The Future of Religion

[Lightkeeper]

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

[metis]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

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

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.

[angeleyes]

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.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

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

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

- Art

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by arthra

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

- Art

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:

In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. [In 1966 the same sage wrote, 'The Holy Koran, the Prophet's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit...and that the earth is fixed and stable.'] Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished. When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodix rabbis because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago...The clearest evidence of our evolution can be foun in our genes, but evoltuion is stil being fought, ironically by those whose own DNA proclaims it."

And finally, one more Saganism:

The sacred truth of science is that there are no sacred truths

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

How do you see these ever getting closer together?

[sendy47]

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.....

[arthra]

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

[Harvey1]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

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?

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!

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by Harvey1

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]

Originally Posted by sendy47

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

The human brain is a most remarkable thing, and although it is hugely better understood now that it was even a couple of decades ago, it is still filled with mystery. I can't pretend otherwise.

But you will find that continued study always seems to lead to a brain-based understanding of every mental phenomenon. Why do some people (mostly women) dream in color while others (mostly men) dream in black and white? Nobody knows. Why does someone with a paralyzed arm insist that she can use it, even when it's not moving (she says "I didn't want to.")

Why does somebody like Mozart understand music so perfectly before the age of 4, while others never do? Why are some people able to remember everything they've ever read, word-for-word, while the rest of us can barely remember what we read 10 seconds ago?

I've posted many times on things like this in the past.

....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.....

Some people have hallucinations. We know that. Sometimes it's due to drugs, and sometimes it's due to brain damage, and sometimes it just happens. Still, these have been studied a lot. Some of these hallucinations are visual, some auditory, some just "feelings." But we know that many people seem to experience things using only their brains that are not real.

How, then, shall we assess the person who says "god spoke to me." Since god is not speaking to the rest of us, we must either take the person at their word, or doubt them. I can certainly understand why, when one "prophet" says god wants everybody eating pigs, and another says god doesn't want anybody eating pigs, that one of them -- at the very least -- has not had an authentic revelation from god. And my suspicion is that neither of them has.

As I said at the beginning, the human brain is a most amazing thing, and very, very worthy of taking a closer look at.