Can secular science ever oust religious belief?

[hallenrm]

I was reading this report in the New Scientist about a symposium entitled "Beyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival" that took place in La Jolla, California, last week. Where some of the leading practitioners of modern science, many of them vocal atheists gathered.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.142?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19225780.142,

 

and also

 

www.edge.org/3rd_culture/beyond_belief06/beyond_belief06_index.html

 

and it indeed started churning juices within my thinking machinery.

 

Can humanity ever do away with religion?

What would science put in religion's place?

And can we be good without God?

 

We, on the Hypography, have been indulging in such discussions ever since we got together. I also aware of the official attitude:shrug: of some administrators on topics related to religion and God, that's my reason for posting this thread in the Watercooler:hyper:.

 

Can we now, think afresh with some inputs of thoughts from some scientists we revere, who were present in this symposium, and perhaps review our opinions and beliefs? ? ? ? ?

[hallenrm]

It appears that no one is ready to bite the bait. :hyper:

 

Let me do it myself!

 

I shall deal with each question in my earlier post stepwise.

 

The first question is:

 

Can humanity ever do away with religion?

 

The answer at least in the light of present circumstances is a emphatic NO!

The reason for my such a belief is the state of inequality, both intellectual as well as economical, that exists in the human societies. The people with less intellectual capabilities will hardly ever comprehend the complexities of the modern science, hence the poor will always fall prey of the cunning religious leaders, who stand to gain by their ignorance. Until and unless social conditions are such that even the poorest human being can receive adequate diet and education, religious fundamentalists will rule the roost:eek:

 

Well, I have made a beginning, anyone willing to join me or oppose my opinions???

[pgrmdave]

Can humanity ever do away with religion?

What would science put in religion's place?

And can we be good without God?

 

To #1 - yes, we could, I suppose, but I don't think that we ever will.

 

To #2 - Science provides a different product than religion, just like religion shouldn't speak about science, science shouldn't speak about faith.

 

To #3 - clearly, people can be good without God.

[Turtle]

It appears that no one is ready to bite the bait. :lol:

 

Let me do it myself!

 

I shall deal with each question in my earlier post stepwise.

 

The first question is:

 

Can humanity ever do away with religion?

 

The answer at least in the light of present circumstances is a emphatic NO!

The reason for my such a belief is the state of inequality, both intellectual as well as economical, that exists in the human societies. The people with less intellectual capabilities will hardly ever comprehend the complexities of the modern science, hence the poor will always fall prey of the cunning religious leaders, who stand to gain by their ignorance. Until and unless social conditions are such that even the poorest human being can receive adequate diet and education, religious fundamentalists will rule the roost:eek:

 

Well, I have made a beginning, anyone willing to join me or oppose my opinions???

 

Chomp chomp! :hyper: Masticating away Master Charlie. :hihi:

I accept the implied premise that it is a favorable thing to have secular science and reason oust religion. Moreover, I think it is education as you suggest that could win the day in eliminating substandard living conditions.

It may all be just a matter of time, as the evidence indicates even the top cock dies. :rooster: :hyper:

[hallenrm]

Thanks Dave and Dear Turtle for the encouragement!:D

 

Today I shall deal with the question:

 

What would science put in religion's place?

 

That's indeed a tough proposition. First of all the question is not framed properly, because it conveys an anthromorphic character to science, which is not really very true. Science, as we all know, is a method not a community or society of people, who can decide what to put in religion's place. Some scientists, if they become really powerful polotically, may be able to do so, but will any scientist ever become so popular is an open question:D

 

But suppose scientists had that power, would they be able to suggest an alternative to religion? I really have my doubts!

 

Because any ideology that can take the place of science must be able to address to the concerns of lot more people then the present day science. It must be able to help people to decide what is morally right in a society and what is not. For that, science itself must equip itself with some answers about the social conduct. So far truly scientific knowledge is limited to the organism level not beyond.

 

Am I right:confused: , would someone point the fallacies in my manner of thinking.

