NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think?

I personally think as humans get smarter and science advances more, we put behind this huge f'ing scam called religion.

Agreed. We're old enough to no longer need churches or priests. I think they've outstayed their welcome, really.

I personally think we should become militant against religion. It won't happen anytime soon but it's wishful thinking.

Religion is the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen, it's time it was stopped by force or through education.

more educated people tend to be less religious. I expect the trend to continue.

What do we do when religion is eradicate, we dismantle our militant antireligion facilities, and then all of a sudden someone starts a new religion?

As humanity becomes more advanced, I feel that we should become more tolerant of each other's beliefs, and not run around like some middle-ages priest yelling that other peoples beliefs are wrong and that your own mode of belief is the only way to go.

Oh my god you're an ignorant prick.

What do we do when religion is eradicate, we dismantle our militant antireligion facilities, and then all of a sudden someone starts a new religion?

Don't want to sound Authoritarian, but a sort of secret police or some sort of force to make sure this never happens again.

agreed for science, since one of the reasons for religious faith is the lack of knowlegde of how the world is made. However, we are not getting smarter, just more educated.

As humanity becomes more advanced, I feel that we should become more tolerant of each other's beliefs, and not run around like some middle-ages priest yelling that other peoples beliefs are wrong and that your own mode of belief is the only way to go.
I agree.

Less religious? Maybe.
Less fanatical? Dosen't look like it ;)

I said yes, but I'm not convinced that humans, on the whole, are getting more intelligent. Not much anyway.

What do you think?

I personally think as humans get smarter and science advances more, we put behind this huge f'ing scam called religion.

The more I hear this, the more I bust out laughing at the people who say it.

It is only in recent human history that science and religion have actually been separate, and that's the fault of the Catholic Church (who, ironically, actually backed scientific advancement in order to make themselves seem superior for quite a long time). If religion were the enemy of science, the Egyptians wouldn't have practiced brain surgery (possibly the oldest type of surgery on Earth) or built the pyramids.

One thing you keep forgetting is that religion is the original science. It was merely a method of explaining what they found and experienced with the evidence they had. Humanity is what corrupted it, like how humanity later corrupted science to build the atomic bomb and create chemical compounds and biological agents that can be used for mass destruction. The solution is also the problem, as humanity's continued advancement always causes it to corrupt what it creates.

Also, if you want to be rid of religion, you also have to be rid of science. Why? Because a good arguement for it being a religion can be presented, though I do not want to do so at this time.

The more I hear this, the more I bust out laughing at the people who say it.

It is only in recent human history that science and religion have actually been separate, and that's the fault of the Catholic Church (who, ironically, actually backed scientific advancement in order to make themselves seem superior for quite a long time). If religion were the enemy of science, the Egyptians wouldn't have practiced brain surgery (possibly the oldest type of surgery on Earth) or built the pyramids.

One thing you keep forgetting is that religion is the original science. It was merely a method of explaining what they found and experienced with the evidence they had. Humanity is what corrupted it, like how humanity later corrupted science to build the atomic bomb and create chemical compounds and biological agents that can be used for mass destruction. The solution is also the problem, as humanity's continued advancement always causes it to corrupt what it creates.

Also, if you want to be rid of religion, you also have to be rid of science. Why? Because a good arguement for it being a religion can be presented, though I do not want to do so at this time.

Who in the world said Religion was the enemy of science? Did you miscomprehend my post?

When did we get smarter? I hardly think that happened.

Just now, some of the whack jobs who used to run arounf prosletyzing religion have a new set of fairy tales to annoy people with. (Usually involving utopian societies).

One thing you keep forgetting is that religion is the original science. It was merely a method of explaining what they found and experienced with the evidence they had.

Good point.

Also, if you want to be rid of religion, you also have to be rid of science. Why?

Bad point.

How does it follow that with the demise of religion, science would die too? I don't see the logic of that.

Who in the world said Religion was the enemy of science? Did you miscomprehend my post?

Nope. Let me quote you:

we put behind this huge f'ing scam called religion.

If you did not intend that interpretation, don't write it that way.

Bad point.

How does it follow that with the demise of religion, science would die too? I don't see the logic of that.

Try quoting the whole paragraph instead of just part. Anyone who reads the post can tell you why that challenge was answered before it was given.

Don't want to sound Authoritarian, but a sort of secret police or some sort of force to make sure this never happens again.

Perhaps, but after a few generations people may not really understand what religion is, so they won't really know it when they see it.

There is a direct corrolation observed between quality of education and religious faith.

