Will science ever replace religion?

by onacruse 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Phantom Stranger

  OK, derek, let me try this again: I was asked the answer to a question. The question was "will science replace religion?".

  The question I answered was "will science replace religion for society at large?". I stipulate that some individuals already have made science their religion, but that it is not a widespread position for people across the world, or even in the Western hemisphere - and I know that Craig knows that, hence the above interpretation of Craig's question.

  So if you think I was telling you the reasons that science wouldn't replace religion for me personally, you're mistaken. My personal views on religion are not relevant to the question above. I was telling you the reasons that I don't think science will replace religion for society at large. And that was not a straw-man argument - that is my personal position on the question regarding society at large. As I've said several times, I'm not religious.

  If I've still not communicated clearly, please PM me, thanks.
• 

  metatron

  The Japanese have spent billions trying to develop artificial intelligence and failed. As the editor of Red Herring

  magazine noted, this shows that the mind/brain cannot be reduced to any simple set of rules. Thus, it appears that

  as Derek notes, you get enough neurons together and poof! consciousness arises a la Heinlein in The Moon is a Harsh

  Mistress.

  Think about this for a second......... You take a primary mechanism like a neuron and put enough of 'em together

  and consciousness somehow emerges! How much of a leap is it to think that other living mechanisms can act together

  to unexpectedly create a form of consciousness that simply 'emerges'! - like ants, trees, flowers, - and yes, perhaps even

  structures of geology. Throw in some non-local quantum effects like entanglement and what do you find?

  God .... everywhere .... in everything .... part of everything .... part of you and me.

  Welcome to the oldest religion of all - pantheism, the theology of Einstein and Spinoza.

  metatron
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  don't forget buddhism, metatron.

  (But some logic-chopper will come along and point out that the Japanese failing to develop AI doesn not "prove" anything... I understand your point, and at the same time I treat the number-of-neural-connections theory as interesting but probably too simple. Microscopic organisms attempt to leave unhealthy environments... they have few neural connections... are they conscious? Hmm... another question not within the purview of hairless monkeys sitting at typewriters connected to the internet... but fun to bring up:)
• 

  Elsewhere

  Don't forget Elsewhere! Elsewhere is everywhere... therefore I am Gawd!
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Elsewhere, we've gone over this before...it's ELVIS that's everywhere.
• 

  onacruse

  William James offers some excellent perspectives on this issue, especially in his Pragmatism. For example, from lecture 6 ("Pragmatism's Conception of Truth"):

  Schiller says the true is that which 'works.' Thereupon he is treated as one who limits verification to the lowest material utilities. Dewey says truth is what gives 'satisfaction.' He is treated as one who believes in calling everything true, which, if it were true, would be pleasant.

  Our critics certainly need more imagination of realities. I have honestly tried to stretch my own imagination and to read the best possible meaning into the rationalist conception, but I have to confess that it still completely baffles me. The notion of a reality calling on us to 'agree' with it, and that for no reasons, but simply because its claim is 'unconditional' or 'transcendent,' is one that I can make neither head nor tail of.

  This reflects the idea of "functionality of religion." In Religion in Sociological Perspective (Keith Roberts), observes:

  Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown granted that religion may serve some individual function, but the most important functions of religion are structural...Does religion alleviate anxiety about death, or does it create anxiety about death in order to assure social conformity?

  I would say that "religion" will be with us as long as "we" are here...it's simply another way of social interaction, damn it as we may.

  Craig
• 

  one

  At this point all i can say is that at least religion is an un-intentional cover up for ignorance.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Whoa, whoa, whoa, metatron.

  The Japanese have spent billions trying to develop artificial intelligence and failed. As the editor of Red Herring magazine noted, this shows that the mind/brain cannot be reduced to any simple set of rules.

  What? Do I read you right? Because the Japanese have failed to create artificial intellegence, this shows that the mind/brain cannot be reduced to any simple set of rules? That's quite a leap, don't you think? Scientists have spent years struggling to understand many things, but their failure to find solutions does not indicate anything except that they have not yet found the solution.

  It sounds like you're really trying to show that the brain does not work in a purely mechanistic way, but lack of evidence that it does work that way does not construe evidence that it does not. It simply means there is not yet enough evidence either way. I think that drawing conclusions as above sets yourself up for failure when answers are found.

  SNG
• 

  JCanon

  Will "science" replace religion is a circular question, because of what some consider "science".

  For instance, astronomy is science. Per the Bible I discovered a discrepancy in the chronology during the NB and Persian Periods and began to investigate it, looking at various things including ancient pagan historical sources, archaeology and ancient astronomy. The result was that with the science of computers, complex astronomical calculations for past events are now available to everyone with a computer if they want. The result was I was able to check astronomically the ancient referenes in the VAT4956 and discovered, eventually, that it double-dates the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE as well as 568BCE. MEANING....the Persians indeed revised their chronology and were trying to hide a reference to the original chronology, which was 511BCE. As a result, SCIENCE improved upon religion since it confirmed the Bible's timeline precisely for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. That is, the Bible inserts an interval between the time Jerusalem began to be rebuilt in the 1st of Cyrus and the baptism of the Messiah to 483 years, dating the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy in 455BCE which matches the 1st of Cyrus when the Jews began to rebuild. Josephus and the Bible confirm that originally there were 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus, dated to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar in 525BCE. That dating also dates year 37 in 511BCE. That that was the original dating is now directly confirmed by the VAT4956.

  So will SCIENCE replace religion? It depends on what you use science for. In this case, it improved religion. Astronomy and Bible chronology are very compatible!!!

  JC
• 

  metatron

  Whoa, whoa, whoa, my butt!

  This conclusion was reached, not by me alone, but in a full page editorial in Red Herring magazine a couple years back,

  nor is it the only analysis of the mind that has rejected a purely mechanistic explanation. I hear lots of talk about

  autonomic software while other scientists complain that robots can't be made to have common sense. I love that word

  "emergent" - and what it conceals.

  It amazes me that science has gotten this far without a mass awakening about the limits of reductionism. Celera admits

  that the human genome is "not a blueprint" while others continue to "find" genes for everything from musical appreciation

  to being gay ( and this increases evolutionary survival a la Darwin?). It's getting silly. I have yet to read any explanation

  of what ordering mechanism directs the differentiation of DNA code - since the code is the same in all organs

  what SUPERIOR force directs the differentiation?

  Want more? Scientists who sell books about fancy string theory with 11 dimensions - that no one can ever demonstrate.

  metatron