It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Science Resurrect God? New Scenario Says 'Yes'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   


According to Nicholas Wade, veteran New York Times science reporter, and author of the new book The Faith Instinct, religious fervor has dwindled of late because religions have failed to keep pace with human knowledge. For faith to thrive, our concepts of God must adapt to our evolving scientific knowledge. What happens if we project our current scientific knowledge into the future? A new scenario suggests the evolution of a new concept of God. Imagine 100 years ago, looking up into the sky and seeing a pinhead in the stratosphere, and someone telling you the dot contained 400 people whizzing off to China faster than the chariots of the Greek gods. Or consider the progress with cloning; we now have the ability to resurrect species that no longer exist, such as the Bucardo mountain goat - and using chromosome transfer, we can create a mate for it just like God did for Adam in the Garden of Eden. Now imagine what will be possible in 100 billion years....


www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this article.

Science and religion do need to converge since, after all, they are pursuing the same thing: the truth.

A less self-righteous attitude is a must from both sides. I think reorganizing our idea of God is a step in a wonderful direction. Most are too mired in tradition to recognize that their idea of God is contradictory at best, and downright silly at worst.

Religion should result in understanding rather than mystery and coersion.

I could write a tome on this subject but I won't
.

Truthfully,
Shane



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Unfortunately, that article makes one major false assumption with no evidence whatsoever to back it up — that "religious fervor has dwindled..."

According to whom?

According to the U.S. Census, more than 80% of Americans currently profess faith in God and an afterlife (and 75% are specifically Christian), in spite of unsubstantiated claims that America is a "secular nation"; in other words, secularists want religion to dwindle, but it's not happening.

On a global scale, 95% of all human beings still profess a faith in God or gods and an afterlife, while only 5% follow atheism.

Now, exactly how is religious fervor "dwindling"?

For Science to somehow redefine God and religion, Science would first have to prove its own wherewithal. Science disproves itself on a regular basis, such that the "scientific fact" of 100 years ago is today's laughingstock, just as today's "scientific fact" will be the laughingstock of future generations.

The major religions of the world, on the other hand, have survived essentially unchanged for hundreds and even thousands of years, and the overwhelming majority of humanity is still religious.

So much for Science redefining religion or resurrecting God.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by randolrs1
Science and religion do need to converge since, after all, they are pursuing the same thing: the truth.

I guess it depends on which religions you are thinking, and correct if I'm wrong, but don't most of them already claim to know what the truth is? It's written in their so called 'sacred' texts.

Most religions, certainly the most influential in our current times, do not care about the truth. In fact, they've shown time and time again that they will go to great lengths to misrepresent it and even hide it, in order to keep their control and influence over groups of people.

A system that creates and imposes dogmas, rewards belief instead of evidence and frowns upon people questioning that very same system, can never be in search of the truth.

Science deals with the natural and physical world. Religion doesn't.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Science deals with the natural and physical world. Religion doesn't.


Religion and Science are both products of the ever-fallible Human mind. Thus far, over thousands of years, Religion has given us civilization and reverence for forces beyond the control of Man. Science, on the other hand, has escalated our potential for war (particularly nuclear war), has endangered the survival of Mankind through overpopulation, and — if we are to believe Science itself — Science now threatens the very life-giving climate of the Earth.

Let's see... Religion exists for thousands of years without destroying Earth, Science comes to threaten our survival in only a couple of centuries.

Hmmm.

Now who do I trust?


— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Religion and Science are both products of the ever-fallible Human mind. Thus far, over thousands of years, Religion has given us civilization and reverence for forces beyond the control of Man. Science, on the other hand, has escalated our potential for war (particularly nuclear war)

Science, like religion, is merely a tool and it is man that decides what do with them. In you first sentence you recognize this. So, if there are wars it's because of other aspects, human condition and behavior for example, not because science exists or has given man technology.

And let's not pretend that religions can't be, or have never been, used as pretexts for war, committing atrocities and sparking conflicts between people.

You've also forgot to mention any of the many good things science has given man- for example, the computer and internet you are using right now. I know it's easy to take for granted all the good things science has given you, after all they've made your life so much easier you don't even think about it.

