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

[Corvus]

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.

Not so. There is a solution to practically any problem. Taking your example. There are number of potential solutions available. Some we could now with current technology others later with theoretical technology. What we would require is coordinated effort, globally. Here are some theoretical solutions to neutralising or mitigating the damage your killer asteroid threat could do to this world.
1. Embed a thermonuclear warhead or number of them in the body of the asteroid, in order to detonate it and blow the asteroid apart, this obviously requires a space craft and a team of engineers or robots, or both, to carry out the work, this is an option we could potentially do now.
2. Fire sustained laser beams upon a specific area of the target from space vehicles or other platforms, so that the resulutant emission of heat from the targeted side of the asteroid acts as a thruster to move the asteroid into a different orbit, avoiding collision with Earth.
3. Construct a large RAIL or GAUSS mass accelerator in high orbit, or a battery of them, to fire large mass rounds at ridiculous speeds into the incoming asteroid to alter its velocity and move it out of a collision course.
4. Attach extremely powerful nuclear (exploiting controlled nuclear explosions) thrusters on the asteroid itself to make it a vehicle. So it can literally be steered away.
5. A long stretch, but theoretically possible, to fire antimatter in one form or another directly into the asteroid to annhilate it/blow it apart.

The better the advance warning the more likely we are going to come up with a viable strategy. Lastly, there is always plan X and Y. Plan X is essentially abandon the planet and colonise somewhere else and Plan Y is burrow deep underground or deep under the ocean and stay there until the devastation subisdes, bring on the Morlocks.

Thanks to science and telescopes, we can now scan the skies, using computers to monitor and track NEO that might wander into our path, this is enormously helpful, otherwise we are literally sitting Ducks, riding blind.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

This is a pantheistic God. Possibly even a description of an atheist/agnostic in that their God is simply all of our physical existence,

 

[Etritonakin]

This is a pantheistic God. Possibly even a description of an atheist/agnostic in that their God is simply all of our physical existence,

As science seeks that which it does not presently have in order to do that which it presently can not do, science essentially seeks a higher power -logically toward ultimate power.

With (at least some) religion, that all-inclusive power and existence has/developed a mind and decision-making ability, is responsible not necessarily for its own existence, but for that which it determined would come to pass and was necessary for the present arrangement which exists -into which we personally awaken as already-complex minds and bodies.

Certain things are necessary for the development of a mind, and certain things cannot happen without that of which a mind is capable. Which applies at any point is the only real question.

Science seems to generally believe that a mind was not required before the existence of the minds which exist on earth.
However, it should note that certain things were impossible before the existence of their own minds -and as science does not have knowledge of the most basic function and nature of all things, it cannot say that a mind was not required to bring about the existence of the universe in the first place -though it would be logical from our perspective to say that such a mind would likely have developed rather than simply having existed eternally as a complex mind.

 

[Etritonakin]

Not so. There is a solution to practically any problem. Taking your example. There are number of potential solutions available. Some we could now with current technology others later with theoretical technology. What we would require is coordinated effort, globally. Here are some theoretical solutions to neutralising or mitigating the damage your killer asteroid threat could do to this world.
1. Embed a thermonuclear warhead or number of them in the body of the asteroid, in order to detonate it and blow the asteroid apart, this obviously requires a space craft and a team of engineers or robots, or both, to carry out the work, this is an option we could potentially do now.
2. Fire sustained laser beams upon a specific area of the target from space vehicles or other platforms, so that the resulutant emission of heat from the targeted side of the asteroid acts as a thruster to move the asteroid into a different orbit, avoiding collision with Earth.
3. Construct a large RAIL or GAUSS mass accelerator in high orbit, or a battery of them, to fire large mass rounds at ridiculous speeds into the incoming asteroid to alter its velocity and move it out of a collision course.
4. Attach extremely powerful nuclear (exploiting controlled nuclear explosions) thrusters on the asteroid itself to make it a vehicle. So it can literally be steered away.
5. A long stretch, but theoretically possible, to fire antimatter in one form or another directly into the asteroid to annhilate it/blow it apart.

The better the advance warning the more likely we are going to come up with a viable strategy. Lastly, there is always plan X and Y. Plan X is essentially abandon the planet and colonise somewhere else and Plan Y is burrow deep underground or deep under the ocean and stay there until the devastation subisdes, bring on the Morlocks.

Thanks to science and telescopes, we can now scan the skies, using computers to monitor and track NEO that might wander into our path, this is enormously helpful, otherwise we are literally sitting Ducks, riding blind.

Anything we imagine is possible -even the bible says so.
However, our science vs. the entire universe and all the surprises it might have in store -or even just the situation on earth -is not a fair fight.

