|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
08-02-2006, 04:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
After Science, What's Left For Religion?
It's often said that science has progressively replaced religion in our lives. But is this true? Has science really crowded out religion?
Has science replaced religion as a source of wisdom? Has science replaced religion as a foundation for living the Good Life? Has science replaced religion as a source of information about transcendental experiences? Has science replace religion as a basis for information about our origins and the origins of the universe? Has science replaced religion as a basis for ethics? Has science replace religion as a basis for salvation? Do you think that science has undermined or weakened religion? If so, how? If not, has science actually strengthened religion? Are there areas or issues that science will never replace religion in? If so, why? If not, why not?
__________________
Then I came back from where I'd been. My room, it looked the same - but there was nothing left between The Nameless and the name. - Leonard Cohen. 
|
|
#2
08-02-2006, 06:33 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
123456 Hamster!
|
|
#3
08-02-2006, 06:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is very rare for a person to continue to hold a belief when confronted with evidence that shows something contrary. For example, a Creationist will attack and undermine scientific evidence for evolution in order to keep their beliefs. They would not be able to accept the scientific evidence and hold their Creationist beliefs since this would be a variation of Moore's paradox.
With that in mind, it seems as if science will never be able to replace religion since its truths are not self-evident; they are brought about via induction. However, what I consider to be the more crushing blow is that science cannot currently deal with concepts such as reality and therefore it relies on a number of assumptions (e.g., that we percieve reality in a non-distorted form). This now gives a believer more legitimate leeway to reject science in favour of religion. Science is easier to believe than religion for those who have not had religious experiences since its concepts are constantly demonstrated via our senses. For this reason, it may replace religion entirely. It certainly would not be the result of having a monopoly on truth.
__________________
|
|
#4
08-02-2006, 09:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, for some people it is easier to accept science over any religion. Still, science does not have answers to questions that many faiths do.
Surely the scientific community knows how my body works, how my brain retains its consciousness, how it sends thoughts and emotions and commands, but not what sparks that consciousness in the first place. Religion sure likes to fill in that blank. Now enter the String Theory (check it out on wikipedia), formed to explain more about our universe and how it works. It places this universe as one of many, and in these our laws of physics might not be the same. Some could take this as proof (well, as much as a theory can prove) of heaven, or of the otherworld, or of the astral plane. I'm learning to see that Science and Religion are not opposed. Though I am far from a scientist, I am learning to have respect for it, certainly for those who work to further it. So far, I haven't seen anything scientific that can outright disprove the things I believe or contemplate.
|
|
#5
08-02-2006, 09:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's the digital watch scenario...
When they first hit, they were ALL the rage! However, while they are still rather prevalent the really EXPENSIVE watches are still analog. Go figure! Man has always been amazed by techology. It's the drive that keeps it changing so quickly. But science has little bearing on our character or our heart. It doesn't meddle in those affairs and niether should it.
__________________
On sabbatical until things become fun again.
Reach me at NetDoc@ScubaBoard.com or on www.ScubaBoard.com.
|
|
#6
08-02-2006, 10:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in ancient times, when one was considered educated and when one went off to school only four things were taught
1.science 2.math 3.philosophy 4.
|
|
#7
08-02-2006, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
4. religion
the reason is because all of these subjects fit hand in glove with one another.
|
|
#8
08-02-2006, 02:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It has been the misunderstandings on both camps (theist and non-theist) that lead them to believe that they are after the same thing. If the day comes that Science is after finding the answer to why stealing is wrong, then we can firmly say that Science is after the same answers as Religion. But that isn't the case and they can function just fine side by side.
__________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
#9
08-02-2006, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi! :-)
As a Baha'i, I believe that science and religion are not only both important, but agree and dovetail very nicely! :-) Each is important, and each plays a different role: Science explains HOW. Religion explains WHO and WHY. Science without religion is gross materialism; religion without science is superstition and witch-burning. And the quickest way to get into trouble is to try to use either one in place of the other. Works well for us! :-) Best, Bruce
|
|
#10
08-02-2006, 02:45 PM
|
||||
|