Nah.

I feel that it will work both ways - humans in general will become less religious, but there will still be militant groups on both sides

we aint gettin' smarter
we arent even as smart as our pre-literate ancestors were

as we get more educated in science, our religious beliefs will become more sophisticated, especially as it relates to our understanding of the physical world. (so we no longer need to believe that sickness is a punishment from the gods)

religion was started as a way to explain the unnatural. When the cavemen saw rain they thought the easiest way to explain was a man in the clouds. When they saw fire they presumed it was another god. As time goes by humans understand more and more and therefore religion will be needed less and less. But there will always be some need for a religion. There will always be the one question we can not answer with just science.

What happens after death?
therefore some type of religion will always be around.

Don't want to sound Authoritarian, but a sort of secret police or some sort of force to make sure this never happens again.
Well you. You are infringing upon an individuals right to believe what they want to. You are in effect, controlling an individual's thoughts.

Just as the Inquisition, the Nazis, the Stalinists and the The Maoists, you are attempting to force your beliefs down others throats. And in your attempts to do so, you are just as evil as any of them.

And do you stop at religion, once you have the power to force people to believe your ideology? Do you demand that they believe your social values? Do you demand that they vote for the same candidate as you? Or, seeing as you know so much better than they, do you just plain remove the right to vote?

Your proposal goes against the very grain of liberty.

One thing you keep forgetting is that religion is the original science. It was merely a method of explaining what they found and experienced with the evidence they had. Humanity is what corrupted it, like how humanity later corrupted science to build the atomic bomb and create chemical compounds and biological agents that can be used for mass destruction. The solution is also the problem, as humanity's continued advancement always causes it to corrupt what it creates.
not true. science is by nature, fluid, religion is not.

if anything philosophy was the original science. they tried to explain things further than "god did it"

Science will kill religion as people realize how the world and universe works. We are already on the path towards a non-religious world. Remember, about 500 years ago, EVERYONE had a religion. Nowadays, only half believe that there is a religion. And of that half, a large portion of them believe religion is more of a way of lifestyle than blind faith in a God(e.g. buddhism).

Another good example would be comparing industrialized/educated nations versus uneducated countries. I'm sure that as a nation gets more educated, the less they are to believe in a religion.

Once everyone in the world gets smarter, they'll realize religion has served its purpose, and is no longer needed in the world.

Black holes, gamma rays, 11 dimensions something in the universe composed of "dark matter" 14 times stonger than all the energy in the universe combined. Physics is getting more and more far out. In the end, we will separate and what we will believe in will become more intense. It takes humility to be overwhelmed by glory. As long as you think you know it all, you will never know. As for me my relationship with God is getting more and more intense.

not true. science is by nature, fluid, religion is not.

if anything philosophy was the original science. they tried to explain things further than "god did it"

Actually, that is wrong. If you examined more than just three religions, or even actually examined those three far more than just their current incarnations, you would realize that religions change and mutate over time. Today we have Wicca, Satanism, Druidism, Buddhism, and quite a few others that are purposefully designed to be adaptive and be able to last despite what science does. And there is also the question of whether or not science is a religion, as it requires just as much faith these days as the Bible does, and that's comming from someone who is behind science.

Science will kill religion as people realize how the world and universe works. We are already on the path towards a non-religious world. Remember, about 500 years ago, EVERYONE had a religion. Nowadays, only half believe that there is a religion. And of that half, a large portion of them believe religion is more of a way of lifestyle than blind faith in a God(e.g. buddhism).

1) Try over 95% of humanity.
2) Religion as a lifestyle is not a new issue, and there are religions specifically designed to be mutative and adaptive to match the modern era. They'll survive long after my own religious beliefs are talked about in the past tense.

Another good example would be comparing industrialized/educated nations versus uneducated countries. I'm sure that as a nation gets more educated, the less they are to believe in a religion.

The only highly advanced country without religious beliefs in most of the population is Japan, and I'm not even sure how accurate that is. The US is firmly in the grip of Christianity, though Islam and the Neo Pagan religions are beginning to lesson that grip, while the rest of the "civilized" world is also dominated by religion, with Christianity being the top and Islam and Buddhism being a close second.

Once everyone in the world gets smarter, they'll realize religion has served its purpose, and is no longer needed in the world.

Science has a problem of running across more and more things it has trouble explaining, and the fact it can't actually say it has proved anything. All we have is information from a local area and no proof that most of it is homogenous of this galaxy, let alone the entire universe. And as long as we remain on a single planet, the fact science cannot say for sure it has actually proved anything will continue to haunt it.

