Will science destroy religion

[Orangeslice13]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

It has always been my opinion that The creator is a G-d of laws. Commonly referred to as Torah.
It would make sense that the creation would be based on a natural law.
In my opinion when scripture and science don't agree there are one of two problems 1) misinterpreting scripture/ adding things that are not there. Ex: "the world is 7000 years old" or 2) science hasn't progressed to answer the question.

The article seems to suggest that secularism is problem for science. This is a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered.

So who is worse for the progress of science....religion or secularism?

 

[Sin City Vol]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

It has always been my opinion that The creator is a G-d of laws. Commonly referred to as Torah.
It would make sense that the creation would be based on a natural law.
In my opinion when scripture and science don't agree there are one of two problems 1) misinterpreting scripture/ adding things that are not there. Ex: "the world is 7000 years old" or 2) science hasn't progressed to answer the question.

The article seems to suggest that secularism is problem for science. This is a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered.

So who is worse for the progress of science....religion or secularism?

The progress of science will never stop, almost every new thing that happens can be traced back to a form of science. Religion will be around forever as long as 1 person has faith in a higher being.

 

[hog88]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

It has always been my opinion that The creator is a G-d of laws. Commonly referred to as Torah.
It would make sense that the creation would be based on a natural law.
In my opinion when scripture and science don't agree there are one of two problems 1) misinterpreting scripture/ adding things that are not there. Ex: "the world is 7000 years old" or 2) science hasn't progressed to answer the question.

The article seems to suggest that secularism is problem for science. This is a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered.

So who is worse for the progress of science....religion or secularism?

Niether. Science and religion can and should coexist and complement.

 

[Hayezb]

Hopefully.

 

[tumscalcium]

No.

 

[Rishvol]

Without religion there is no science. Or at least it would be much slower in discoveries of natural phenomena

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Science and religion will always coexist. Both will continue to enrich the lives of human beings until the world finally ends.

 

[Carl Pickens]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

It has always been my opinion that The creator is a G-d of laws. Commonly referred to as Torah.
It would make sense that the creation would be based on a natural law.
In my opinion when scripture and science don't agree there are one of two problems 1) misinterpreting scripture/ adding things that are not there. Ex: "the world is 7000 years old" or 2) science hasn't progressed to answer the question.

The article seems to suggest that secularism is problem for science. This is a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered.

So who is worse for the progress of science....religion or secularism?

I don't know, but I think science is going give us some kind of Charlton Heston "damn you all to hell" moment.... like scientists altering species and creating scary monsters and what not...only to realize they feel as though they are God

 

[Orangeslice13]

I don't know, but I think science is going give us some kind of Charlton Heston "damn you all to hell" moment.... like scientists altering species and creating scary monsters and what not...only to realize they feel as though they are God

My son, who is responsible for sending me the article, (joking) says we have 13 years left.
He says that's when AI is projected to be achieved. After that the machines will exterminate us.

So in a way you may both be right.

 

[zeppelin128]

Hopefully science will continue to moderate religion so we can rid ourselves of the fringe elements of Christianity and Islam.

Maybe we will eventually come to a point were religion itself is obsolete, replaced with spiritually tailored to an individual's needs.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Hopefully science will continue to moderate religion so we can rid ourselves of the fringe elements of Christianity and Islam.

Maybe we will eventually come to a point were religion itself is obsolete, replaced with spiritually tailored to an individual's needs.

The most technologically advanced country in the world is also the most religious. Science has left religion unaffected. What makes you think that's likely to change?

 

[zeppelin128]

The most technologically advanced country in the world is also the most religious. Science has left religion unaffected. What makes you think that's likely to change?

Only wishful thinking on my part, honestly.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Only wishful thinking on my part, honestly.

To be fair the lovely people of westboro baptist church make your wishes understandable

 

[zeppelin128]

To be fair the lovely people of westboro baptist church make your wishes understandable

They are horrible people. I can't compare them to ISIS (WBC hasn't murdered anyone, as far as I know), but they are pretty damn close.

 

[volbeast33]

They are horrible people. I can't compare them to ISIS (WBC hasn't murdered anyone, as far as I know), but they are pretty damn close.

