Will the Religions Ever be Completely Driven out by the Sciences?

[Native]

I think it is very telling that some people judges all religions out from their own religious dogmatic heritage, but there are much more to it.

Most of the older religions have their own Story of Creation and even smaller or larger ancient tribes all over the world also have their Stories of Creation.

When studying Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology it is very obvious that the very basics are equal in all these stories and this is very logical as:

We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe. No matter what you call your local god or goddess, it is the very same creative forces who have created these conditions.

This is the very basics in all religious and mythological telling of the Creation.

All the cross-cultural stories of creation is of course common for all humans and it is just local priests and holders of powers who have interpreted different religious matters in their own favor.

As an example of the numerous global Stories of Creation, the Egyptian telling in the Ogdoad, works very fine. Link - Ogdoad - Wikipedia

Quote: “The eight deities were arranged in four male-female pairs: Nu and Naunet, Amun and Amaunet, Kuk and Kauket, Huh and Hauhet. The males were associated with frogs and females were associated with snakes. Apart from their gender, there was little to distinguish the male gods and female goddesses; indeed, the names of the females are merely derivative female forms of the male name.

Essentially, each pair represents the male and female aspect of one of the four concepts of primordial chaos, namely the primordial waters (Nu and Naunet), air, invisibility, and hidden powers (Amun and Amaunet), darkness and obscurity (Kuk and Kauket), and eternity or infinity (Huh and Hauhet)”.

My comment: The ancient Egyptian here describes both the prime creative qualities and the elementary cosmic conditions. The term of "Primordial Waters" can be directly interpreted to resemble the modern term of "cosmic clouds of gas and dust" from which everything in our Milky Way galaxy is created in the Milky Way center, symbolized by the prime god Amun-Ra,

These gendered deities represents “opposite but complementary qualities and elementary stages” which corresponds to the electromagnetic polarities as the prime forces of creation. And as Huh and Hauhet represents Eternity and Infinity, this states the Universe to be eternal – but filled with conditions which changes forever between assembling and dissolving and re-assembling. This of course contradicts the modern cosmological idea of a Big Bang on a linear time scale.

IMO we shal focus on what is common in all religions and myths - and have in mind that local differences are human made dogmatics which stems from forgotten myths or local misinterpretations of the ancent myths.

Read more here -
Mythical and Cosmological Creation Symbols - http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0078v1.pdf

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences? Why or why not?

No. Because religion is too strong and established of a societal force and drive.

BONUS QUESTION: What will the relationship of the religions to the sciences be in 100 years? Will religions become increasingly aligned with the sciences by discarding notions that are contradicted by the sciences?

I expect it will be rather like it is now. Science has discarded plenty of notions put forth by religion and it has had a marginal impact on religiosity for the majority of the populace. As science is an abstract and esoteric concept for most people, I don't expect that most people's religious/superstitious natures will change much for the foreseeable future.

 

[1robin]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences? Why or why not?

Since 78% of Nobels have been Christians with many of the rest being Jews, and Christianity growing by the equivalent of the population of Nevada every year, I doubt it. I always wonder where this imaginary battle between science and religion is being held.

Reminds me of Voltaire saying Christianity would be dead within 50 years. Over the next 50 years Christianity added a few millions new members but Voltaire died, his house being used to print bible's out of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science by itself can be exploited toward unethical ends...

And religion can't be?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I always wonder where this imaginary battle between science and religion is being held.

Pulpits, the home schooling movement, courtrooms, parochial schools, creationist websites, and message boards like this one. Every mention of "macroevolution" and "kinds" is a part of that battle. Darwin's theory make no allowance for man being created in the image of a god or having a soul.

Next, the church will be battling the neuroscientist regarding the idea that free will is an illusion

 

[shunyadragon]

Since 78% of Nobels have been Christians with many of the rest being Jews, and Christianity growing by the equivalent of the population of Nevada every year, I doubt it. I always wonder where this imaginary battle between science and religion is being held.

