The Future of Religion

[The Stranger]

science can explain life but it cant explain/tell us how to live, its free of morals... so when people turn to superstition, religion or spirituality they're not asking why do i live (in the scientific biological way) but why shouldn't I commit suicide? why should I live? and if there is a reason, how must I live?

science is actually a religion...

[CountArach]

science is actually a religion...

Science requires evidence. Religion does not.

[PBI]

I would disagree that science is a religion, I think it would be more accurate to say that science is a philosophy, and religions are also philosophies.

Otherwise we might as well dispense with the word "philosophy" altogether and simply describe every sphere of human intellectual endeavor as a "religion".

Yada yada, bottom line is human beings will never know everything. What happens to our bodies after death is known, but our consciousness, our connection to this universe, does it suddenly cease to exist? Does it fade away? Will we retain memories? Will there be an afterlife? Reincarnation? Or is it simply empty nothingness?

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion. Science will never give a definitive answer to enable to us cope with the idea of our own mortality in the way religion does. The best it can do is to give a rather noncommittal "as far as we know, there is no evidence for an immortal soul or an afterlife". My personal view is that those things do not in fact exist, but it is a deeply unpalatable one and I can't see it ever being very popular; in fact I rather hope I will be proven wrong. Certainly one would not have to deny any major scientific law to believe the opposite.

The thing I wonder about is whether the modern major religions will be able to adapt into such a role. There was a thread a few months ago in which it was eloquently argued that, contrary to being "set in stone" and incapable of ever changing, religions can and do evolve to fit the moral code societies want them to fit. I am interested to see whether this can happen in response to the changes in modern society. The homosexuality cat seems to well and truly out of the bag for example, and there seems to be a consensus among secular society that it would be neither possible nor desirable to put it back in. Similarly, modern contraception has allowed for a degree of relatively low-risk sexual freedom which would have been unthinkable in earlier times. I would argue that religious objections to these are elements of a moral code which would once have served a practical purpose, but have been rendered largely obsolete by modern developments; I certainly hope religion can evolve to come to terms with them.

More importantly, while I would argue that there is no reason why science and religion should be in conflict, the fact is that there are areas where they have been in recent years. The most prominent of these I suppose being "intelligent design"; for anyone who values the immense benefits scientific progress has provided to modern society, it should be deeply troubling that there has been a significant movement in one of the most advanced scientific nations to flatly deny a vast swathe of widely confirmed scientific principles, from virtually the whole range of scientific disciplines, purely because it is inconsistent with a certain reading of Biblical scripture. Similarly there has been religiously-led opposition to developments such as stem cell research. These issues are only going to become more common as fields such as bioengineering and neuroscience mature.

I would argue that when religion finds itself in the position of trying to delay or even roll back the progress of science, it becomes a serious social problem. I strongly hope that these conflicts are not irreconcilable, nor do I hope that religion becomes extinct. However I am clear that it is religion that must make the running here, not science, because as Feynman put it, nature cannot be fooled. Either the current religions must evolve to meet the requirements of modern society, or they must be replaced by ones which do so.

We may never fully understand the smallest of the small, the quantum universe. It's so bizarre that quantum physicists have difficulty explaining to me, a reasonably adequate mind, why it isn't a bunch of baloney built on assumptions which are based on very complicated math.

Any knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is built on assumptions. The point of scientific knowledge is that those assumptions must be justified by making testable predictions. It's a matter of personal preference whether you decide those assumptions reflect some deeper physical reality or are simply a useful calculating tool.

However, I would like to distinguish here between quantum mechanics, which is what we might call "proper science", and concepts such as string theory (including things like extra dimensions, multiple universes and the like), which is untested conjecture at present. Quantum mechanics is a complicated but nonetheless rigorous mathematical description of the behaviour of elementary particles, largely developed in the first half of the 20th century, which has been confirmed by a number of experimental predictions and has led to many useful applications. Where it gets fuzzy is when you try to explain what the theory means physically (if indeed it means anything), where there are a number of interpretations. I, like most of the physics community, adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation (in a nutshell, particles can be physically in two states at once, the universe is inherently non-deterministic), but as far as I know it is no more than a matter of preference.

String theory, meanwhile, is a modern attempt at providing a theory which explains both gravity and the behaviour of elementary particles; while it has several useful features which make it quite a "nice" theory, as yet has made no testable predictions which could serve to verify or disprove it, meaning that it is currently no more than a hypothesis.

[Reenk Roink]

Ok time to get to PBI's post:

I would disagree that science is a religion, I think it would be more accurate to say that science is a philosophy, and religions are also philosophies.

Otherwise we might as well dispense with the word "philosophy" altogether and simply describe every sphere of human intellectual endeavor as a "religion".

