Where do you see religion headed? Will it be around forever?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I think it'll be around as long as there are humans, but I also think we'll continue to see changes. Here in the States, people are much more willing to window shop for religion in recent decades, and I think that's likely to continue.

__________________
"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well."-- Mahatma Gandhi

I think religion will eventually be honored as humanity's first approach to God. I think we'll be able to see and hold onto the truths in it, while letting go of what was strictly a product of the ignorance of former times. I feel we're at a turning point, where the law that is "written on our hearts" will predominate, and people will turn to the inner truths as opposed to dogma and tradition.

In relatively near future The Great Union of Human Spirit and Mind will sprout new kind of consciousness which will result in development of "new" morals and as a consequence, religion will disintegrate and forever.

A.P.

I see religion and science reconciling and being more supportive of each other.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I have a great deal of difficulty seeing that, Art. In spite of Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA), it seems pretty clear to me that science seeks information on a continual basis in order to discover truth, while religion tends to ignore information incompatible with the "truth" it already has.

Many people think that the atrocious religious behaviours are in the distant past, but not so. There was a Spanish educator named Francisco Ferrer (1859-1909) who opened Spain's first modern school in Barcelona in 1902. It was secular, coeducational and open to both rich and poor. And it was fiercely opposed by the Catholic Church, which didn't stop Ferrer, who was soon operating 40 such schools.

Ferrer was accused of fomenting anticonscription and antireligious riots and strikes in 1909. He was tried by a military tribunal which excluded all defence witnesses and executed.

Pope Pius X (r. 1903-1914) sent the prosecutor a gold-handled sword engraved with his congratulations!

Ferrer, on the other hand, wrote in will (written on his cell wall on the eve of his execution): "Let no more gods or exploiters be served. Let us learn rather to love one another." I'll let you be the judge of which was the more loving soul.

Or, see what Carl Sagan had to say:

And finally, one more Saganism:
.
Yet, religion holds dearly to the one thing that science says cannot be: sacred truth.

How do you see these ever getting closer together?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

ok EH...this is for you...and well i guess anyone else with interest.....

I read all your posts and i try to understand what you express...Here is my question to you...what do you feel is the answer as to how those who at such a young age have skills that are just not understandable for what we understand of knowledge....and what do you see as others experiences of knowledge of things that are not explainable...where does this type abillity fit in your thinking...what do you make of it...i am just curious from you...because like many others here i like the thinking and understanding i feel many are trying to get across all though often what seems on deaf ears...yet not....dont give up.....

Hello Evangelical,

You wrote above:

"..it seems pretty clear to me that science seeks information on a continual basis in order to discover truth, while religion tends to ignore information incompatible with the "truth" it already has."

I think we approach the subject of religion differently.. You have a more western approach and site as you have a case of a Francisco Ferrer.. Appreciate your citing that as I hadn't heard that..

My view is a perpsective I have about the future of religion which was the original question... I think religion and science have the capacity to support one another. One of the reasons I say this is from my reading and being a Baha'i I suppose.

Einstein also had a perspective on religion that you may have already come across:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

The Baha'i view is that religion and science can be in harmony:

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.

Have a good day!

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

If that were true, then let S be any scientific sentence. If every S is possibly false, then so is the sentence: "there is good reason to believe a scientific sentence is more approximately correct of nature versus a non-scientific sentence." Any sentence that is used to justify this sentence itself would be possibly false ad infinitum. Even this sentence is possibly false!

Yes, everytime we employ self-reference we arrive in difficulty (see Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti's Paradox, and a bunch involving lying Cretans. Douglas R. Hofstadter covered them nicely in Godel, Escher Back: An Eternal Golden Braid.)

The fact that one can invent paradoxes at will by the simple trick of self-reference, however, doesn't really do justice to the elegance of Sagan's statement, which instead uses self-reference to make a deeply important point about science. I like the way he does it better, thanks.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.