Reminds me of Voltaire saying Christianity would be dead within 50 years. Over the next 50 years Christianity added a few millions new members but Voltaire died, his house being used to print bible's out of.

The problem remains that the history of Christianity is not always friendly to science, and at present a near majority of Christians reject the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

There is also the problem of the fallacy of argument from popularity to justify ones belief.

 

[arthra]

And religion can't be?

....and that's why dear Penquin there needs to be a balance and harmony between them!

 

[Native]

The anthropological evidence indicates that human have always been intelligent, innovative and creative, but empirical knowledge evolved over time, and there is no evidence that they had the knowledge of science that has developed in the past ~160 years.

It depends on the definition of "science".
When I study Comparative Mythology from all over the world, it is very obvious that many cultures had a specific knowledge of astronomical and cosmological conditions in the ancient known part of the Universe and this empirical and spiritual knowledge goes thousands of years back in time.
These very similar cultural stories of creation is clear evidences of a science and it is, by its cyclical perception of creation, much better than the modern cosmological speculations of today.

 

[shunyadragon]

It depends on the definition of "science".
When I study Comparative Mythology from all over the world, it is very obvious that many cultures had a specific knowledge of astronomical and cosmological conditions in the ancient known part of the Universe and this empirical and spiritual knowledge goes thousands of years back in time.
These very similar cultural stories of creation is clear evidences of a science and it is, by its cyclical perception of creation, much better than the modern cosmological speculations of today.

Yes the ancient cultures had a very detail knowledge of astronomy going back thousands of years, but not cosmology and the scientific nature of our universe,

I respect and acknowledge the skill and knowledge of ancient cultures. One of my best sources is Joseph Campbell's writings, but I also realize by the evidence that the knowledge of science is progressive and advancing throughout all history.

 

[Native]

Yes the ancient cultures had a very detail knowledge of astronomy going back thousands of years, but not cosmology and the scientific nature of our universe,

I respect and acknowledge the skill and knowledge of ancient cultures. One of my best sources is Joseph Campbell's writings, but I also realize by the evidence that the knowledge of science is progressive and advancing throughout all history.

Compared with the ancient cyclical cosmological knowledge, which is embedded in many ancient cultural Stories of Creation, modern scientific cosmology is lead far astray into all kinds of speculations which just leads further away from all natural logics, just because of the Big Bang liniar time thinking itself.

Our ancestors observed that everything goes in cycles and this even goes for the formative cycle in our Milky Way galaxy where "the gods and goddesses gave birth to everything" in the Milky Way - but they also "swallows everything again", thus describing the formative cyclical process of formation in our Milky Way galaxy.

In comparison, modern cosmology just have "a black hole" in the Milky Way center and a point of singularity" which only can "excist" in a matemathical equation. Modern cosmology have a local cloud of gas and dust which suddenly descides to collapse and form the Solar Sytem - but ancient myths of creation claim our Solar System to have formed in the center of the Milky Way from where it is expelled out to its actual location. This is mythically described, for instants in the Bible, as "the repulsion from the central Garden of Eden", where the Snake/Serpent symbolizes the Milky Way itself.

Ancient and native perception is far in front of modern cosmology when it comes to cosmological understanding of cosmos.

 

[Etritonakin]

Science changes this world every day. Science is that which sustains our civilization, science is the key to the future, it is the only thing that can feed the world or cure diseases. Empirical evidence based theoretical knowledge is the doorway to actual real salvation. The modern world is unrecognisable from what it was before the scientific method was established, it will be unrecognisable in the distant future too. The power of Science and all the technological applications there of, is now collosal.

Scientific advancement and application thereof has increased beyond the ability to manage it.

Science often discovers that it has previously advised incorrectly due to not having complete knowledge or an overall perspective -and many of the problems science must now address were caused by previous scientific advancement.

Science must also address problems which are not natural to or inherent in the human situation itself -apart from human decisions, but which have been caused by human decisions stemming from a lack of morality -which is natural to and inherent in the situation of individual decision-making humans.