I think this recent discussion of "science being a religion" is quite silly myself. It seems that from both sides, religion seems to be a dirty word, with one side trying to elevate science over religion and the other trying to drag it down (in fact, for me personally religion is something I am in awe of, especially the Abrahamic tradition, while science is the stuff I study at school and do at work and so it causes me stress at times and seems so mundane ).

I agree with your pointing out that science and religion are both human intellectual endeavors (I liked that phrase more than the word philosophy which I consider something else, though I get what you are trying to say).

I think the point that the "science is a religion" people are trying to make is the simple one that science, like religion, results on its own set of metaphysical assumptions. Now unlike "science" the metaphysical assumptions of "religion" are criticized frequently*, hence the comments that religion has no 'evidence' while science does. That really depends on what you are talking about now...

*In the context of say, internet discussions on message boards , you will certainly see the assumptions of "science" copiously criticized in a philosophy journal say - philosophy of science seems to be a much more lively subject than philosophy of religion at this point...

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion.

I don't think I agree with this. For example, science offers explanations of the natural world in terms of the common sense view of cause and effect, but that explanation is only really satisfying if you already hold to the view of natural cause and effect.

Since QM was brought up, let's illustrate with the explanation of the photoelectric effect. When a photon strikes an electron it is ejected if the frequency of the photon exceeds the threshold. In terms of natural cause and effect, this is pretty much the standard explanation.

However, say I held fast to an occasionalist metaphysics where I denied any actual cause except God. Then I drop all that bit about the ejected electrons and state that God directly caused the photoelectric effect and the bit about the ejected electrons was just a prior temporal occasion.

No matter what scientific explanations come up regarding things in the natural world, they will never be accepted by the occasionalist because he simply does not accept the view that contingent beings can be causes. He will interpret any scientific explanation as only discovering an occasion for an event that is caused directly by God.

[Askthepizzaguy]

science can explain life but it cant explain/tell us how to live, its free of morals...

In my opinion-

One reason why a secular/atheistic person agrees with about 90% of what a religious person would find immoral, is because what we consider morality is really common sense, and it really is stuff that we should know if we actually spent two seconds thinking about it. The rest is the "if you don't perform ritual A or praise deity B, you are a sinner" stuff which makes it faith rather than common sense. And then of course we focus solely on our differences instead of our commonalities, and the perception of a larger division in society exists, when we should be living in relative harmony.

science is actually a religion...

One begins with the premise that we do not know and must discover, the other begins with the premise that we do know and must reject other theories. They are totally incompatible.

[Beskar]

Science is falsifiable.

Religion is non-falsifiable.

[The Stranger]

One of the most characteristic qualities of religion is that it doens't allow any other truth to exist next to their own truth. Religion is designed to dominate, to dominate its subjects and eliminate any threat to its existence.

There should be careful distinction between belief and religion. Belief is very basic and personal, while religion is a (very) complex structure based on a (common) belief and it's community oriented. Belief can exist without religion, religion cannot exist without belief.

Islam is a religion because it doesn't let any other truth peacefully exist as truth next to theirs. Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Does this mean that every christian, muslim or jew is a religious person? no it does not. Nor does it mean that every atheist or scientific oriented person is one. A lof of these people do acknowledge other truths beside theirs, they just don't accept it as their own truth, which is their good right. These people should be adressed as believers. The other group, which doesn't allow other oppinions to exist as possibilities of truth, claim all the rest is nonsense and act as if they have patented the truth are religious persons.

(ill probably explain this more elaborately later this week.)

[Cronos Impera]

The religion of the next millenia is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and its collective prophet are XXXXXXX. On a social level it manifests itself through: social guilt; cherem is a substitute for Hell; its Inquisition is public denial and legal repercussions. The splendid fact about this religion is that it functions without a God or an individualistic principle.

Its existance prove once again that Psichohistoric Necessisty and OligoSoc can **** on you, evolution, common sense, everything. It also shows that you don't need a religious background to be as foolish as a religious person.
If a XXX told you tomorrow that he could fly without a device and the rest of the world believed him, would you out of social guilt and legal consequence not aknowledge that and agree with him? Would you be so foolish as to endenger yourself?

Than come the obvious axioms of Psichohistory:

1) The Master is always superior, regardless of his nature because he is the master.
2) If something can harm you and you can't help yourself you have a master
3) There's always something that can hurt you while you're powerless. Therefore you always have a master.
4) You can not be free and equal to the rest at the same time, because by then you would have already been able to control the rest or be controlled by anyone else.
5) Many idiots chose equality over freedom. Most become equal in slavery, others like the XXXXXXX become equal in mastery.
6) All religion tries to persuade us that Freedom and Equality stack when they don't.
7) The only reason to presume we're equal is that we all share a hidden master and that master treats us with the same disgust.
8) That master is but a strawman for his preachers who are the actual masters.
9) There's always a religion
10) And the people who rule it are the Masters.
Religion will be XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and its heretics will dominate the future world.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your psychological comfort zone and oppose it like a true heretic or is heresy reserved only for easy pickings nowadays.Prick all holes with your random heresy.The hole which strikes back and stabs you with a sarissa is the religion.If you can prick it without being pricked that isn't the religion of the moment.
If Christianty can not overpower its critics, than its no longer a religion. If XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX can put you behind bars, ruin your life, kill you or turn you into an outcast than that is the new religion.