We're not smarter; less ignorant as a whole, yes, but not more intelligent.

I keep thinking this guys a troll. I mean, come on. "Secret police"? :rolleyes:

I think the reason for the steady increase in professed agnostic and atheist beliefs is because people are slowly beginning to see the irrelevance of organized religion. Science and technological advances probably plays a major part in this. I don't see the two as mutaully exclusive however. I think there is a place for spirituality apart from organized religion. I don't think that any of the major religions truly understand the fabric or plan of the cosmos or reality and the patriarcal God model is a joke. But I do believe there is some sort of master plan or unifying force, we just lack the capacity to understand or percieve it.

Perhaps science and technology will some day change this. Maybe they won't and the answer is something inside of us that we have not yet matured enough to understand. It's the unknowing that fuels religion, to become secure and calm in ones uncertainty in the face of the universe makes it obsolete.

There will always be the ignorant to balance out the advances of science

The way I see it, there'll always be a place for religion, although I do agree the number of religious people will continue to decline. In the very distant past, the devoutly religious portion of a society was very small. Although the form differered from culture to culture, shamans are the best example I can think of. Shamans were people who worshiped the supernatural as individuals (as opposed to priests, who are servants of a community). Shamans were respected but existed on the fringes of society - mainly because no one understood them. The Shamans considered the others to be "hard-headed hunters".

I say that the world hasn't changed much. We still have a small amount of devoutly religous people. I'm referring to mystics, honest priests, druids, shamans (apparently they still exist in Siberia), and simply exceptional people. People who take their faith to be more than going to church and giving to the poor. We also continue to have "hard-headed hunters". Only the prey's changed. Our ancestors hunted meat. Now we hunt other things: money, pleasure, knowledge, scientific laws, the list goes on. The effect of religion on society will always ebb and flow, but I sincerely doubt we'll ever grow out of it. That is, at least without leaving something very vital and special behind us.

This is subjective to what your views of religion is. For Christians, the farther we are from animals, the less faithful we are. For others, technological advancement is getting closer to who created us, thus we in a way become more faithful. Others are more impartial to technological advance, where it will become a tool, an addition to the Spiritual, they are neither opposed, nor do they search for it with fervor.

For Christians, the farther we are from animals, the less faithful we are.

Eh?

I've said before that Faith is a spiritual dead-end, and I'll say it again. Except now I don't need to, 'cause I just did. There. At the top of the post.

Doubt with a capital 'D' will get you much farther, will help you get smarter, and in questioning the world around you, will bring you closer to God/the Gods/the Goddess/etc. than kneeling and reading some dusty old book in a drafty old church, having Faith that God has everything worked out ahead of time, and we're just here alternating between killing time and sucking up to Him/Them/Her.

I've said before that Faith is a spiritual dead-end, and I'll say it again. Except now I don't need to, 'cause I just did. There. At the top of the post.

Doubt with a capital 'D' will get you much farther, will help you get smarter, and in questioning the world around you, will bring you closer to God/the Gods/the Goddess/etc. than kneeling and reading some dusty old book in a drafty old church, having Faith that God has everything worked out ahead of time, and we're just here alternating between killing time and sucking up to Him/Them/Her.

You're making a big assumption about faith. A large part of spirituality is examining and contemplating the world around you. And religion isn't "sucking up to Him/Them/Her".

Eh?

Don't take the bait.

Don't take the bait.

But I'm so confused...

You're making a big assumption about faith. A large part of spirituality is examining and contemplating the world around you. And religion isn't "sucking up to Him/Them/Her".

While a large part spirituality may indeed be examination and contemplation of the world around you, the biggest part of organized religion is hollow ritual, followed by dogma. The rest is sycophancy.

God doesn't need to be constantly reassured of your gratefulness. Let God sleep in for once. Signal your devotion that way sometime instead.

Actually, that is wrong. If you examined more than just three religions, or even actually examined those three far more than just their current incarnations, you would realize that religions change and mutate over time. Today we have Wicca, Satanism, Druidism, Buddhism, and quite a few others that are purposefully designed to be adaptive and be able to last despite what science does. And there is also the question of whether or not science is a religion, as it requires just as much faith these days as the Bible does, and that's comming from someone who is behind science.



1) Try over 95% of humanity.
2) Religion as a lifestyle is not a new issue, and there are religions specifically designed to be mutative and adaptive to match the modern era. They'll survive long after my own religious beliefs are talked about in the past tense.