Science is so powerful that it absolutely needs individual and group knowledge and responsibility -as well as management by a righteous, conscientious and government which is not only more powerful than science, but more knowledgeable in the basics and potentials of complexity than science might become in complexity.

Humans are incapable of the necessary government based on the nature of humanity -and the fact that the necessary government (in power, knowledge, intent, foresight, incorruptibility -and most everything else) must be greater than humanity.

We do not think before we act to anything near the necessary degree.
We are not unified in thought or purpose -or in the fact that we need to be unified as a species and cease using science on each other.

Science allows for increasing ability of an individual to adversely affect all life -to the point that it is possible that one human could possibly destroy all life with the push of a button.

Science cannot address that which causes humans to cause their own problems in the first place.

Science cannot provide that which would allow humans to rise above their present situation and nature -which would essentially mean becoming God-like -and essentially non-human.

That which is necessary to solve all human problems is greater than all of humanity capability combined. That which is necessary must logically be greater than that which must be addressed -and as this applies to mastery of the earth, its future and increasing mastery the universe beyond -that which is necessary must be greater than all things -or the sum of all things, having decision-making power over all things.

Humans will never be such -and such already exists.

Humans need God -and when they have become prepared to accept God, God will make them much more than human.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientific advancement and application thereof has increased beyond the ability to manage it.

Science often discovers that it has previously advised incorrectly due to not having complete knowledge or an overall perspective -and many of the problems science must now address were caused by previous scientific advancement.

Science must also address problems which are not natural to or inherent in the human situation itself, but which have been caused by human decisions stemming from a lack of morality -which is natural to and inherent in the situation of individual decision-making humans.

Science is so powerful that it absolutely needs individual and group knowledge and responsibility -as well as management by a righteous, conscientious and government which is not only more powerful than science, but more knowledgeable than science might become.

Humans are incapable of the necessary government based on the nature of humanity -and the fact that the necessary government (in power, knowledge, intent, foresight, incorruptibility -and most everything else) must be greater than humanity.

We do not think before we act to anything near the necessary degree.
We are not unified in thought or purpose -or in the fact that we need to be unified as a species and cease using science on each other.

Science allows for increasing ability of an individual to adversely affect all life -to the point that it is possible that one human could possibly destroy all life with the push of a button.

Science cannot address that which causes humans to cause their own problems in the first place.

Science cannot provide that which would allow humans to rise above their present situation and nature -which would essentially mean becoming God-like -and essentially non-human.

That which is necessary to solve all human problems is greater than all of humanity capability combined. That which is necessary must logically be greater than that which must be addressed -and as this applies to mastery of the earth, its future and increasing mastery the universe beyond -that which is necessary must be greater than all things -or the sum of all things, having decision-making power over all things.

Humans will never be such -and such already exists.

Humans need God -and when they have become prepared to accept God, God will make them much more than human.

Not coherent nor comprehensible.

 

[Corvus]

Scientific advancement and application thereof has increased beyond the ability to manage it.

A baseless claim.

Science often discovers that it has previously advised incorrectly due to not having complete knowledge or an overall perspective -and many of the problems science must now address were caused by previous scientific advancement.

More unsubstantiated claims. Provide examples to demonstrate your argument is legitimate. Also imagine what your life would be like with no scientific advancements whatsoever.

Science must also address problems which are not natural to or inherent in the human situation itself, but which have been caused by human decisions stemming from a lack of morality -which is natural to and inherent in the situation of individual decision-making humans.

Morality is entirely subjective, your argument here is irrational.

Science is so powerful that it absolutely needs individual and group knowledge and responsibility -as well as management by a righteous, conscientious and government which is not only more powerful than science, but more knowledgeable than science might become.

Science is not some monolithic entity as you seem to imagine. Scientific research certainly requires ethical and legal restraint, which exists.

Humans are incapable of the necessary government based on the nature of humanity -and the fact that the necessary government (in power, knowledge, intent, foresight, incorruptibility -and most everything else) must be greater than humanity.

