ForumsWEPRFuture of Religion

44 6980
WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Farmer

What do you think? How long will Christianity and Islam last before they get abandoned? Do you think other religions will replace them or that religion will slowly die out? Will there one day be a world without religion, will we stay on this kind of religions with more or less religious people, or will another kinds of religion, more modern come to exist?

-WHDH

  • 44 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,751 posts
Grand Duke

Also I think it unusual how some people think that somehow education and religion = cannot be. I don't see why a priest cannot be a general relativity scholar or why an atheist cannot be a theological scholar.

While looking up this topic on a blog, I realized it may be necessary to do a distinction between education and intelligence; as apparently both do not have the same impact on belief/disbelief. Here's what I found about this topic. Basically, intelligence is positively correlated with disbelief, while education may rather have an impact on the type of belief.

Funnily enough, the writer in a way confirms what I said about how we may move away from dogmatic centralized religions (see at the end of the blog post).

Either way, whether it has an influence on belief or not, I am all in favour of education. Even if it has little impact on disbelief, as long as educated people are less prone to stick to outdated and unrealistic dogmas, it is totally worth it (apart from all the other benefits of education, naturally).
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Peasant

In Burma post British colonization; students attended schools in Buddhist temples and were taught by monks, this tradition continues but it is not as strong because the British removed it as a law.

Many monks from Burma are now making their way to universities in the United States to earn degrees and and other sorts of education. Since colleges are the grounds of which many new thoughts appear this will probably have a large sway on how things go in the future.

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Farmer

HahiHa

Thanks for the replay and the.link

Harcokilly
offline
Harcokilly
26 posts
Peasant

As for me, I'd be glad to see religion on the same stage as bookreading clubs or ropeplay clubs. Nothing special, just social activity.
There is nothing in this world that should be worth killing someone else.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Also I think it unusual how some people think that somehow education and religion = cannot be.
This is probably because those particular people can't distinguish between zealous orthodox theists, such as those who take scripture very literally and generally ignore reality altogether, and modern deists, who can usually adapt their world view to fit the facts without discarding it altogether.

[...] not all because religion can always argue that science can't explain god which is logical
Which part are you saying is logical?
minecraftsniper
offline
minecraftsniper
703 posts
Constable

I saw an incredible man , actually a priest saying that religion shouldn't be taught or showned the way its nowdays , all the people have to go by themselves and not cause other people tell them to or because certain group of people think its the right thing , and also another woman said that since faith is believing without seeing , in which show she said that she wasnt a fool to belive such thing , i dont believe in god or any gods in religion matter , but saying what the woma nsaid was kinda rude , but since in the show they were pointing out facst about believing or not in religon its ok

Koshionos
offline
Koshionos
880 posts
Scribe

The future of mainstream Religions hinge on a few matters... but here are two I can think of:

Can it change with the times?
Many religious groups, under the name of God (or equivalent) have stifled scientific development, or have attempted to intervene with decisions that would help advance society, treating religious texts and doctrines as the truth and refusing to see the facts before their eyes or will twist facts to match their ideals. Ken Ham, here's looking at you...

But then you have those who help, those of whom have adapted their faith to changing times, just a few centuries ago with the great Isaac Newton, whom had sought to prove God through mathematics and science. In doing so, revolutionized Science and Math as we see it today. In recent times, we've seen religious organizations beginning to pull back their views on evolution, or on Homosexuality.

Can they work together?

A singular religion may never come to pass, so they must look at each other and say "I may not have your views on the Heavens, but we seek the same goal, peace."

They may never come to truly understand one another, and so conflict will continue until this acknowledged. Should wars, terrorism, and hatred proceed as they have, many will lose faith in what Religion has to offer. A sanctuary or bastion of hope can only go so far as long as they continue to fight.

Understanding and Adaptation, these two subjects are important for the continuation of faith in any form. If it fails to move in the right direction Religion as we view it today will become a seldom sight within about three to four hundred years, if not sooner. Eventually people stopped believing in Greek, Norse, and Roman Gods, who is to say that the same won't happen again?

These are my opinions on the future of Religion, and do not represent pure and true facts. Many will hold their own opinions on this matter, and, as a wise man once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought, without accepting it".

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Farmer

Which part are you saying is logical?

Well, I can find some logic here. If there was an all mighty being (which is impossible and illogical) which created all and there by logic wouldn't it be able to bend logic as it wish? So it could bend the work of regular laws and logic not to be true in his realm. If such a being exists or ever did.

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Peasant

Another thing I don't understand is how some people think God and Science = cannot be.