There will always be horrible people/ religion or not

 

[Carl Pickens]

My son, who is responsible for sending me the article, (joking) says we have 13 years left.
He says that's when AI is projected to be achieved. After that the machines will exterminate us.

So in a way you may both be right.

That's heavy man

 

[PKT_VOL]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

It has always been my opinion that The creator is a G-d of laws. Commonly referred to as Torah.
It would make sense that the creation would be based on a natural law.
In my opinion when scripture and science don't agree there are one of two problems 1) misinterpreting scripture/ adding things that are not there. Ex: "the world is 7000 years old" or 2) science hasn't progressed to answer the question.

The article seems to suggest that secularism is problem for science. This is a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered.

So who is worse for the progress of science....religion or secularism?

I'm not sure the article made that case, at least not convincingly. It made more of an arguement against historicism, albeit secular historicism verse Marxism or Hegalism. Then again, Popper crushed historicism 50+ years ago.

Also, there was quite a conflation of terminology. For example, "religious" or "believer" isn't ubiquitous. A "religious" person from 1000 A.D. isn't going to necessarily be synonymous with a "religious" person in 2017.

I think that is where science has been instrumental. Science hasn't been as instrumental in affecting the question of the existence of a creator as it has in the nature of a possible creator. The article didn't take such into consideration.

 

[FLVOL_79]

They are horrible people. I can't compare them to ISIS (WBC hasn't murdered anyone, as far as I know), but they are pretty damn close.

Well..not really. WBC is like 16 people who don't like gay people..Isis is tens of thousands..and thats before we start talking about the millions of radical terror crazed muslims on this globe, who hate everyone.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm not sure the article made that case, at least not convincingly. It made more of an arguement against historicism, albeit secular historicism verse Marxism or Hegalism. Then again, Popper crushed historicism 50+ years ago.

Also, there was quite a conflation of terminology. For example, "religious" or "believer" isn't ubiquitous. A "religious" person from 1000 A.D. isn't going to necessarily be synonymous with a "religious" person in 2017.

I think that is where science has been instrumental. Science hasn't been as instrumental in affecting the question of the existence of a creator as it has in the nature of a possible creator. The article didn't take such into consideration.

I would agree that religious is a broad term. You don't even need 1017 years separation. Religious to you could mean something completely different than religious to me. Just within Christianity the difference in belief can be huge. Most Christians believe the messiah they call Jesus is part of a 3 part God. Where I (not really considered Christian by them) believe the Messiah Yeshua is the ambassador of G-d. Unique in that He's begotten of G-d and has been issued all authority of G-d by G-d but he's not G-d.

As too the answer of the question "is there a creator?". I think that's outside the ability of science to answer. Any evidence for either side will be speculative at best.

But not really the point.
I knew everyone would go to the religious angle,and to be fair that's in the articles title, but what I found interesting is the authors seemingly laying blame at the feet of secularism. That's not an area of thought I'd previously explored.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I would agree that religious is a broad term. You don't even need 1017 years separation. Religious to you could mean something completely different than religious to me. Just within Christianity the difference in belief can be huge. Most Christians believe the messiah they call Jesus is part of a 3 part God. Where I (not really considered Christian by them) believe the Messiah Yeshua is the ambassador of G-d. Unique in that He's begotten of G-d and has been issued all authority of G-d by G-d but he's not G-d.

Of course. I used it to illustrate the potential for extreme differences.

As too the answer of the question "is there a creator?". I think that's outside the ability of science to answer. Any evidence for either side will be speculative at best.

I agreed in my post. It's an (unanswerable) metaphysical question, although plenty on both sides will tell you they know for certain.

As I stated in my post, where science has made the most difference is in the discussion on the nature of a potential creator; not whether one actually exists.

But not really the point.
I knew everyone would go to the religious angle,and to be fair that's in the articles title, but what I found interesting is the authors seemingly laying blame at the feet of secularism. That's not an area of thought I'd previously explored.

As I said in my post, I don't think he coherently argued such. His strong argument was against secular historicism; not secularism working against science.

 

[Madscientistvol]

I would agree that religious is a broad term. You don't even need 1017 years separation. Religious to you could mean something completely different than religious to me. Just within Christianity the difference in belief can be huge. Most Christians believe the messiah they call Jesus is part of a 3 part God. Where I (not really considered Christian by them) believe the Messiah Yeshua is the ambassador of G-d. Unique in that He's begotten of G-d and has been issued all authority of G-d by G-d but he's not G-d.