The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. There is no need for a theocracy. Theocracies are extremely harmful and dangerous.

We do not think before we act to anything near the necessary degree.
We are not unified in thought or purpose -or in the fact that we need to be unified as a species and cease using science on each other.

If we cease using science your life is in peril.

Science allows for increasing ability of an individual to adversely affect all life -to the point that it is possible that one human could possibly destroy all life with the push of a button.

Science also feeds the whole world (thanks to fertilizers and GM) cures diseases and affects every aspect of your life, including giving you the power to post absurd statements on this forum.

Science cannot address that which causes humans to cause their own problems in the first place.

Explain? Since that makes no sense to me.

Science cannot provide that which would allow humans to rise above their present situation and nature -which would essentially mean becoming God-like -and essentially non-human.

Science allows humanity to experience life more richly than they could otherwise. With science we have godlike power, we don't need empty promises from theists.

That which is necessary to solve all human problems is greater than all of humanity capability combined. That which is necessary must logically be greater than that which must be addressed -and as this applies to mastery of the earth, its future and increasing mastery the universe beyond -that which is necessary must be greater than all things -or the sum of all things, having decision-making power over all things.

Science is the solution to all problems, world hunger, ecological problems, energy, you name it. Chanting platitudes to an invisible sky fairy is less than helpful.

Humans will never be such -and such already exists.

?

Humans need God -and when they have become prepared to accept God, God will make them much more than human.

No they don't, we have reason now, we can banish the ignorance in the light of the scientific method. We don't need God, we might have done in an age of pre science.

 

[Corvus]

As science is an abstract and esoteric concept for most people, I don't expect that most people's religious/superstitious natures will change much for the foreseeable future.

I share your pessimism when I realize that I respond to certain posts written by individuals who have access to the sum of human knowledge, at their finger tips. However, in time, religion will cease to have a reason d'etre, when that happens as it happens in happier safer wealthier better educated nations/regions, religion is going bye byes. At least the old monotheistic repressive abrahamic traditions anyway. Some modern new age type religions could very well flourish I suppose.

 

[Etritonakin]

A baseless claim.

More unsubstantiated claims. Provide examples to demonstrate your argument is legitimate. Also imagine what your life would be like with no scientific advancements whatsoever.


Morality is entirely subjective, your argument here is irrational.

Science is not some monolithic entity as you seem to imagine. Scientific research certainly requires ethical and legal restraint, which exists.



The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. There is no need for a theocracy. Theocracies are extremely harmful and dangerous.

If we cease using science your life is in peril.

Science also feeds the whole world (thanks to fertilizers and GM) cures diseases and affects every aspect of your life, including giving you the power to post absurd statements on this forum.

Explain? Since that makes no sense to me.

Science allows humanity to experience life more richly than they could otherwise. With science we have godlike power, we don't need empty promises from theists.



Science is the solution to all problems, world hunger, ecological problems, energy, you name it. Chanting platitudes to an invisible sky fairy is less than helpful.



?



No they don't, we have reason now, we can banish the ignorance in the light of the scientific method. We don't need God, we might have done in an age of pre science.

I will try to address the rest later, but imagine for a moment that the definition of "God" is all that exists, and also all that science might discover about that which already exists.

Science knows a portion of that which now exists, leaving a greater portion unknown (and science can make new things to be known from the material and system which now exists).

If man could be given knowledge from a source which has learned a greater portion of that which exists to be known, man could advance much more quickly.

As it is apparent from the example of man that it is natural for "nature" to produce self-awareness, creativity, etc., science should not disregard the possibility that all which exists necessarily developed step-by-step into an awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc., composed of the most basic material before the most basic material could then be arranged into the complex system and environment of which we are a part -and that an original must have existed or developed -then developed itself -before many individuals could have been mass-produced with no effort or input from themselves.

The idea of God is not from ignorance -it is not unreasonable -though many ideas about God have been.
As God would be all-knowing -having been all previous states -humans would naturally be ignorant of God, as they are born essentially ignorant and slowly discover God by experience.

