Could religions merely be a precursor to modern science?
I've noticed a lot of people here have become atheists / agnostics by STUDYING the Bible. It seems they got that way by knowing too much about Christianity. I've been looking into other world religions; they all attempt to explain how the world works, and how to best live in it.
Could it be that all religions are merely precursors to modern scientific discoveries? Some beliefs have proven true, others false. Maybe eventually we'll all become atheists, except for those who cling to old beliefs because of fear of the unknown?
We seem to have a lot of disagreement simply because people have different interpretations of the same words - even the simplest of words. I ask you to think of a dog; you might think of a German Sheperp, me of a Collie and someone else a tiny poodle. How much more so, then, the interpretation of words such as athiest and agnostic. To me an athiest might be - or the word represent - a person who does not believe that there is an old guy with a beard up there taking stock of everything we do. Then again, an athiest might be one who does not believe there is a personality-diety or even a 'force be with you' type of intellignece with any care for human kind. That is, Nature's Laws are impersonal; all is chaos and no one created anything.
An agnostic is one who has 'a bet each way'; maybe, maybe not. In other words an open mind. Good for the open-minded ones. I think it would be fair to say that a great many athiests take little or no interest in religion.
Believers? Well, what is a believer? I interpret that to be an idea or ideal held in the mind and repeated so often that it goes into our unconsicous and becomes solidified. But it is still an idea, not necessarily a fact. It quite often brings to an end our sense of enquiry but not necessarily in a good way. So many then spend a lot of time telling everyone else they've found the truth.
Today, however, the gap which opened up and split religion and science into two is once again merging it seems. This has come about largely, I think, because of the studies being made of our minds; psychology mainly, starting to overlap with the earlier findings of the mystics, yogis, and metaphysical 'self-seekers.' We are starting to realize that we are ALL and EVERYTHING is a creation created by god and we are a part of God - or whatever you want to call Her/HIm/It and are thereby godlike ourselves. A currently emerging theme is that we create our own reality.
Could religion be the precursor of modern science? I think it already is.
Wow, what a great question. I'm on a spiritual journey of my own. I'm dissolusioned with the religion of my youth and part of the reason is that I can't reconcile religion and science. The other aspect has to do with the hypocrisy of so much hate, power seeking, and greed within the church. I haven't lost my faith in a God, but I am looking for a way to worship that feels true and authentic for me. Thanks for making us think.
You're welcome. In my case, the SDA church is a lot like Jews, and they're focused on healthy living. Science has proven much of it true. Where it has proven false, we're expected to stick to the religion anyway. That makes no sense to me.
Religion technically is the original science, though ancient as it may be. They're hypotheses as to why things are. The theory was that the world was created, and they used the knowledge they had to guess what created it - obviously something bigger than themselves, so it must be a super being. However, as time went on, science began to develope, and the two separated. The Bible and myths and legends are all why-so stories now, instead of hypothetical theories. Just like Astrology used to be considered a science, it became separate of Astronomy, which is now the science of stars. But I think you're definitely right, though it's more of a past tense, instead of a recent development
Belief in God is not necessarily based on a fear of the unknown. It would be nice if the world were that simplistic, but it's not.
No, religion is not a precursor to modern science. Certainly there is some overlap -- a desire to understand the universe and to find better ways to live our lives, but science can never reach what religion has hinted at.
The wild card in all this is Ego. This is not the western psychological definition of ego, but the Buddhist, Kabbalist and Christian view. Ego is the source of all evil. It is self-concern, separateness and selfishness. Ego has corrupted every institution of civilization. Ego is the big barrier we all face. Ego has corrupted religion, yes, but also science. You only need to look at the ridicule scientists dished out to their peers during the dark days of the "Clovis First" dogma. One scientist in Texas said that he would never accept the outrageously early dates for the Valsequillo artifacts no matter what the evidence. Really! A scientist who clings to his own Ego more than evidence.
Science can only study the laws of physical reality -- the Newtonian, action-reaction elements of created things. But spirituality studies the sources of creation -- something science can never touch.
Most of the religious have never experienced true spirituality. Their strong belief is not Faith. Faith is perfect and transcendent. Faith is a source of creation -- superior to science.
Yes, some people cling to religion to help them keep fear at bay. But that's not the purpose behind the religion. Most religion is a corruption of the original spirituality. And perhaps the only true religion is Love. This is not the physical love that so many humans cling to, but altruistic, spiritual love which has no spot of self-concern to corrupt it.
Wow - another excellent point. Science merely explains how the world works, but Love is what makes everything worthwhile. There's nothing wrong with Ego, as long as Love keeps it in check. We need to care for ourselves in order to care for others.
Well said Lonestar, the type of spirituality that I am on a quest to find is what you've discussed here. The issues that I am wresting with precisely has to do with the amount of ego that is involved in modern day religion.
Religion was the first science. It was, perhaps, the first attempt by an evolving intelligence to answer his own questions of, what am I, who am I, where am I and why am I.
Religious belief, whether one can call it ancestor worship, animal worship, worship of natural events or inanimate objects or the evolution of the abstract deities, as we have now have, were attempts to answer these questions.
The first evidence of such beliefs or appeals date to around 130,000 years ago and the Upper Paleolithic period. For the modern theist though, no such evidence exists. It would seem that religion has gone from a point of questioning existence to the point of denying the answers.
I hope we are experiencing a fundamental change in the way that religion is viewed. Religion is closely tied to science, politics, philosophy and art among other things. A "supreme" being just doesn't answer our questions well enough.
I doubt we're denying all the answers. After all, science is still discovering what's true about various religions.
Austin--We agree, but the question remains, what does answer our questions? Perhaps, it is us once again.
by rajelhi8 years ago
Because they want to conquor the world for self glory. They simply want to enjoy earthly, mortal, unhuman treasures for the sake of society. They do not bother for poor, sick, helpless, downtrodens, society's...
by earnestshub8 years ago
It is pretty hard to say much on the religious forum that has real meaning. It is the same loaded topics produced by a handful of people who already have a fixed point of view. That closes the possibility of any...
by jkchandra12 months ago
I find science to be fascinating because it really puts things in perspective and don't know why people hold such bias towards it when it comes to conflicting with religion in some way when it only is trying to further...
by Threekeys20 months ago
"Science Without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind"-Albert EinsteinWhy cannot both co-exist? Why does it have to be one or the other? Both want to control both one's circumstances or another...
by amine sehibi2 years ago
can anyone, show me the evidence that enables the modern science to disprove the existence of God.Of course if the modern science is able to disprove his existences .
by seatle676 years ago
Why are this two always incompatible on each other? And why they dont correlated on each other? For what reason.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.