XXXXXXXX to you. All Hail XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

[The Stranger]

In my opinion-

One reason why a secular/atheistic person agrees with about 90% of what a religious person would find immoral, is because what we consider morality is really common sense, and it really is stuff that we should know if we actually spent two seconds thinking about it. The rest is the "if you don't perform ritual A or praise deity B, you are a sinner" stuff which makes it faith rather than common sense. And then of course we focus solely on our differences instead of our commonalities, and the perception of a larger division in society exists, when we should be living in relative harmony.
.

they agree because some morals are based on fundamental survival skills/concepts. and because other morals are simply a product of their time/culture/etc and it is fashionable to indulge in them. however that still doesn't change the fact the science is free of morals. the fact that we most likely have evolved from apes still doesnt tell us how we should behave. nor does the fact that we now know how to alter someones dna, that still doesnt tell us wether it is good or not to do so. science is simply the knowing of a lot of complicated stuff (wether it is true or not is beside the question now), but when you know how to make and use a bomb, still doesnt tell you wether it is good to do so...

religion (in the traditional definition) can and does tell, so does society and law and some philosphies... science will always play a major role, atleast i believe it will, but it will never completely replace the others because while it does explain why and how it is possible that you live, it can never tell you why and how you should live. and the moment it does exactly that it ceases to be science as we know it.

[LittleGrizzly]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Those Atheists (aside from being slightly rude) are lacking faith in some magical higher being. Lacking the faith to believe in something unseeable and unknowable isn't a religon in the slightest. Faith is key to most religions and science lacks any faith whatsoever, the worst it does is make educated guesses when it isn't sure... and an educated guess is done through the process of logic so again no faith required...

And the whole paragraph about science in the same way sometimes deny things from other religon like religon's do from each other. That also does not make it a religon, these other religons ask you to take it on faith that the other religon is wrong and thiers is the right one...

Science just gives you the truth of the matter (or as close to it as we can know) if science is a religon then so is the truth, nutrition advice, exercise advice, every school textbook (those not about religon)

Basically if science is a religon then so is almost everything were we understand something (from mechanics to math to cooking) so obviously this definition of religon is far too wide ranging... best keep it as a definition for just religon...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Science assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. Ergo, there cannot be any room for the Supernatural.

It's a belief system based on untestable assumptions, and therefore a religion.

[LittleGrizzly]

I almost feel the need to argue for that point now my names on top of it....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I almost feel the need to argue for that point now my names on top of it....

I don't see why, I was modifying the point you argued against, rather than writing the same post again in different syntax.

[The Stranger]

Science assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. Ergo, there cannot be any room for the Supernatural.

It's a belief system based on untestable assumptions, and therefore a religion.

thank you very much

[The Stranger]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Those Atheists (aside from being slightly rude) are lacking faith in some magical higher being. Lacking the faith to believe in something unseeable and unknowable isn't a religon in the slightest. Faith is key to most religions and science lacks any faith whatsoever, the worst it does is make educated guesses when it isn't sure... and an educated guess is done through the process of logic so again no faith required...

And the whole paragraph about science in the same way sometimes deny things from other religon like religon's do from each other. That also does not make it a religon, these other religons ask you to take it on faith that the other religon is wrong and thiers is the right one...

Science just gives you the truth of the matter (or as close to it as we can know) if science is a religon then so is the truth, nutrition advice, exercise advice, every school textbook (those not about religon)

Basically if science is a religon then so is almost everything were we understand something (from mechanics to math to cooking) so obviously this definition of religon is far too wide ranging... best keep it as a definition for just religon...

that is exactly my point, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE, IS ACTUALLY TRUE? It's the whole bible story all over again man, but now we just have a different explanation. Christians also had all kinds of proof for the existance of god a thousand years ago. And everyone believed it to be truthful and right. just wait another 1000 years and there will be another explanation, and probably another approach.

By claiming science as the one and only way to the truth you deny the existence of any other truth (on the same field ofcourse) next to you yours. By doing so you are doing exactly the same thing as a muslim or christian who says the word of God is the only truth, you say the word of a scientist who writes down tons of books i dont understand shit of is truth... there is very little difference in the approach, there is only difference in the endstation.