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

[Corvus]

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.

Entirely and utterly irrational.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

If science is something which discovers the unknown in order to make it known -especially toward solving all of man's problems -then the actual which is unknown is among the possible, and the possible (especially the unknown actual somewhere therein) matters more.

There is proof of such a mind, but there is little interest in seeking or examining that proof -partly because the necessity is not yet apparent to all, and partly because science has shown certain claims about it to be false.

Science seeks greater knowledge, whether the source is an overall mind or not -but at some point, whether or not there is a greater mind will became imminently or immediately important, because it will more directly affect the situation.

Technically, those who would like to drive out religion in favor of science already believe disregarding the idea of an overall mind is of extreme importance.

From the perspective of the religion of the bible, God allowed man to focus on the immediately important -even allowing his existence to be unknown with some necessary exceptions -until it becomes immediately important to all that man's problems require his government, knowledge, power, etc.

If all that science might one day discover could decide to simply grant man knowledge of itself -and also apply that knowledge correctly -man's problems would be solved much more quickly.

As it says... His yoke is easy and his burden is light

 

[Native]

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.

This don´t explain the formational processes of how a cosmic cloud according to Standard Cosmology begins to attract everything into a central sphere which later explodes and then again begins to attract the minor exploded parts which again should became planets and moons etc. etc. These motions are just Standard Cosmology assumptions based on "gravity laws" which nobody can explain logically.

I wrote:
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.

What a nice way to discuss So, you deny that our Solar System orbits the Milky Way centrum as the planets orbits the Sun as the local planetary center of motion?

 

[Corvus]

What a nice way to discuss So, you deny that our Solar System orbits the Milky Way centrum as the planets orbits the Sun as the local planetary center of motion?

Of course not, why would I, what a ridiculous comment.

 

[Corvus]

This don´t explain the formational processes of how a cosmic cloud according to Standard Cosmology begins to attract everything into a central sphere which later explodes and then again begins to attract the minor exploded parts which again should became planets and moons etc. etc. These motions are just Standard Cosmology assumptions based on "gravity laws" which nobody can explain logically.

Your inability to understand the process is not a valid argument. Also you have entirely misrepresented the process.

 

[Corvus]

''There are a variety of formation mechanisms for the different types of nebulae. Some nebulae form from gas that is already in the interstellar medium while others are produced by stars. Examples of the former case are giant molecular clouds, the coldest, densest phase of interstellar gas, which can form by the cooling and condensation of more diffuse gas. Examples of the latter case are planetary nebulae formed from material shed by a star in late stages of its stellar evolution.

Star-forming regions are a class of emission nebula associated with giant molecular clouds. These form as a molecular cloud collapses under its own weight, proceeding stars. Massive stars may form in the center, and their ultraviolet radiation ionizes the surrounding gas, making it visible at optical wavelengths. The region of ionized hydrogen surrounding the massive stars is known as an H II region while the shells of neutral hydrogen surrounding the H II region are known as photodissociation region. Examples of star-forming regions are the Orion Nebula, the Rosette Nebula and the Omega Nebula. Feedback from star-formation, in the form of supernova explosions of massive stars, stellar winds or ultraviolet radiation from massive stars, or outflows from low-mass stars may disrupt the cloud, destroying the nebula after several million years.

Other nebulae form as the result of supernova explosions; the death throes of massive, short-lived stars. The materials thrown off from the supernova explosion are then ionized by the energy and the compact object that its core produces. One of the best examples of this is the Crab Nebula, in Taurus. The supernova event was recorded in the year 1054 and is labelled SN 1054. The compact object that was created after the explosion lies in the center of the Crab Nebula and its core is now a neutron star.

Still other nebulae form as planetary nebulae. This is the final stage of a low-mass star's life, like Earth's Sun. Stars with a mass up to 8–10 solar masses evolve into red giantsand slowly lose their outer layers during pulsations in their atmospheres. When a star has lost enough material, its temperature increases and the ultraviolet radiation it emits can ionize the surrounding nebula that it has thrown off. Our Sun will produce a planetary nebula and its core will remain behind in the form of white dwarf.'' Nebula - Wiki

 

[Corvus]

It always amuses me when people deny science when they do not understand what they are denying.

 

[Native]

Of course not, why would I, what a ridiculous comment.

You obvious failed to make the connection between the Solar System motion around the galactic center and its connection to the Milky Way formation, calling this "gibberish".

 

[Corvus]

You obvious failed to make the connection between the Solar System motion around the galactic center and its connection to the Milky Way formation, calling this "gibberish".

Go away lol. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go troll some other sucker.

 

[Corvus]

''So, you deny that our Solar System orbits the Milky Way centrum as the planets orbits the Sun as the local planetary center of motion?'' Native.

By the way, planets do not orbit stars, they orbit the loci of the gravitational system, or the barycenter, which in most solar systems is within the volume of the parent star, for the closer smaller planets.

It is not the 'center of motion' that is orbited, it is the center of gravity, the barycenter, that is orbited. It has nothing to do with a center of motion. Which does not apply to galaxies or solar systems. Since the Sun is not at rest, relative to the solar system. Neither is the super massive black hole Saggitarius A in the galactic center, at rest. Ok?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Technically, those who would like to drive out religion in favor of science already believe disregarding the idea of an overall mind is of extreme importance.

I see it as the other way around. Those that would like to undermine science to defend their religious beliefs from the contradictions coming from science believe that insisting that such a mind exists is of extreme importance. Science has no war with religion, but the religious, especially Abrahamic creationists, are at war with science.