The only highly advanced country without religious beliefs in most of the population is Japan, and I'm not even sure how accurate that is. The US is firmly in the grip of Christianity, though Islam and the Neo Pagan religions are beginning to lesson that grip, while the rest of the "civilized" world is also dominated by religion, with Christianity being the top and Islam and Buddhism being a close second.



Science has a problem of running across more and more things it has trouble explaining, and the fact it can't actually say it has proved anything. All we have is information from a local area and no proof that most of it is homogenous of this galaxy, let alone the entire universe. And as long as we remain on a single planet, the fact science cannot say for sure it has actually proved anything will continue to haunt it.


And so you are telling me that it is better to sit there and think "OH, God must have created it."? The fact that we know so little about the universe is what strives us to find an answer for it. Believing in some fairy tale about some crazy omnipowerful being is stupid. It'd be funny if someday, we encounter intelligent life on another planet. Then we'd have those crazy religious nuts from Earth running over there trying to explain to them how a human god is their savior.

Actually, I should change my stance to "Religions that rely on a God will die away."

While a large part spirituality may indeed be examination and contemplation of the world around you, the biggest part of organized religion is hollow ritual, followed by dogma. The rest is sycophancy.


Hey man, you're entitled to your opinion and everything, but I don't think you're totally understanding the ideas of ritual and dogma. These are the trappings and fine print of the process. Ritual is built upon belief, not the other way around. Did you read my previous post on the devoutly religious? I'm quite sure that many (perhaps the majority?) of Christians believe as you think they do - but that's not really religion. It's half-assed religion.

As a side note, this forum isn't necessarily regarding the Christian religion or organized religion. It's just about faith, and your posts seem very focused on Christianity.

God doesn't need to be constantly reassured of your gratefulness. Let God sleep in for once. Signal your devotion that way sometime instead.

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

think about it. the more we learn about things and the science of it all, it becomes less likely that god ever existed in the first place. there is no proof or logic. in the bible it says god created the earth and place 2 of every animal on it. wrong. the earth to thousands of years to be made or liveble on and even then there were no real animals. and there were dinosaurs, they aren't in the bible.

think about it. the more we learn about things and the science of it all, it becomes less likely that god ever existed in the first place. there is no proof or logic. in the bible it says god created the earth and place 2 of every animal on it. wrong. the earth to thousands of years to be made or liveble on and even then there were no real animals. and there were dinosaurs, they aren't in the bible.

Why is religion suddenly the bible and nothing but the bible? It's not even literal! It's just a collection of stories and parables! The friggin' Pope himself has stated that the creation stories aren't literally true. Only the shallow and ignorant will take the bible as proof of God's non-existance.

And so you are telling me that it is better to sit there and think "OH, God must have created it."? The fact that we know so little about the universe is what strives us to find an answer for it. Believing in some fairy tale about some crazy omnipowerful being is stupid. It'd be funny if someday, we encounter intelligent life on another planet. Then we'd have those crazy religious nuts from Earth running over there trying to explain to them how a human god is their savior.

Actually, I'm pointing out why religion will remain for the forseeable future: Science has severe handicaps it needs to overcome first. Once those are overcome, then religion will probably begin to die out. I was also correcting a few misconceptions included in the post I was replying to. Religion is far from losing its hold on humanity.

Actually, I should change my stance to "Religions that rely on a God will die away."

That's more what I'm thinking. As science advances, people will only just create new, more adaptive religions to replace the ones they lost. Humanity and religious belief seem to go hand-in-hand.

will only just create new, more adaptive religions to replace the ones they lost. Humanity and religious belief seem to go hand-in-hand.

Sounds good to me! Have you read Fading Suns?

think about it. the more we learn about things and the science of it all, it becomes less likely that god ever existed in the first place. there is no proof or logic. in the bible it says god created the earth and place 2 of every animal on it. wrong. the earth to thousands of years to be made or liveble on and even then there were no real animals. and there were dinosaurs, they aren't in the bible.

I think you're confusing the earth with the ark, toots.

Sounds good to me! Have you read Fading Suns?

Nope. Never got the chance.

The world will become less religious.

Not less faithful.

In fact, most religions case you to lose faith in order to become a part of it.

Added: What's Fading Suns?

I said yes, but I'm not convinced that humans, on the whole, are getting more intelligent. Not much anyway.

I agree and the worrying thing about it is that humans are only going to get less intelligent in the areas of scientific development and more "intelligent" in areas of being cool, and attracting the right guy/girl. Lets not forget fertility too, only the most fertile will breed and succeed all of us.