That which is technically possible is not necessarily actually possible due to the situation which already exists and that which is already in motion.

 

[Rival]

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

There is no fundamentalist point.

I'm making a simple comparison.

Saying 'I don't need religion because I have science' is like saying 'I don't need this salt, I have this ginger.' They are two completely separate areas and cannot be compared and used for the same purpose.

 

[shunyadragon]

As science seeks that which it does not presently have in order to do that which it presently can not do, science essentially seeks a higher power -logically toward ultimate power.

The standard for science is Methodological Naturalism which limits scientific methods and research ONLY to that which may be falsifiable based on objective falsifiable evidence, Science does not try to go beyond this, and no, science does not seek a higher power, nor logically?toward the ultimate power.

If you can demonstrate scientific sources that claim other wise please cite them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Saying 'I don't need religion because I have science' is like saying 'I don't need this salt, I have this ginger.' They are two completely separate areas and cannot be compared and used for the same purpose.

The only problem is that there are still plenty of people who try to argue that religion does serve the same purpose as science, and better.

 

[Native]

The only problem is that there are still plenty of people who try to argue that religion does serve the same purpose as science, and better.

I say the cultural Myths of Creation are better than the theories of Modern Cosmology . . .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I say the cultural Myths of Creation are better than the theories of Modern Cosmology . . .

Better at what?

 

[Corvus]

Better at what?

Who cares?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Who cares?

I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science seems to generally believe that a mind was not required before the existence of the minds which exist on earth.

Which science has determined or proclaimed that?

as science does not have knowledge of the most basic function and nature of all things, it cannot say that a mind was not required to bring about the existence of the universe in the first place

Nor need it. Science also cannot say that two minds or no minds were necessary, so it is silent on the matter.

Science is about describing what can be observed. Presently, there is no need to invoke a god to explain anything, and much has been explained without that concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

I say the cultural Myths of Creation are better than the theories of Modern Cosmology . . .

Just saying so does not make it so. Beyond an accurate knowledge of local astronomy the ancient cultures totally lacked the advanced scientific knowledge of modern physics and cosmology.

 

[Corvus]

I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

Sorry dude, I didn't mean to say simply who cares, I tried to edit and then my browser froze. What I meant was who (really) cares, since the poster in question is obviously trying to trigger.

 

[Corvus]

Just saying so does not make it so. Beyond an accurate knowledge of local astronomy the ancient cultures totally lacked the advanced scientific knowledge of modern physics and cosmology.

It is an absurd statement, akin to that of a Flat Earther or Creationist, pure unsubstantiated denial. No doubt a vain attempt to trigger reasonable people.

 

[Etritonakin]

Which science has determined or proclaimed that?



Nor need it. Science also cannot say that two minds or no minds were necessary, so it is silent on the matter.

Science is about describing what can be observed. Presently, there is no need to invoke a god to explain anything, and much has been explained without that concept.

It would have been more correct for me to say many who would try to drive out religion in favor of science.

It does need it -it simply does not know that it needs it, regardless of what it ultimately finds to be true. To a certain point, for example, an assumption that the universe did not require a creator is quite sufficient for the present situation. At some point, absolute proof would be necessary. It depends on how we are affected by our lack of knowledge at the time.

Science and those who believe it to be the necessary successor to religion -though it and they perhaps should be -are not always silent on matters of which they are ignorant.

I'll try to explain what I mean more clearly......

If our continued existence is dependent upon the decisions of a greater intelligence or an overall intelligence, it will certainly become an issue in the future.

If our existence is threatened by that which is or becomes beyond our control -and there is no greater intelligence or power to do what we cannot, we are toast -and essentially always would have been.

If decision was not an issue from the Big Bang until now, then all of the species which became extinct by anything other than decision would essentially have been toast before they even existed.

Unless we were similarly not always destined to be toast, we would likewise always have been toast unless knowledge and power are deliberately used by ourselves or some other or others to predict and prevent our being toasted.

If all of our knowledge and power are insufficient to counter -in the necessary time frame -that which is in the works in regard to our extinction, we are toast.

Our own decisions can determine whether less capable species continue to exist or not -and the same may apply to us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would have been more correct for me to say many who would try to drive out religion in favor of science.

It does need it -it simply does not know that it needs it, regardless of what it ultimately finds to be true. To a certain point, for example, an assumption that the universe did not require a creator is quite sufficient for the present situation. At some point, absolute proof would be necessary. It depends on how we are affected by our lack of knowledge at the time.

