. Since, this issue has created many arguments based upon interpretation. Judaism merely put this controversy in writing, creating a continuation of the disagreement, only at this point it is documented. Unfortunately people want to be told without thinking of what is right and wrong. When they do the consensus will always be the easiest path, a majority of the time it is self destructive. It requires no understanding but to believe what they are instructed, very simple and easy to accept. A parable requires a person to think and or use common sense to realize the solution. Literal thinking requires legislation, that imposes upon someones free will.
Many of the legislations of Judaism have been passed on to Christianity and Islam, creating the very problems that exist today from literal interpretation. Literal believers, believe what they are told without any thinking.

The alternate is to read the Torah and Bible (Christianity) as a parable or a comparing it to life. This will cause all of us to use this same form of interpretation in our daily lives preventing us from the many bad choices we make, turning them into good choices. I do not know enough about Islam to make a comment but I do think it is possible that Mohammed was aware of the inequities of literal Christianity and Literal Judaism verses comparable thinking. When a person reads each of these different theologies as a parable there is a common relationship with learning more about ourselves and how to enjoy life to its fullest. All documents and text have a parable and literal understanding to life. One is an open source to all the other is literal believe what I have to say, because I am right. The lazy person interprets them literally. Parables reveal to each individual, creating individual character with abilities to overcome inequities that exist in life.

Thank You For your religion It has created much confusion for all.

I would humbly suggest that a lazy person might make pronouncements on a religion without understanding the religion, or the texts of the religion, at all.
Your particular interpretation of the Torah as parable is the simple way that the Torah can be taught to those who, for what ever reason, are unable to study and learn the entire deeper meaning of the Torah.
in other words, there is nothing wrong with your approach, except that it is a tad simplistic and uneducated to imply that your approach is the only way to approach the Torah.

 

[evenpath]

Jud

I agree, Judaism has been around longer than any other theology and it is the basic foundation for Christianity and Islam. Without it they would not exist. Unfortunately as in all religions it is interpreted literally instead of an analogy or a comparison to life. I am sure these two types of interpretation have been an argument long before the Hebrew language came into existence. Since, this issue has created many arguments based upon interpretation. Judaism merely put this controversy in writing, creating a continuation of the disagreement, only at this point it is documented. Unfortunately people want to be told without thinking of what is right and wrong. When they do the consensus will always be the easiest path, a majority of the time it is self destructive. It requires no understanding but to believe what they are instructed, very simple and easy to accept. A parable requires a person to think and or use common sense to realize the solution. Literal thinking requires legislation, that imposes upon someones free will.
Many of the legislations of Judaism have been passed on to Christianity and Islam, creating the very problems that exist today from literal interpretation. Literal believers, believe what they are told without any thinking.

The alternate is to read the Torah and Bible (Christianity) as a parable or a comparing it to life. This will cause all of us to use this same form of interpretation in our daily lives preventing us from the many bad choices we make, turning them into good choices. I do not know enough about Islam to make a comment but I do think it is possible that Mohammed was aware of the inequities of literal Christianity and Literal Judaism verses comparable thinking. When a person reads each of these different theologies as a parable there is a common relationship with learning more about ourselves and how to enjoy life to its fullest. All documents and text have a parable and literal understanding to life. One is an open source to all the other is literal believe what I have to say, because I am right. The lazy person interprets them literally. Parables reveal to each individual, creating individual character with abilities to overcome inequities that exist in life.

Thank You For your religion It has created much confusion for all.

Hi, don't mean to be a trouble maker, or a know it all, but Judaism is not the oldest theology. Not even by a long shot. Hinduism, which was recorded in sanskrit, which is the oldest language, is the earliest form of theological philosophy. Exact dates are debatable of course but most scholars agree that Hinduism became apparent culturally, about five thousand years ago. Perhaps you meant the oldest of the Semitic religions.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hearsay doesn't conflict with the sciences. It just isn't science.

Can you give an example where a divine revelation or miracle didn't conflict with science? Do you know of any where the validation was anything other than hearsay?

Further, considering there are plenty of religions that don't rely upon revelation or miracles, the issue wouldn't be with religion, it would be with specific aspects of certain religions.

Even Buddhism has its spirits and knowledge imparted by something other than natural means. Science deals ONLY with the natural, unless you could provide an example I haven't heard of. Science can only disprove religion until one offers up some hard, rational evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Strange, my religion seems to have outlasted some 6 civilisations ..

But it is still losing tons of members whether you want to admit it or not. This is especially true among the most orthodox sects, which have dropped from 41% of American Jews in the early 70s to less than 18% today. Even among the most liberal religious Jews, they are losing tons of members. Except for the increasingly shrinking number of fanatics, Judaism may not last much longer either.

 

[Quintessence]

Can you give an example where a divine revelation or miracle didn't conflict with science?

Uh... all of them? What are we, stuck in the box of infantile mythological literalism or something?

Do you know of any where the validation was anything other than hearsay?

What the blazes does "validation" have to do with anything?

Even Buddhism has its spirits and knowledge imparted by something other than natural means. Science deals ONLY with the natural, unless you could provide an example I haven't heard of.

Well, yeah. But since when were we talking about supernaturalism? I thought this thread was about religions.

Science can only disprove religion until one offers up some hard, rational evidence.

*blink* Okay, now I'm just confused. The sciences don't disprove religions and are not in the business of doing so. Religions quite clearly exist, and are studied by various social sciences. Religions aren't science. Why in the blazes would we pretend that they are and treat them like they are? They're far more akin to the fine arts than to the sciences, even for paths like my own that deliberately integrate the sciences into their framework. Might as well ask a painting to offer up some "rational" evidence for itself. Rubbish.

 

[Cephus]

Uh... all of them? What are we, stuck in the box of infantile mythological literalism or something?

All miracles, by definition, violate science. If science explained them, they wouldn't be miracles, would they?

*blink* Okay, now I'm just confused. The sciences don't disprove religions and are not in the business of doing so. Religions quite clearly exist, and are studied by various social sciences. Religions aren't science. Why in the blazes would we pretend that they are and treat them like they are? They're far more akin to the fine arts than to the sciences, even for paths like my own that deliberately integrate the sciences into their framework. Might as well ask a painting to offer up some "rational" evidence for itself. Rubbish.

No, science is in the business of describing the real world. Anything that doesn't jive with the real world is not scientifically valid. Religions preach things that are not scientifically valid. That means they are, by definition, non-scientific. That means that religion is rubbish.