Nope. Never got the chance.

Eh. No big deal. It's an RPG setting in the far future. The idea is that Humanity's basically the same. The rich are still rich, the clergy are still preaching, and the poor still complain. Humans have basically gone to war with every alien race they've encountered, and have splintered off into factions after a very large civil war.

I brought it up because religion is a lot like what you speculated. It changed to the new society. A new Jesus came along, simply called "The Prophet" and essentially united all faiths under one banner. And with humanity's greater understanding of science, religous works became more understood. The ability to work miricles became a sort of quasi-psychic ability, and differed person to person. An inquisitor would be able to supernaturally tell if someone was lying, while a healer could personally close wounds or let a struggling crop field prosper even without enough sunlight or water. I dunno, it just popped in my head for a minute there.

more educated people tend to be less religious. I expect the trend to continue.

I must disagree with you as I have some highly gifted friends, (at least in book smarts) who are extreamly religious.

religion was started as a way to explain the unnatural. When the cavemen saw rain they thought the easiest way to explain was a man in the clouds. When they saw fire they presumed it was another god. As time goes by humans understand more and more and therefore religion will be needed less and less. But there will always be some need for a religion. There will always be the one question we can not answer with just science.

What happens after death?
therefore some type of religion will always be around.

I was going to post something to this effect, but you got it. Religion began as a way to explain the unknown, and so long as we don't know major things, religion will exist. Then, of course, there's the willful ignorance of some, who'll extend its lifespan a bit more.

I doubt it. Humanity has always used religion as a for of comfort because we don't know what is keeping us alive, and we have no idea who created the universe.

Unless we can explain why we are here and how we got here, we will always look to some form of higher entity for everything we can't explain.

Firstly, I see very little evidence for your original hypothesis that "humans get smarter in the course of time".

I suspect you mean better educated, and that the sum total of what is known will increase, and they are both valid points.

Overall, I believe that this may have some minor impact on the belief in religions.

But, in general, I believe that people turn to religion for emotional reasons, rather than intellectual ones.

What do you think?

I personally think as humans get smarter and science advances more, we put behind this huge f'ing scam called religion.

What we now call "science" has been around for thousands and thousands of years, and science cannot directly counter the most long-standing arguments of religion. I'm sure they thought major discoveries (such as the earth being round and part of a solar system, not the centre etc) would have dealt a fatal blow to religion (hence why those people were often killed for proposing new ideas) - but it hasn't at all. Scientific explanations can only highlight the inconsistencies and lies in organised religion, but it cannot make people abandon religious thinking. Notice how many people regard themselves as "christian" and yet their only link to christians is believing in Jesus and God, while accepting the Bible is nonsense. So they've ignored the central text that is used as proof of god and his teaching, and yet still believe in the concept.

Trying to convince someone science has the answer for questions religion asks is not the correct approach, especially given that both disciplines approach the world from a different perspective. To have any debate about religion, it has to be approached from a perspective and manner of argument that makes sense in the religion "world". People have to realise the limitations of what humans are capable of (mentally and physically, although they are essentially the same thing). Philosophy and especially anthropology are far more effective are questioning aspects of religious belief, because they deal with human thought and assumption (especially a belief in our own superiority). You have to realise that religion, as it has, will simply adapt to new scientific beliefs - for example how it got around the "big bang" and "evolution" without so much as a dent

In contrast religion cannot exactly explain away its massive focus on subjective human values that a so-called all-knowing being proposed specially for us given his infinite knowledge of everything. Nor can it escape its own anthropocentric nature, contradictions and arrogance.

Also, human will not get smarter, at least not via any evolutionary mechanisms. People can be less ignorant or better exploit the intelligence we already have, but there is no selective pressure on brain enlargement anymore. And even if there was, the world would be unimaginably different by the time and real difference in intelligence could be observed (if we are even still around). I'd also cast into doubt the assumption that the average person is less ignorant these days - sure they know about all kinds of concepts and discoveries but they don't have a clue what these concepts REALLY say other than a 2 minute story on the news or tabloid explanation. A perfect example of this is the rebranding of racist terminology as "ethnic" throughout government and legislation of the world. The anthropological concept of "ethnicity" is not based on subjective judgments about skin colour etc, and yet when you kill in government surveys they ask for your "ethnic background" before asking you to give effective skin colour. I also see the irony is black men heading "racial equality" organisations or government departments in the UK, when the whole point is that "race" is a discredited concept and yet by blending race and ethinicity in the public domain, without anyone really understanding what the fuck these concepts really refered to, means that ignorance and confusion about the subject is the same as it always has been.