Science and those who believe it to be the necessary successor to religion -though it and they perhaps should be -are not always silent on matters of which they are ignorant.

I'll try to explain what I mean more clearly......

If our continued existence is dependent upon the decisions of a greater intelligence or an overall intelligence, it will certainly become an issue in the future.

If our existence is threatened by that which is or becomes beyond our control -and there is no greater intelligence or power to do what we cannot, we are toast -and essentially always would have been.

If decision was not an issue from the Big Bang until now, then all of the species which became extinct by anything other than decision would essentially have been toast before they even existed.

Unless we were similarly not always destined to be toast, we would likewise always have been toast unless knowledge and power are deliberately used by ourselves or some other or others to predict and prevent our being toasted.

If all of our knowledge and power are insufficient to counter -in the necessary time frame -that which is in the works in regard to our extinction, we are toast.

Our own decisions can determine whether less capable species continue to exist or not -and the same may apply to us.

I didn't understand your point, but it remains the case that we have no evidence of such a mind, nor any apparent need to be invoking one. Your argument seems to be that it can't be ruled out and is therefore possible.

If so, no objection. I do not rule the possibility of gods out because I have no argument, test, observation, measurement or algorithm with which to do so. But mere possibility, defined here as the inability to declare something impossible, is not very interesting. Infinitely more is possible than is actual, and after all, it's the actual that matters.

 

[Native]

Better at what?

Just saying so does not make it so. Beyond an accurate knowledge of local astronomy the ancient cultures totally lacked the advanced scientific knowledge of modern physics and cosmology.

Having a cyclical and circuital understanding of the creation, the myths of ancient cultures are better to explain the cosmological formation and the human questions.

The Standard Cosmology explanation of the creation of our Solar System is that a cloud of cosmic gas and dust suddenly descided to collapse into a large sphere which exploded and later assembled into planets.

The Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation and rotation, but this fact is completely overlooked in modern theories of the Solar System formation.

The ancient mythical way of exsplaining the Solar System formation is somewhat similar regarding the specific explanation of pre-conditions, but the ancient explanation includes the Milky Way formation and motion.

In fact the ancient explanations starts with the creation of the Milky Way itself.

Before anything in the ancient known part of the Universe is created, "rivers" i.e. "Primordial Waters", of hot and cold gas dust is floating around in the cosmic abyss. These rivers are set in motion by light, i.e. electric currents which creates perpendicular magnetic fields which attracts the gas and dust into a swirling motion where all atoms are ionized and heated up which eventually lits up a strong central light in the Milky Way center.

It is in this stage the first firm matter is created in the Milky Way center and it is mythically called the "Primordial Mound". This stage of formation is causing confusion in the Biblical explanation because it is interpreted as the creation of the Earth, but the cosmological meaning here is "soil" and not Earth.

The attracted gas and dust forms all kinds of gaseous and particle spheres in the galactic center and it is from here our Solar System is formed, initially as one large glowing sphere from where the different planets is dispersed as the system was pushed out from the Milky Way center.

The perpendicular magnetic field creates the galactic disk and the magnetic field is a circuit of flow where everything is pushed out from the galactic center and going back to the center again. Here the Standard Cosmology cannot explain further than to the galactic center and it´s supposed "black hole", but this is just an swirling entrance to the galactic center and to the continued circuital formation in the galaxy.

An example of of a creation myth - Ogdoad (Egyptian) - Wikipedia
The Milky Way connection - - Hathor - Wikipedia

Note: I am of course aware that the mythical explanation demands knowledge of the mytho-cosmological language in order to understand the cross-cultural ancient tellings from all over the world, which of course are very similar since 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.

Modern Science of course can provide much specific and detailed knowledge of some isolated areas and give us eminent cosmic images from telescopes, but I still claim that the ancient world view are better in order to explain the natural creation and cyclical formation, as well as giving answers to the human questions in the creation.

Read more on my personal Mytho-Cosmological site - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

 

[Corvus]

The Standard Cosmology explanation of the creation of our Solar System is that a cloud of cosmic gas and dust suddenly descided to collapse into a large sphere which exploded and later assembled into planets.

The nebular hypothesis is supported by two main areas of evidence, the first being the remnants of ice and gas which surround the extremity of our solar system and the second being direct observation of proto planetary discs such as the Orion nebula in the image below. Clouds of gaseous matter do not suddenly decide to collapse, gravitational interactions can instigate a collapse as denser regions exert greater gravity, pulling more material together, also more abruptly, shock waves from nearby supernovae can trigger collapses.

 

[Corvus]

The Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation and rotation, but this fact is completely overlooked in modern theories of the Solar System formation.

Gibberish.