As too the answer of the question "is there a creator?". I think that's outside the ability of science to answer. Any evidence for either side will be speculative at best.

But not really the point.
I knew everyone would go to the religious angle,and to be fair that's in the articles title, but what I found interesting is the authors seemingly laying blame at the feet of secularism. That's not an area of thought I'd previously explored.

Secularism in of itself is probably a net gain to science, but there also needs to be a guard against secular figures that try to interpret or make up scientific "findings" as a way to justify the policies they want.

Social Darwinism is a great historic example of this, but in modern times we have global warming and transgenderism.

People who already believe what they believe do not need to be interpreting scientific data to come up with the conclusions they want, and secular figures that do are no better then young earth creationists.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The most technologically advanced country in the world is also the most religious. Science has left religion unaffected. What makes you think that's likely to change?

Two questions... what makes a country "most religious?" and What country do you believe to be the most "technologically advanced" and why?

 

[armchair]

Secularism in of itself is probably a net gain to science, but there also needs to be a guard against secular figures that try to interpret or make up scientific "findings" as a way to justify the policies they want.

Social Darwinism is a great historic example of this, but in modern times we have global warming and transgenderism.

People who already believe what they believe do not need to be interpreting scientific data to come up with the conclusions they want, and secular figures that do are no better then young earth creationists.

You prove that science and religion can't really coexist. There is a //strong scientific consensus// that global warming is occurring--and yet you want to pretend that it is not. Are you a global warming expert? The people who oppose the idea of global warming are not scientists--they are energy industry executives, leaders of massive companies, who don't want to spend extra money on environmental regulations--and they've spent big sums to spread disinformation about climate change. That's a fact. Conservative politicians have joined in spreading the disinformation because they've always been in bed with big business and always opposed to environmental regulations--why, I'm not sure, because protecting our environment--and the health of the American people and people all over the world--should be both a high moral and practical priority. This disinformation about global warming then gets spread by right-wing media outlets and yahoos who tend to be conservatives. Virtually no one who claims that global warming isn't real is a scientist. So who is believable and who not? The polar ice caps are quite clearly melting, Alaska's tundra is disappearing--and yet yahoos with no scientific background want to declaim about something they know nothing about.

We were also told for 40 years that cigarette smoking was perfect safe--no worries about health issues. So we have conservatives with an agenda trying to pretend that scientists have an agenda. Science is completely based in fact--that's the point of it. Religion has no basis in fact--ZERO. And politics often has little to do with fact; it has to do with politicians spouting nonsense to keep getting contributions from energy companies so they can get elected. Religion and issues like global warming underscore the fact that America is actually a pretty seriously backward country, because we have a lot of people who are too thick to realize they're being manipulated. When you stop believing scientists, you've got a very serious problem. Meantime, we have religion leaders trying to tell us what "god" thinks--some wacky southern baptist poobah said recently that "god" set national boundaries. Really? Complete and utter nonsense, obviously--embarrassing and scary, really, and this kind of craziness has become constant in America. We can only hope that science reduces the influence of religion and religious nonsense--the world would be more peaceful and much better off, but it's a mighty struggle because so many people--in American and all around the world--are heavily invested in their own ignorance.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Two questions... what makes a country "most religious?" and What country do you believe to be the most "technologically advanced" and why?

It was a thought expressed in the article that I don't disagree with but can not support with actual data.
If the USA is not the most technologically advanced then we are clearly near the top. And with 3% of the population claiming to be atheist leaving 97% believing is some form of a higher power....that makes a strong argument for most religious as well.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Secularism in of itself is probably a net gain to science, but there also needs to be a guard against secular figures that try to interpret or make up scientific "findings" as a way to justify the policies they want.

Social Darwinism is a great historic example of this, but in modern times we have global warming and transgenderism.

People who already believe what they believe do not need to be interpreting scientific data to come up with the conclusions they want, and secular figures that do are no better then young earth creationists.

It's nearly impossible to go into study without some form of bias but the more that can be removed the better. Truth by its nature is exclusive and truth is very elusive due to bias.