Thread: Science kills religion.

Exhalent, science is based on a method that is inherently different from the method used by religion. Religion is not a step in science.

In simple terms:

- In science,
1. Identify problem;
2. Gather evidence and test hypothesis;
3. Make conclusions based on the results.

- In religion,
1. Make conclusions;


#edit#

Oops Bonsay beat me to it, and with a pretty pic.

I would laugh at that image if I had not seen it a million times before. However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

Religion is used for things that have no other explanation. Which is fair enough.

But when religion tries to prove something science already has then its just stupid.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

I would laugh at that image if I had not seen it a million times before. However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

Making up magic elements isn't explaining. Even if it was, science wouldn't need religion for that, anyone can make things up.

Even with everyones confidence that all religion must be bunk, it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

Not that that proves anything, but let me know when science figures everything out.

Science has figured out a lot more than religion has. Let me know when religion provides evidence for anything.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

Oh? What does religion explain that science cannot? Ok, perhaps not science, but philosophy can do the trick.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Even with everyones confidence that all religion must be bunk, it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

Not that that proves anything, but let me know when science figures everything out.

If "that" doesn't prove anything, then why did you post it?

And you let me know when religion figures everything out.

I'd rather ask him to just let me now when religion figures something out, anything at all.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

Religion existed during the big bang?

It should be noted that during man's existence the prominent religion hasn't always been the same.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I'd rather ask him to just let me now when religion figures something out, anything at all.



Religion existed during the big bang?

It should be noted that during man's existence the prominent religion hasn't always been the same.

Guess I should have specified the dawn of man.


Obviously, that's because all of religion is trying to compensate for the unknowable.

If "that" doesn't prove anything, then why did you post it?

And you let me know when religion figures everything out.

Because you are able to converse without something being 100% proof, otherwise you might as well shut this whole forum down.

Why the crybaby attitude? Religion will never figure everything out, and neither will science.. In fact let me know when anyone figures everything out.

Science has figured out a lot more than religion has. Let me know when religion provides evidence for anything.

Religion proves the power of faith.

What ever happened to humanity, you are all so stuck on... I'm right and your wrong, it's kind of sickening.

Hoping for molten rain..

science and spitituality can explain everything religion can. The difference, science and spirituality make an effort to prove or disprove things, whereas religion usually takes it's ideas as fact immediately. Science makes an effort to increase knowledge and it's accuracy. If a new discovery is made and proven, they replace the old ideas with the new. Religion maintains the same ideas, regardless of how contrary they are to current knowledge. i.e., there are still people who believe that the earth is 12,000 years old. True, there will always be things that science simply cannot explain, here is where you can choose either spirituality or religion to fill in the gaps. Personally I find spirituality makes much more sense to me.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Because you are able to converse without something being 100% proof, otherwise you might as well shut this whole forum down.

Why the crybaby attitude? Religion will never figure everything out, and neither will science.. In fact let me know when anyone figures everything out.

Amazing. Pointing out a fallacy is equal to crybaby attitude.

Do we really need to converse the fact that religion is still here? I would, but I'd come off as too arrogant for speaking the obvious truth (ha). Ok then. I'd say because people lacked sufficient knowledge of just about anything, religions provided answers everybody wanted. They eventually got to the point where not believing was wrong one way or the other. That continued to this day, when we can dispose of most of the problems for which religion was made to answer (not the ones religion keeps making up to make it seem it's more important than it is). Using reason we can transcend old, banal interpretations of our existence and replace it with science, philosophy or in the end even spirituality. Those who are unlucky enough to be indoctrinated or indoctrinate themselves into any cult/religion are the ones who keep religion going. Lets face it, most religious people are ignorant and ignorance is what keeps it alive.

If you come here and say "Aha, I'm religious, yet not stupid" all I can say is, sadly you're not a majority.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Christian mythology" will eventually be studied in schools. It will be viewed the way we view the ancient Greek paganism with Zeus and the gang. It was the big religion of ancient Greece, but now we call it "Greek mythology" without it coming across as offensive.

+100.

I hope science kills religion. Maybe we'll actually contact alien life forms or something else that disproves most of them.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It's true if you think about it.

In the beginning of time people didn't understand what made their crops grow, so they put the blame on a sky-daddy, or something else. They thought that plagues were caused by sky-daddy, or the equivalent.

This time and age we know why crops grow, we know the reason for plagues, we can make alternatives for these things too. As in we can grow crops without sunlight, and we can make/replicate viruses/diseases whatever.

Science is always growing, and has more than likely infinite possibilities.

So, my question is.. do you think centuries from now, maybe longer, maybe less, religion will be totally gone? Of course science will never be able to disprove some Gods, but it will definitely shine glimpses of light on places people believe is caused by the hand of a supernatural being.

And before anyone says it, yeah, yeah, science isn't the only reason. We all know intellect has evolved over the centuries, and people are smarter and think for logically now than before, but still science plays a major role in that too. :]

So just give your opinions on if you believe religion will ever die! I really don't think it ever will, and if it does I believe it will be thousands of years before it does. But at least some people are opening up their eyes now and seeing how ridiculous some religions are. :]

Although I'm a Christ Follower, it makes sense to me that SOME religions might die out, possibly even my own. I would argue that intellect hasn't really evolved all that much from the time of the first modern Homosapiens. Technology certainly has, but that is kind of inevitable with how naturally curious man is.

Anyway, as far as all religion goes, I doubt it will die off. Religion provides hope, an outlet for grief, and a place for people to go to make themselves feel better. Religion provides light when a person feels like they are going through a tunnel...even if that light is a fake man made light that is not fact but fiction.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh my. Science is the opposite of religion.