Science begins with the understanding that we see very little of reality.
You seem to be saying that science is toward seeking all knowledge -or as much as possible -in order to solve humanity's problems, but knowledge is not actually power. Sometimes we do not have the power to apply knowledge or to change even that which we can predict.
Science could then seek knowledge toward increased power, but humans are still subject to powers and circumstances greater than themselves (often including their own nature) as they seek knowledge and power in order to direct their environment and decide their own future.

As an extreme example, if a planet-killing asteroid or something has essentially been in the works since the Big Bang and will destroy the earth in the near future, all science can do at this point is know it will happen before it happens.
The same applies to many of the things which are able to individually or collectively end humanity -which are very much in the works already.

All else being ideal, science is awesome -but all else is very much not ideal

If the one who has been all states were to share understanding of reality -and also help man overcome that which prevents man from taking wise and logical steps individually and as a species -and give man the permanence necessary for permanent change, man would not need to strive against limited lifespan, conflict, natural disaster, human nature, etc., or race against the doomsday clock while slowly, painstakingly -and with many horrible mistakes along the way -attempting to wrap their heads around and gain mastery of that which is overwhelmingly greater than man before self-destruction or extinction.

Science is only a tool. It is used by the wise and peaceful -and by madmen.
Generally speaking, the wise and peaceful usually get their butts kicked by the madmen -and madmen do not listen to reason.

We do not only need the knowledge we do not yet have, we need the power we cannot have -due to our nature -to change our nature, and to govern ourselves and direct our affairs.

 

[shunyadragon]

A baseless claim.

More unsubstantiated claims. Provide examples to demonstrate your argument is legitimate. Also imagine what your life would be like with no scientific advancements whatsoever.


Morality is entirely subjective, your argument here is irrational.

Science is not some monolithic entity as you seem to imagine. Scientific research certainly requires ethical and legal restraint, which exists.



The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. There is no need for a theocracy. Theocracies are extremely harmful and dangerous.

If we cease using science your life is in peril.

Science also feeds the whole world (thanks to fertilizers and GM) cures diseases and affects every aspect of your life, including giving you the power to post absurd statements on this forum.

Explain? Since that makes no sense to me.

Science allows humanity to experience life more richly than they could otherwise. With science we have godlike power, we don't need empty promises from theists.



Science is the solution to all problems, world hunger, ecological problems, energy, you name it. Chanting platitudes to an invisible sky fairy is less than helpful.



?



No they don't, we have reason now, we can banish the ignorance in the light of the scientific method. We don't need God, we might have done in an age of pre science.

I admire your efforts to translate this nonsense with reason and logic, but I also see some "?" of befuddlement of the post.

Good try!!!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences? Why or why not?

Yes and no. The answer does not depend on the question, but on the makeup of humanity. Science will ever more and more squeeze out religion....but you can't fix stupid. There will always be superstitious people. Just as religion began from superstition, so it shall regress.

BONUS QUESTION: What will the relationship of the religions to the sciences be in 100 years? Will religions become increasingly aligned with the sciences by discarding notions that are contradicted by the sciences?

 

[shunyadragon]

Saying "I don't need religion because I have science," is like saying "I don't need mathematics because I have biology."

Even though I am a theist I disagree.

Science and Methodological Naturalism stands independent of any theological assumptions, and does not support either theism nor atheism/agnosticism.

I do believe that science and religion are ultimately in harmony as the Baha'i Faith teaches, and the compassion and guidance of religion is necessary in the real world, but the religion must embrace science and not manipulate it to justify their own theology.

 

[Rival]

Even though I am a theist I disagree.

Science and Methodological Naturalism stands independent of any theological assumptions, and does not support either theism nor atheism/agnosticism.

You missed my point completely.

 

[shunyadragon]

You missed my point completely.

Than your point was not clear. There are others posting that clearly take the fundamentalist interpretation of your comment.