Seriously it's like chasing someone on a marry go round. Why is a divine entity that created the world be limited to only magical things. Why couldn't a divine entity have created DNA (which "they" did in the logic that there is a divine creator).

For argument sake lets say there is a Divine Creator. We will call him "Alpha".
Lets say "Alpha" had the knowledge to create "artificial" worlds and some how had the ability to create them. What is to stop Alpha from doing so? There is nothing to stop him from creating worlds.

Okay that may not have made a lot of sense for some people but that's okay. Let's use Halo as an example next.

In Halo there are "Forerunners" a race of beings that took it upon themselves to guard all life. They have the ability to destroy and make entire worlds through extremely advanced technology. They looked over entire systems and look at their progress and record them, if necessary they will also intervene if there is a great calamity on a world. The Forerunners are also capable of creating sentient Artificial Intelligence. This is all within reason, it is not magic, it is all possible through vast knowledge.

Before the "Forerunners" there is another race called the "Precursors". They are as you would expect more advanced than the Forerunners. They are able to do everything the Forerunners have done and also have the ability to change lifeforms as they so please and accelerate their evolution.

What being would be higher than the "Precursors"? Exactly.

Religion if anything has progressed humanity, the first constructs ever created by our ancestors were temples and other sacred sites. The Popes of old funded projects to create universities all across Europe (Oxford, University of Paris, Etc). Gandhi, Martin Luther, Father Georges Lemaître (Big Bang theory), Father Gregor Mendel (Genes and Evolution), the list goes on.

Has religion caused deadly tension in the past? Of course.
Has science caused deadly tension in the past? Yes it has, don't deny it. Look at the periodic table. How many people, how many terrorists look at the periodic table to create bombs?

We are not playing ring around the rosy. We are not here to go back and forth at each other saying religion did this or atheists did that.

I will restate the previous comment, saying stuff like this is just fuel for which radical zealots feed off of. All you're doing is calling one side stupid or blind or whatever.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,751 posts
Grand Duke

Another thing I don't understand is how some people think God and Science = cannot be.

Because so far science has been able to explain how nature works without ever having to resort to supernatural agents.

Of course it really depends on the deity considered. Most deities and creation myths conflict more or less directly with our knowledge, on the other hand we will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of some vague deity existing out of time and space.

Yes, there are and have been religious persons using the scientific method. The existence of a deity, while not assumed, is theoretically still possible. But the scientific method is incompatible with religious dogmas, which is essentially why many people discriminate between the two.

Before the "Forerunners" there is another race called the "Precursors".

Which is funny because 'precursor' is anglicized Latin (&quotraecursor") and means 'forerunner'.

What being would be higher than the "Precursors"? Exactly.

That is begging the question. Who says there must be an even higher being?

Has religion caused deadly tension in the past? Of course.
Has science caused deadly tension in the past? Yes it has, don't deny it. Look at the periodic table. How many people, how many terrorists look at the periodic table to create bombs?

That comparison is just plain wrong. Religion is an ideology and directly causes tensions, which is not the case of science (unless you count academic conflicts in XD ). Knowledge used to make a weapon is not the cause of the conflict itself, otherwise why make a weapon at all?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,867 posts
Viceroy

To sum it up, people don't look at the periodic table, locate nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and decide to make a bomb to blow things up.

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Farmer

How many people, how many terrorists look at the periodic table to create bombs?

Does bullet kill, or do people kill?

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Peasant

Has science caused deadly tension in the past? Yes it has, don't deny it. Look at the periodic table. How many people, how many terrorists look at the periodic table to create bombs?

Okay, some of you don't see the picture I'm trying to paint. Let me put it in another way.

Nazi scientist did experiments on live humans in terrible ways for science (more specifically the advancement of science). That doesn't make science in itself a bad thing though.

To make things even more clear, the Nazi scientist 'had' to do what they did for science to distinguish themselves, they put in long hours of dedication to their craft and they got titles for this and that, they had to read from textbooks (let me remind you that some things they tried to pull were illogical to start with), write notes, memorize, rewrite, share with others, and etc. Sounds familiar doesn't it? A divine entity does not need a group of followers (for arguments sake go with it), a divine entity does not need someone to do this or that. If you wanted to you can just have their symbol (many people wear crosses and are not religious) just because, you can learn about them just for fun.

It's not fair for religious people to always be pushed around. I always see an idiot zealot on youtube comments or whatever preaching this and that and then being bashed on by a thousand people and then looking at an authentic and well thought out response with the best interest in mind and still have it be bashed on because zealots don't know any better.