I disagree with your chart Bonsay, at least the part about religion. I would say that not all religious people follow your little arrow pointed pathway to "Ignore contradictory evidence". As far as I and some others are concerned, our religious beliefs are fluid and change when we learn new concrete facts. Not all Christians deny evolution for example.

In what way does that change anything?

It doesn't have to, all the OP was looking for was our opinion on the belief that science would kill religion. I gave my opinion, gave evidence (however flimsy) to support my beliefs, and left it out there for the world to see. My posts were more solid than some, not as solid as others.

It changes your chart in several ways for one, and shows that for some religion and science aren't so far apart, that they are both constantly changing systems that attempt to do the same thing.

Science does not even have all the answers so how does it kill religion? Lastly, logic is not full proof.

If we're thinking on a level that only guides and explain our perception of the universe,
how can we question things that go beyond that level of perception
and our comprehension of it as human beings? How do you use logic to explain the
supernatural.

Logic is bivariate. That is to say that there can be only two values to a statement, viz., 'true' and 'false'. Logic also says all that is not false is true. It works well when you are dealing with the limited universe as defined by your premises. But the real question is, how valid can this be in reality? Not very. Consider the statement 'It will rain tomorrow', is it true? It is possible, but we cannot say it is true. This is not allowed in traditional logic. A statement can either be true or false, nothing else.

How are we to try and understand the world, the natural, the supernatural or the divine with something as limited (and bias) as this? Logic as a system can be employed only under the existence of premises, i.e., statements that are assumed to be true. In mathematics, they are referred to as axioms. What if we don't have any assumptions? What we seek is the ultimate truth, the truth above and beyond all truth.
Science was always a quest for explanations, never the truth. But people think if they have theories then we have truth. Again, we have to truth to theories that are based on our assumptions. But, what is the ultimate truth.

Originally Posted by User

Consider the statement 'It will rain tomorrow', is it true? It is possible, but we cannot say it is true. This is not allowed in traditional logic. A statement can either be true or false, nothing else.

That's because this is not an example of logic. The statement is just a conclusion. The logic enters before the conclusion. No conclusion is inherently logical or illogical when presented by itself. We could suppose hypothetical premises which differ from what we find in our reality and arrive at a conclusion which is both logical and not representative of our world "If the Earth had been destroyed millions of years ago, Dreamviews would not exist." Likewise, we could illogically arrive at a conclusion that is representative of our world. "Bees make honey, therefore tomorrow will have 24 hours." In the case of your example, you did not provide a premise such as "If the Earth's weather continues to function as it has for the past X years, it will rain on certain parts of the Earth." Now it would be a matter of proving that the weather will continue to function as it has. Of course there's so much information to consider, we can't actually certainly say the premise is true. This is not a failing of logic. This is a result of humans not being omniscient.

Originally Posted by User

How are we to try and understand the world, the natural, the supernatural or the divine with something as limited (and bias) as this? Logic as a system can be employed only under the existence of premises, i.e., statements that are assumed to be true. In mathematics, they are referred to as axioms. What if we don't have any assumptions? What we seek is the ultimate truth, the truth above and beyond all truth.
Science was always a quest for explanations, never the truth. But people think if they have theories then we have truth. Again, we have to truth to theories that are based on our assumptions. But, what is the ultimate truth.

Do you think explanations are not a way of understanding what is true? And what method do you propose we use to find "ultimate truth"? Further, you call premises assumptions, which in a sense is true. But the purpose of logic is to make a conclusion based on premises, and then to demonstrate that the premises are true or false. If you can do that... they aren't really assumptions any more.

I don't really care what ends up happening because my faith is strong in the Christian beliefs and will not crack over anything, not even science.

It's funny watching people so attached to their religion..

Too bad Christ isn't even as old as the world, after Eve god waited a long time to contact the Jews..... Just ask a history book when Judaism started, not at the creation of the world...


Oh science your silly!

There is actually less proof of evolution than there is of a God. But that doesn't stop faithful followers of evolution from making up things. It's them filling in blanks, knowing they have no answer, and running with it like it's fact, very similar to religions. Everything they can't explain, they make up something. They fill the gaps, as if the theory has no holes.The Big Bang theory is just a theory, as well.We simply don't know how species originated or how the universe was formed. It doesn't mean choose from the crappy answers people created. It means we just don't know.

Both science and religion takes a "know-it-all" stance, but people who are turned off by religion act as if science is more credible. No one has all the answers.

Originally Posted by davej

I don't really care what ends up happening because my faith is strong in the Christian beliefs and will not crack over anything, not even science.

And you no doubt consider this to be a virtue...

Originally Posted by User

There is actually less proof of evolution than there is of a God.

Care to supply some proof of a god?

Originally Posted by User

But that doesn't stop faithful followers of evolution from making up things. It's them filling in blanks, knowing they have no answer, and running with it like it's fact, very similar to religions. Everything they can't explain, they make up something. They fill the gaps, as if the theory has no holes.

Do you mean forming hypothesis, searching for evidence (either positive or negative) for said hypothesis, and adapting their views to fit the evidence?
What holes are there in evolutionary science?

Originally Posted by User

Both science and religion takes a "know-it-all" stance, but people who are turned off by religion act as if science is more credible. No one has all the answers.

Science readily admits when it doesn't have an answer and good scientists differentiate fact from theory. For example, most scientists will readily admit that the big bang theory is just that; a theory. Evolution is fact. It has been witnessed on a small scale, we have fossil records of large scale changes and the logic of natural selection would require a god to actively intervene for it to not be true. Even Pope John Paul II admitted evolution into catholic dogma.