- #61
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.
The Impact of Science on the Concept of God
- Thread starter BoulderHead
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the relationship between science and the concept of God, exploring whether science can find or explain God, and how such explanations might affect people's perceptions of divinity. The scope includes philosophical implications, definitions of God, and the interplay between scientific understanding and religious belief.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that if science were to find or explain God materially, it could diminish the reverence people hold for God, reducing Him to mere physical components like electrons and protons.
- Others argue that God, as a concept, is not something that can be quantified or understood through scientific means, as God is defined as the Whole and essence of all things.
- There is a contention that science cannot find God because God has been defined in a way that makes Him non-existent within the realm of scientific inquiry.
- Some participants propose that the definitions of God are contradictory and that this complexity makes it difficult for science to engage with the concept meaningfully.
- It is noted that if God is defined as existing outside of time and space, then scientific exploration of God becomes futile, as science operates within the framework of time and space.
- One participant reflects on the idea that science and religion should not contradict each other, suggesting they can coexist if religion aligns with scientific understanding.
- Another participant expresses confusion about the implications of science declaring God off-limits and questions whether this means science is engaging with the concept of God.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationship between science and God. There is no consensus on whether science can or should engage with the concept of God, nor on the implications of such engagement.
Contextual Notes
The discussion highlights limitations in definitions of God and the assumptions underlying participants' arguments. The varying interpretations of God's nature and existence introduce complexity that remains unresolved.
Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.
- #62
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.
Besides that, if you take away our right to our beliefs, then you take away our freedom. This is the one fundamental idea (I believe) which made the United States so prosperous.
- #63
BoulderHead
I don't advocate force. I want freedom from force, actually. There need not be any force used against people to make them surrender religious beliefs. That would only drive it underground where it might become even more powerful.
They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke
They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke
Last edited by a moderator:
- #64
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
If you lay something to rest, you better be sure to give it a proper burial, otherwise it will come back to haunt you.
- #65
BoulderHead
But on the other hand if it simply dies and rots away, why bother with a funeral?
- #66
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
It's like I said ... Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.
- #67
BoulderHead
Ok, let me try to get back to my topic;
I think there is a relationship in this topic to science being involved so intentionally with the material world that If a religion proclaims a ‘cow’ to be sacred, for example, that science will not agree and explain a cow as a biological creature. If a rock is proclaimed to be ‘holy’ then science will say the rock is just so much mineral matter. If God is proclaimed to be fire, earth, wind, etc, then science will explain this away too. In short, if you are able to define god as something we are able to test and experiment on then after testing and experimentation it may/will never be ruled as god, just some element of the natural world or force of nature (and note that whether god might actually be any of those things is a tad beside the point here). So, barring absolute knowledge god can never be ruled out of the picture with 100% certainty. But, with each stone unturned by science as we go along, god will never be hiding under it.
On a more personal level, if you tell me that God exists I might say; “yes, you might be right”. But, if you define your god to be living inside the heart of a palm tree I would tell you “I doubt it”. By saying that god is everything you present an un-testable and I think ‘vague’ concept of god that one may choose to believe or not. If god ‘hides’ in the mysterious, the unexplained, the un-testable, ‘he’ has a better chance of being believed in.
[edit]
I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.
I think there is a relationship in this topic to science being involved so intentionally with the material world that If a religion proclaims a ‘cow’ to be sacred, for example, that science will not agree and explain a cow as a biological creature. If a rock is proclaimed to be ‘holy’ then science will say the rock is just so much mineral matter. If God is proclaimed to be fire, earth, wind, etc, then science will explain this away too. In short, if you are able to define god as something we are able to test and experiment on then after testing and experimentation it may/will never be ruled as god, just some element of the natural world or force of nature (and note that whether god might actually be any of those things is a tad beside the point here). So, barring absolute knowledge god can never be ruled out of the picture with 100% certainty. But, with each stone unturned by science as we go along, god will never be hiding under it.
On a more personal level, if you tell me that God exists I might say; “yes, you might be right”. But, if you define your god to be living inside the heart of a palm tree I would tell you “I doubt it”. By saying that god is everything you present an un-testable and I think ‘vague’ concept of god that one may choose to believe or not. If god ‘hides’ in the mysterious, the unexplained, the un-testable, ‘he’ has a better chance of being believed in.
[edit]
I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #68
devil5_advocate
- 16
- 0
Haha, one always hopes...that is man's last right when all's said and done.
- #69
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
The substantiability of religion is inherently there on the basis of the limited and relative knowledge we have had and always will have, although our knowledge is ever growing and improving.
Eh. You mean an idea that made so many other countries to suffer?
You have to separate freedom from religion.
There is no implication that people would have less freedom when they are free of religious beliefs or superstition.
If that is not the case, then please proof that to me.
In the end we have to deal with only human freedom. Any human freedom stops where it limits some other humans freedom. So freedom is an inherently inter-human relation, it must be based on how all humans relate to each other. And one of the ways humans relate to each other, is through the economy.
And we still have to consider that the way the current economy in fact works, makes in some places of the world people terrible rich, and somehwere else, makes people terribly poor.
Which then can be stated as that some of the economic mechanisms, that exist, are harmfull for human freedom. Which urges us to rethink how the economy works, and that an economy that painfully hurts the freedom of a large amount of the population, while on the other side, providing excess of goods for a minority, can not be a good concept of how the economy should work, provided the fact that economic relations and activities, serve the purpose of setting humans free, provide for their real needs, and so on.
This could in fact mean, that - in order to liberate a majority of people that suffer under these conditions - we need to limit the (economic) freedom of a minority, that profit from these existing relations. All goaled towards providing an equal amount of freedom to all human beings.
Which is a human goal, and what is freedom all about.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 105 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
Graduate
Scientific Logic for God's existence
- · Replies 47 ·
- · Replies 3 ·