It hurts, it really does hurt to see a member of your group be bashed on when they're just being sincere, it hurts to see a member of your group be so wrong and alone and not have any means of helping them. Doesn't matter what group, what faction, it hurts and it's not fair.

I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is doing this, I'm just saying don't make that mistake.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,867 posts
Viceroy

Well, if Nazi medical experiments are really the only example to be thought of as science causing terror-like harm, then the case against it isn't strong. These scientists did it no more for science than anyone else. They did it because of their racial theories, or their sadistic whims, or their power-hungry tendencies.

It isn't unfair in any way that scientists who carry out such monstrous things are fettered whilst religious people who do the same are vilified, because the former were recognised only by their equally brutal sponsors. You hardly hear a sane voice in their favour these days.
-------------

I don't see it that way. The future of religion will be, and already is a bumpy and rough one simply because increasing number of people have opened their eyes to the rubbish that organised religion has shoveled down their throats for years, coupled with real discrimination. There is going to be anger and vitriol.

Is it fair for individual members of religion to be targeted and bullied? No to bullying, but criticism? Yes. Is it fair to make religion the target of mockery, satire and disdain? Yes.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

If there was an all mighty being (which is impossible and illogical) which created all and there by logic wouldn't it be able to bend logic as it wish? So it could bend the work of regular laws and logic not to be true in his realm.
Well, no, it wouldn't. Logic is not something which needs to be "created" at all, so your argument is circular. There is no un-logic for the un-universe to have as its default. X doesn't need to be made to equal X, because there is no alternative to X = X.
Furthermore, your premise is clearly self-refuting. "If there was an all mighty being, which is impossible" doesn't work, because the very meaning of "impossible" is that there is no such "if".

Why is a divine entity that created the world be limited to only magical things.
Well, what else would you call things related to a "divine entity" who goes around creating all these things from nothing through inexplicable means? I certainly wouldn't call it science.

For argument sake lets say there is a Divine Creator. We will call him "Alpha".
Lets say "Alpha" had the knowledge to create "artificial" worlds and some how had the ability to create them. What is to stop Alpha from doing so? There is nothing to stop him from creating worlds.
That's right ... PROVIDED that he already exists.
Now, let's consider, still for argument sake of course, that there is not a divine creator of any kind. This absence we will refer to as "Nobody".
Let's say that Nobody had the knowledge or ability to create "artificial" worlds. What is to stop Nobody from doing so? There is nothing to prevent the outcome that Nobody creates worlds.

In Halo there are "Forerunners" a race of beings that took it upon themselves to guard all life. They have the ability to destroy and make entire worlds through extremely advanced technology. They looked over entire systems and look at their progress and record them, if necessary they will also intervene if there is a great calamity on a world. The Forerunners are also capable of creating sentient Artificial Intelligence. This is all within reason, it is not magic, it is all possible through vast knowledge.
So, according to your analogy, God is not a divine entity solely responsible for the creation of everything, but a very advanced form of otherwise ordinary life? Okay, sure, but that isn't a valid reason to assume that He exists. Nor, for that matter, is anything else. Therefore, He is unscientific.

Before the "Forerunners" there is another race called the "Precursors". They are as you would expect more advanced than the Forerunners. They are able to do everything the Forerunners have done and also have the ability to change lifeforms as they so please and accelerate their evolution.
That's just piling on more degrees of abstraction to an already needlesly complicated scenario.

What being would be higher than the "Precursors"?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzowivR48S1qaqps8o1_500.jpg
?

[...] the first constructs ever created by our ancestors were temples and other sacred sites.
If we just pretend for now that that's not completely wrong: So? What does temple-building have to do with the progression of the species?

The Popes of old funded projects to create universities all across Europe (Oxford, University of Paris, Etc).
And brutally suppressed any and all ideas which challenged the orthodox views of the church.

Has science caused deadly tension in the past? Yes it has, don't deny it. Look at the periodic table. How many people, how many terrorists look at the periodic table to create bombs?
How is that in any way a fault of science? The periodic table is entirely neutral. Or are you suggesting that facts about potentially harmful things are inherently evil?

A divine entity does not need a group of followers (for arguments sake go with it), a divine entity does not need someone to do this or that. If you wanted to you can just have their symbol (many people wear crosses and are not religious) just because, you can learn about them just for fun.
The best kind of divine entity will always be the one that doesn't require anyone's belief, but God isn't one of those, or else He's horribly horribly misrepresented by the vast majority of His followers. Anything that is expected to be accepted fully without question will never be scientific, because questioning our ideas is exactly what science is all about.
Showing 16-30 of 44