 

Please do it, just as a favor to your thinking old man! :cup:

[cwes99_03]

1) I don't think so, but then I'm pretty devout. In order for science to put down religion it would have to prove false all claims of prophecy and all works of miracles, and it would have to substitute a reason for living other than we exist, along with provide ways for much longer life in a much more pleasureable and sustaining world.

2) I guess I just said what they would have to give.

3) Can you be Good? Can you do good things? Turtle claims that he has seen quarters flipped and land on edge (was that Turtle or Racoon?) Anything is possible, I suppose. You'd have to replace religious morality with philosophical ethics.

[hallenrm]

In order for science to put down religion it would have to prove false all claims of prophecy

 

Or, sincerely make an attempt to find the truth :naughty:

[hallenrm]

The last question, that I raised in the pening post is:

 

Can we be good without God?

 

It is a well known fact that despite a wide acceptance of the concept of God amongst masses from varied societies, people often do not fit the concept of good!:D, but perhaps it can be argued that, but for the concept of God, people might have been worse, because the concept of God often instil a moral emotion of fear. Because, the concept of God often includes the charactristics of omnipotent and omnipresence, people are sometimes more afraid of the actions of God then they are of police or any law enforcing machinery.

 

I, therefore, think that a concept similar to that of God is somehow essential for enforcing morals amongst the members of a society.

 

What can be such a concept.

 

The concept of supraconsciousness, almost spontaneosly leaps into my mind.

 

What is this concept? To me it is the common consiousness of a society, whether local, national or international. Evidence is slowly filtering in towards the existence of such a concept. Remember, it is a secular concept and in some form or the other is part of the concept of God in all religions that I am aware of. I have myself proposed a theory on this forum that thoughts are eternal and can travel from one mind to another.

 

I do believe that a wider acceptance of the concept of supraconsciosness first amongst scientifically inclined people like the members of HSF, then amongst the body od secular scientists at large can perhaps lead to the realization that the acceptance such a concept can help people to be good without God.:) :( :)

[cwes99_03]

Or, sincerely make an attempt to find the truth :D

 

Are you suggesting that no sincere attempt has been made in all of human history to do just that? I can't imagine that is what you meant, but I can't think of anything else for that to mean. Perhaps you should edit that post.

[cwes99_03]

The concept of supraconsciousness, almost spontaneosly leaps into my mind.

 

What is this concept? To me it is the common consiousness of a society, whether local, national or international. Evidence is slowly filtering in towards the existence of such a concept. Remember, it is a secular concept and in some form or the other is part of the concept of God in all religions that I am aware of. I have myself proposed a theory on this forum that thoughts are eternal and can travel from one mind to another.

 

I do believe that a wider acceptance of the concept of supraconsciosness first amongst scientifically inclined people like the members of HSF, then amongst the body od secular scientists at large can perhaps lead to the realization that the acceptance such a concept can help people to be good without God.

 

Are you asking for recognition of your thoughts as the way of the future? Shouldn't this thread be altruistic? Anyway, the idea that a thought is eternal is not new. Socrates had some thoughts, wrote them down and many today hold the same thought that he held in his head.

 

What you talk about with supraconsciousness is simply, on the whole, mankind's ability to decide for himself what is right and wrong. Perhaps you can take a look at the ~4000 years of recorded history of man and tell me if things have gotten somewhat better, much better, somewhat worse, or much worse.

 

While not having a degree in history, my background tells me that while some things have indeed gotten better, some things, particularly recently have gotten much worse. Perhaps religion in general is to blame for this recent swing, but perhaps religion in general is also to blame/honor for the changes for the good.

 

If you care to read some of my latest comments on threads like the science or religion thread, religion vs religion thread, or more importantly philosophy vs religion thread, I'd like to challenge your view on what makes a religion real. Perhaps what you define as a religion (as they have called themselves) is really just what you are proposing here, human philosophy on ethics and morals rather than a god's viewpoint on morals.

[Tormod]

I sense that this thread belongs in the Philosophy of science forum. Moving it there.

[hallenrm]

Are you suggesting that no sincere attempt has been made in all of human history to do just that? I can't imagine that is what you meant, but I can't think of anything else for that to mean. Perhaps you should edit that post.