Science has a problem of running across more and more things it has trouble explaining, and the fact it can't actually say it has proved anything. All we have is information from a local area and no proof that most of it is homogenous of this galaxy, let alone the entire universe. And as long as we remain on a single planet, the fact science cannot say for sure it has actually proved anything will continue to haunt it.

No, it doesn't.

The nature of science is that all of its theories are open to be proven wrong. It's not a handicap that scientists don't "prove" anything - it's an asset that advances our knowledge of the world. The only reason religion can say it's "proven" anything is because it declares things, then declares that its decrees are infallible. I'd hardly call that valid proof. Of course there will always be things we don't know...facing that fact and addressing those things as we come to them is clearly better than sitting in a dark and saying, "God did it." Science has numbers, values, evidence, samples, models, and millions of ideas that are fallible, yet remain. Religion has dogma, guesswork, and faith, all products of the human mind. I'll stick with the practice which deals in hard evidence, myself.

I must disagree with you as I have some highly gifted friends, (at least in book smarts) who are extreamly religious.

Belief is, indeed, independent of intelligence...this is recognized by modern psychology.

As we become smarter we no longer need to rely on made up stories to explain things we once couldn't understand.

Firstly, I see very little evidence for your original hypothesis that "humans get smarter in the course of time".

Well, one could hypothesize that with more information being presented thoughout the modern era, brains have "beefed up" more, so to speak. It's advised, for example, that Alzheimers patients be kept busy on mental tasks...puzzles, reading, whatever...so their disease does not worsen. I recall that this is being suggested for the elderly in general these days, so as to keep their wits sharp. So, perhaps more learning would develop more intellectual capacity over one's life. Just musings...not evidence.

But, in general, I believe that people turn to religion for emotional reasons, rather than intellectual ones.

Indeed.

No, it doesn't.

The nature of science is that all of its theories are open to be proven wrong. It's not a handicap that scientists don't "prove" anything - it's an asset that advances our knowledge of the world. The only reason religion can say it's "proven" anything is because it declares things, then declares that its decrees are infallible. I'd hardly call that valid proof. Of course there will always be things we don't know...facing that fact and addressing those things as we come to them is clearly better than sitting in a dark and saying, "God did it." Science has numbers, values, evidence, samples, models, and millions of ideas that are fallible, yet remain. Religion has dogma, guesswork, and faith, all products of the human mind. I'll stick with the practice which deals in hard evidence, myself.

You forget: Science also involves dogma, guesswork, and faith. A lot of the new stuff it comes up with anymore amounts to crap with little to no evidence behind it beyond a mathematical model that may be completely wrong and hopes you'll accept it without question. You want an example? Try finding proof that the Big Bang is caused by this universe and another colliding in a repetitive and eternally consistant pattern.

My point, which you so obviously missed, is that science has a limitation that religion does not. Science's constant focus on facts makes it unable to come up with answers most of the time and the few times it does there are questions if the answers work anywhere beyond the local area. Do we have proof Einstein's Theory of Relativity works beyond what amount of space we know? Nope. Hell, most of what we have about the universe is based on a few pictures, conjecture, and assumptions. We don't even have evidence the rules of phyics, as we know them, actually apply outside this galaxy or even if they apply throughout the galaxy beyond our assumptions that they do.

As staggering as scientific advance appears, when you look at the bigger picture it suddenly becomes clear that what few secrets we have pried loose from the surrounding universe are laughable. We've not even begun this journey and yet, like many religions, we're already making assumptions about how things work without enough evidence to back it up.

The one reason science's inability to say it has the answers will haunt it for the following centuries is the fact religion will merely say it does and step in to provide them whether or not the answers are accurate. The lure of science and the lure of religion have always been the same: People have questions and want answers as soon as they can get them. The difference is that religion has its answers now, while science will take millenia to get anywhere near having its first that doesn't come with attached questions.

Firstly, I see very little evidence for your original hypothesis that "humans get smarter in the course of time".

I suspect you mean better educated, and that the sum total of what is known will increase, and they are both valid points.

Overall, I believe that this may have some minor impact on the belief in religions.

But, in general, I believe that people turn to religion for emotional reasons, rather than intellectual ones.

Tell that to creationist.

Tell that to creationist.

And what makes creationists good theologists? You can't just address the worst demographic of a specific religion and assume it applies to the whole thing. The Pope himself says that the creation stories are myths, and evolution and creation can both coexist. There's more to religion than religous conservatives.