If science ever needs to hypothesize the existence of such a mind or minds, it will. Science has accomplished much without ever having to invoke gods or transcendent minds, and the unsolved problems - the so-called gaps - have naturalistic hypotheses, including the origin of the universe (multiverse hypothesis) and the origin of life in it (abiogenesis hypothesis).

This is not to say that no such mind or minds exist, just that there is no evidence for them, and at this point, no need for them.

 

[Corvus]

I see it as the other way around. Those that would like to undermine science to defend their religious beliefs from the contradictions coming from science believe that insisting that such a mind exists is of extreme importance. Science has no war with religion, but the religious, especially Abrahamic creationists, are at war with science.

Oh I am happy to think we are at war. It is not a war the creationists and flat earth types can win, sadly for them. Truth will out. We will leave them behind, and I could not care less. It's the young uns I am worried about, when the theists get their claws into impressionable undeveloped minds, that's the battleground. I utterly hate theism, religiously, but I try to remember that indoctrinated religious people are victims too, not always easy.

 

[Native]

Go away lol. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go troll some other sucker.

What a high intellectual level of discussion you have . . . .

 

[Etritonakin]

I see it as the other way around. Those that would like to undermine science to defend their religious beliefs from the contradictions coming from science believe that insisting that such a mind exists is of extreme importance. Science has no war with religion, but the religious, especially Abrahamic creationists, are at war with science.

If science ever needs to hypothesize the existence of such a mind or minds, it will. Science has accomplished much without ever having to invoke gods or transcendent minds, and the unsolved problems - the so-called gaps - have naturalistic hypotheses, including the origin of the universe (multiverse hypothesis) and the origin of life in it (abiogenesis hypothesis).

This is not to say that no such mind or minds exist, just that there is no evidence for them, and at this point, no need for them.

This definitely also happens,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh I am happy to think we are at war. It is not a war the creationists and flat earth types can win, sadly for them. Truth will out. We will leave them behind, and I could not care less. It's the young uns I am worried about, when the theists get their claws into impressionable undeveloped minds, that's the battleground. I utterly hate theism, religiously, but I try to remember that indoctrinated religious people are victims too, not always easy.

Agreed in large part, but it is not science that is at war with religion. The battle is political and cultural. Organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are fighting that battle in the courts.

I expect the influence of organized religion to wane naturally and without effort or battle.

And yes, the adherents are victims. One of the chief reasons to want to see the church diminished in stature and influence is the influence that we see it has on its adherents, especially in the area of learning to evaluate evidence critically, impartially, and open-mindedly, which I believe is more damaging than the influence that the church has on unbelievers.

You mentioned impressionable and undeveloped minds, by which I assume that you meant children. However, those so indoctrinated tend to remain in a similar state all through life. What is more impressionable than being willing to believe by faith - being told what to believe and believing it. And if that includes anti-scientism and anti-intellectualism in general, it leaves the victim noncompetitive in a world in which a good secular education gives a competitive advantage.

 

[Native]

By the way, planets do not orbit stars, they orbit the loci of the gravitational system, or the barycenter, . . .

I really don´t care what you are calling the gravitational center - I´m focusing on the fact that our Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and as such also a part of the galactic formation.

And if you are so interested in the celestial laws of gravity and the orbital planetary motions in the Solar System and in the Milky Way, then feel free to explain how it is that gravity can cause two different celestial/orbital patterns of motions in the Solar System and in the Milky Way galaxy. (You know: The problem of the galactic rotation curve)

 

[Corvus]

And if you are so interested in the celestial laws of gravity and the orbital planetary motions in the Solar System and in the Milky Way, then feel free to explain how it is that gravity can cause two different celestial/orbital patterns of motions in the Solar System and in the Milky Way galaxy. (You know: The problem of the galactic rotation curve)

The fact that the rotation curve is flat is 'explained' by one of two possible competing theories, one is the existence of Dark Matter the other is Emergent gravity, the latter is more favourable since it does not require exotic non interacting particles we can't directly detect, although the explanation gets a little technical in the article. (This is the second time I have posted this link on Emergent Gravity, on this forum since I joined last week, I suggest everyone has a look at it, who has any interest in the subject.)

Dark matter - Wikipedia
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...o-be-killed-by-emergent-gravity/#28ea32315359

Why didn't you mention the observed galactic rotation curve and it's inconsistency with Kepler's 2nd law in the first place, as I had no idea what you were talking about initially?

I tell you what isn't responsible for the flat rotation curve of the galaxy, magical thinking or some sentient entity.

 

[Corvus]

What a high intellectual level of discussion you have . . . .

Try posting in a way that gets to the point. You might get a more reasoned response. I have problems when people start alluding vaguely to something and then expect me to know precisely what they are talking about. Don't beat around the bush, say what you mean. Or don't bother. No offense.

Edit
I apologize if my tone was out of order. On reflection of my posts, maybe my manner was ill advisedly unfriendly. I mean no offense, I am so used to posting on FB, I have forgotten how to be civil.

 

[The magical volleyball]

Science will only rid the world of religion if people choose rationality and probability over faith and magic. If religion beats science then in 100 yr we will see the destruction of the world through self fulfilling prophecy. The more we apply the scientific method to what is best for society as a whole the closer we get to utopia.

 

[The magical volleyball]

There is no scientific world in which it makes sense for 1% of a countries population to control 70% of the countries money. This is only allowed in a religious world where the poor inherent the earth.