 

Yes, indeed I often doubt the sincerity!

 

Are you asking for recognition of your thoughts as the way of the future?

 

Yes! and I need not feel apologetic about that.

 

Perhaps you can take a look at the ~4000 years of recorded history of man and tell me if things have gotten somewhat better, much better, somewhat worse, or much worse.

 

Please decide what you want to say, better or worse? :doh:

[cwes99_03]

I really would like you to examine your ideas about religion as compared to these threads I mentioned. If you like I can site specific posts.

The reason for this is that you said this:

It is a well known fact that despite a wide acceptance of the concept of God amongst masses from varied societies, people often do not fit the concept of good!, but perhaps it can be argued that, but for the concept of God, people might have been worse, because the concept of God often instil a moral emotion of fear. Because, the concept of God often includes the charactristics of omnipotent and omnipresence, people are sometimes more afraid of the actions of God then they are of police or any law enforcing machinery.

 

My argument has been that they themselves do not actually accept the concept of god, that is to say, they claim to believe in the existence of a god, but when faced with the idea that they need to follow the laws and principles provided by that god, they say they can do whatever they want in the name of their god.

[cwes99_03]

Man it totally feels like I have typed those exact words before.

[hallenrm]

My argument has been that they themselves do not actually accept the concept of god, that is to say, they claim to believe in the existence of a god, but when faced with the idea that they need to follow the laws and principles provided by that god, they say they can do whatever they want in the name of their god.

 

I think one must not generalize the human actions too much, there is an element of truth in your statements and my statements are not entirely false either :doh:

[Pyrotex]

You guys mind if I throw in my nickel's worth? :doh:

 

If religion is ever to be replaced, I don't think it will be replaced by "science". It will be replaced by another religion, or even a different "kind" of religion.

 

I believe that attempts at this have already been made. History is full of attempts to replace "bad" religion with something better.

Christianity tried to replace Judaism;

Protestantism tried to replace Medieval Catholicism;

Liberal Protestantism tried to replace Calvanist Protestantism;

B'Hai tries to replace Islam;

Pentacostal Christianity tries to replace Fundemental Christianity;

Unitarianism attempts to replace all Christianity;

Buddhism attempts to replace all other religions.

 

The trend is clear (to me anyway). People are often attracted to a religion for its fire-breathing dogmatism, only to find that it has negative social and cultural impacts. (Like burning down all the libraries, and vast bloody wars!) Eventually, another religion comes on the scene that gives the same emotional and cultural benefits without the pillage and suffering. Civil liberties and knowledge become more acceptable. Inner peace becomes more important than social dominance.

 

Fundemantalism is making a GIGANTIC push for social, political and scientific hegemony (dominance & rule) in America right now. What it is destroying in the process is true faith and peace with oneself. It will almost succeed. At a horrible cost. In thirty years, the religious landscape in America will be totally different.

 

But religion will not be replaced by secular philosophies or science. It will be replaced by other religions (they may call themselves "Christianity") that have relaxed their defiance and dogma, and that emphasize the value of internal peace and fullfillment. They will incorporate an acceptance of secularism and science. Scriptures will be relegated to "inspiration" instead of "law".

 

Eventually, this inevitable evolution of religion (if we are to survive as a species) will result in religion that incorporates morality, meditation and philosophy much as Buddhism does today.

[InfiniteNow]

I think Pyrotex hits the nail on the head. The very concept of religion will have changed so significantly in the future that it's all speculation. Sort of like asking a caveman to determine who'd be the bigger car manufacturer, Ford or Toyota... It has no context, and thus little meaning.

 

Now, despite this, and trying to offer a less circumvential response...

 

The principles of science are being accepted by many, many who realize that it is always subject to change. Religion has often focussed on truths, and hence seems contrary to the tenet of science and it's ammendability.

 

Communication across the globe, and access to information and other opinions is leading to less shepherd/herd groupings, and more individual thoughts. That cannot be good for religion.

 

However, as I said, the concept of religion itself will change, and I think that science will play a role in that. Just don't know how big that role will be nor what the impact.