What do you think?

I personally think as humans get smarter and science advances more, we put behind this huge f'ing scam called religion.

You are not helping either side. And your f'ing spelling is insulting.

People aren't getting smarter, they may be getting more correct, but not smarter. Sure, you may know the speed of light is constant, but does that make you smarter than Issac Newton? You may know that traits evolve by natural selection, but does that make you smarter than Aristotle? And you may know that the Earth goes around the sun, and not vice-versa, but does that make you smarter than Ptomely? We haven't been getting smarter, we've just had more time to sift through our ideas.

People aren't getting smarter, they may be getting more correct, but not smarter. Sure, you may know the speed of light is constant, but does that make you smarter than Issac Newton? You may know that traits evolve by natural selection, but does that make you smarter than Aristotle? And you may know that the Earth goes around the sun, and not vice-versa, but does that make you smarter than Ptomely? We haven't been getting smarter, we've just had more time to sift through our ideas.

I agree, but here are a couple problems:

1) The speed of light isn't constant, as light itself doesn't travel at a constant rate.
2) Natural selection or mutation? There is an arguement between the two sides.

I agree, but here are a couple problems:

1) The speed of light isn't constant, as light itself doesn't travel at a constant rate.
2) Natural selection or mutation? There is an arguement between the two sides.

Well, I'm sure you understand that those were just examples to illustrate the point. But for entertainment's sake, the speed of light (according to Einstein, I reccomend Miguelo's Faster Than the Speed of Light for new, interesting ideas) in a vaccum is constant compared to any reference point. And I specifically stated Natural Selection instead of Evolution because Natural Selection works into the Evolution and Mutation models.

I think people will realise that while science can explain a lot of the ideas about the creation of the world etc, Religion can do far more for the world's morals. And there is only so far science can go, not everything can be explained certianly. With regards to the far flung past (the origin of the universe) it can attemt as best it can but I doubt that it can find out exactly how for certianity it was created. Science of the creation of the universe has one flaw. Unlike other sciences it cannot be tested. You cannot carry out an experiment to show what the creation of the universe was like. It can find evidnece but evidence can be debated and alternitive logic found. Science cannot go as far as religon becuase religon does not require certianity but faith. Wether or not you have it is the question.

Well, I'm sure you understand that those were just examples to illustrate the point. But for entertainment's sake, the speed of light (according to Einstein, I reccomend Miguelo's Faster Than the Speed of Light for new, interesting ideas) in a vaccum is constant compared to any reference point. And I specifically stated Natural Selection instead of Evolution because Natural Selection works into the Evolution and Mutation models.

About the only reason I'm arguing this is the thread is nearly dead anyway.

Keep in mind that is the speed of light in a vacuum. Considering most of space isn't empty, the actual speed is in flux. And I have seen many mutation models that don't figure for natural selection at all.

What a weird thread!
It's fascinating to look at the underlying assumptions behind the initial question. Clearly, the questioner assumes that God does not exist (an assumption that I believe to be false). The logical process then carries on to say that, because God does not exist, anyone who worships God must be stupid, or certainly ignorant about the true nature of reality. The question as posed than follows from this, asking whether religious belief will die off as humanity gets "smarter" (a process that several have already challenged on this thread, either by direct attack or unwitting counter-example ;) ).
Interesting how all this logically follows from an assumption of the non-existence of God, and another assumption of the supremacy of the scientific method in determining all truth!
Assumptions, eh!

It is only in recent human history that science and religion have actually been separate, and that's the fault of the Catholic Church (who, ironically, actually backed scientific advancement in order to make themselves seem superior for quite a long time).

What do most people on these forums have against Catholics? I'm Catholic, and i'd like to know.

As for the comment itself, I'm Catholic, and a big fan of science. I'd really say the Mennonites are to blame, but I don't hold it against them.

What do most people on these forums have against Catholics? I'm Catholic, and i'd like to know.

As for the comment itself, I'm Catholic, and a big fan of science. I'd really say the Mennonites are to blame, but I don't hold it against them.

I'm Catholic. I just don't try to hide the realities of the past of the Church. The Church has done some incredibly stupid things in its history, and some incredibly brilliant ones.

About the only reason I'm arguing this is the thread is nearly dead anyway.

Keep in mind that is the speed of light in a vacuum. Considering most of space isn't empty, the actual speed is in flux. And I have seen many mutation models that don't figure for natural selection at all.

As for the speed of light, I agree, as does Einstein's relativity. However since you seem to be science interested too, I would recommend Miguelo's book, which contains ideas about a Varying Speed of Light theory.

As for natural selection, it is only logical conclusion that if a species has a triat that prohibits its reproduction (such as a trait that causes it to be eaten all the time, or a trait that makes it not like reproducing), then that trait will obviously not be proliferated in another generation.

Humans get smarter over time?
HAH!HAH!HAH!HAH!HAH!HAH!HAH!HAH!

Let's see how smart people are, compared to their ancestors.

Caclulate the size of world. You may travel up to 60 miles, and may use a stick, ruler, and (because we no longer have papyrus readily available) pen and paper to do the sums. No other materials permissable.

Draw a perfect 90% angle in sand. You may use 2 sticks and a piece of string.

Demonstrate that the Morning Star and Evening Star are identical without referring to the sun.
Permitted materials - your eyes, and a good memory.
Explain why Venus has retrograde motion for a couple of months each year. Permitted materials - your eyes, and a good memory.
Describe the stars which are currently concealed by the Sun's glare.
Permitted materials - your eyes, and a good memory.

Domesticate a wolf. Permitted materials - your trash can.

Design a boomerang. Permitted materials - sticks. Make a stone knife. Permissable materials - stones. Use your stone knife to construct a boomerang from your sticks.

Navigate a course across the Pacific in a sailing vessel. Permitted materials - the sailing vessel.

Replace someone's nose. You are permitted to make needles out of ivory, and are allowed a water-reed and one patient.

A fellow human collapses screaming, and admits to having been in pain since recieving a blow to the head. Explain why they need a section of skull removed, and how you would do so using tools made from bone and stone.

Construct a canoe from a tree which your tools cannot cut, hew, or otherwise affect. Do not attempt to create new tools - work with what you have.

Write a grammatically correct reply to this email and spell every word correctly!

You forget: Science also involves dogma, guesswork, and faith. A lot of the new stuff it comes up with anymore amounts to crap with little to no evidence behind it beyond a mathematical model that may be completely wrong and hopes you'll accept it without question. You want an example? Try finding proof that the Big Bang is caused by this universe and another colliding in a repetitive and eternally consistant pattern.

My point, which you so obviously missed, is that science has a limitation that religion does not. Science's constant focus on facts makes it unable to come up with answers most of the time and the few times it does there are questions if the answers work anywhere beyond the local area. Do we have proof Einstein's Theory of Relativity works beyond what amount of space we know? Nope. Hell, most of what we have about the universe is based on a few pictures, conjecture, and assumptions. We don't even have evidence the rules of phyics, as we know them, actually apply outside this galaxy or even if they apply throughout the galaxy beyond our assumptions that they do.

As staggering as scientific advance appears, when you look at the bigger picture it suddenly becomes clear that what few secrets we have pried loose from the surrounding universe are laughable. We've not even begun this journey and yet, like many religions, we're already making assumptions about how things work without enough evidence to back it up.

The one reason science's inability to say it has the answers will haunt it for the following centuries is the fact religion will merely say it does and step in to provide them whether or not the answers are accurate. The lure of science and the lure of religion have always been the same: People have questions and want answers as soon as they can get them. The difference is that religion has its answers now, while science will take millenia to get anywhere near having its first that doesn't come with attached questions.

Science involves dogma in adherence to a method which is designed to further knowledge. Religion involves dogma which is designed to preserve tradition. Science involves guesswork in the form of theories which are posed to be proven or disproven through testing. Religion involves guesswork in the form of people far up in the heirarchy making a guess and then declaring it divine truth. Science does not involve faith...all theories are acknowledged to be just, and able to be disproven. Religion...not the case. Try finding evidence to disprove the Big Bang, and further, that some invisible man in the sky waved his hand and made everything happen. I think we both know which theory has more basis in reality and logical thought.

I directly addressed your point, so to say that I missed it is pretty odd. Science's "limitation" is that it focuses on facts?! This is a limitation? The only reason certain religions have any kind of perceived advantage here is that it does claim to have all the answers and that their word is fact. I could easily say that I have $5000 - that doesn't make it so, no matter how faithfully I believe it. Who cares if the scope of our scientific knowledge is limited? Last I knew, we lived in that tiny little section of the universe that we know about, so the knowledge is pretty relevant. The idea that there is much we do not know doesn't frighten some people, and it does not diminish science at all, because science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Never has.

Science makes assumptions and then tests them. Religion does not. I have already acknowledged that religion will always persist because there will be people who reject science for the certainty religion offers. So, what is your point?