Some people have a use for religion as it might help them live their lives - and if it helps them in anyway, good for them. But belief and spirituality doesn't power their homes. It also doesn't make and put the satellites in space, or the fiber optic cables in deep sea, that allows them to communicate with anyone in the world - instantly. Belief also doesn't cure their cancer.

My post wasn't about which one, religion or science, is better or has given man more and I'm surprised that it made you react to it this way. My post was in response to the statement that both religion and science deal with the search of truth, which I thought I had explicitly pointed out that, in my opinion, they don't.

If you wish to argue that religion is indeed searching for the truth I will gladly listen to your arguments. Otherwise, quite frankly, I'm not interested in fruitless back-and-forths regarding the merits of science, or apparently the lack of.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by converge
I guess it depends on which religions you are thinking, and correct if I'm wrong, but don't most of them already claim to know what the truth is? It's written in their so called 'sacred' texts.

I wouldn't say most of them, The major branches of christianity can be like that but what you forget (or may not have been told, i do not know how well experienced or educated you are on religion,so forgive me if i make presumptions or assumptions) is that there are many factions of one religion. Take Christianity for example. A major rift in it right now is the old-earth vs young-earth argument. You have many christians thinking that by proving the earth is young (in accordance with some timeline established in the bible) using pseudo-science or fuzzy logic that it some how proves god exists. On the other hand you have Old-earth Creationists (such as myself) who argue that because science has interpreted that the world is billions of years old then that must be the truth since god supposedly told us that his work is self evident. In addition to that argument we believe that the original hebrew texts of the bible can support these theories. But here is the important word, Theory. The reason we regard it as theory is because the bible is not the definite word of god. It may be the word of god but it represents the word of god in another time and place written to cater to an audience that had nowhere near the grasp of the intimate mechanics of our universe as we do today. So the ultimate truth does not lay within in the text. There are many christians who have this same view on things from Gay Marriage to biblical contradictions. If the truth is in the bible it is hidden, and true Truth can only be ascertained directly from God itself.

In reform Judaism one of the core beliefs is that you should question the bible and i have even met catholic priests who advocated questioning the bible. I asked my old pastor once if it was bad that i questioned the bible and he said to me "My son your questioning is a sure sign that god is working within you"

Plain and simple if the sacred texts did indeed contain an absolute agreed upon truth then there wouldn't be ANY splinter cells and schisms within the religions and faiths based upon said texts.


Most religions, certainly the most influential in our current times, do not care about the truth. In fact, they've shown time and time again that they will go to great lengths to misrepresent it and even hide it, in order to keep their control and influence over groups of people.


I wouldn't say most religions, but i am afraid you are dreadfully right when it comes to some of the major ones.



A system that creates and imposes dogmas, rewards belief instead of evidence and frowns upon people questioning that very same system, can never be in search of the truth.

Science deals with the natural and physical world. Religion doesn't.


I couldn't agree you more on this.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by converge
 



Science, like religion, is merely a tool and it is man that decides what do with them. In you first sentence you recognize this. So, if there are wars it's because of other aspects, human condition and behavior for example, not because science exists or has given man technology.

And let's not pretend that religions can't be, or have never been, used as pretexts for war, committing atrocities and sparking conflicts between people


What would be more devastating...a 16th century inquisition....or a 21st century nuclear holocaust? Besides that...what lead up to the knowledge of strangulation? What lead up to the knowledge that hangings break necks? How did people figure this out? How did people learn what parts of the body can be EXPLOITED...to KILL.....OR MAIM...Religion doesn't teach that if you tie a knot in a rope a certain way, put it around someones neck, dangle them from a tree, then suddenly let them drop that it can crush their larynx and possible break their neck and eventually lead to asphyxiation....THAT'S NOT IN MY BIBLE....where'd we learn that?????

edit to add: it's not that science leads to war..it's that science leads to MORE DEVASTATING wars....

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Key word; Religious fervor. That is, intensity of the religious.

Frankly given the history and results of "intense" religion, I can't see any reason to mourn its passing.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


ko



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by randolrs1
 
whoa



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Can science resurrect God? Well, I certainly hope it doesn't.

Life is difficult enough without Him around complicating things.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by converge
And let's not pretend that religions can't be, or have never been, used as pretexts for war, committing atrocities and sparking conflicts between people.
.

Humanity doesn't need a reason to wage war.

We kill each other for no reason at all, we obey some weird genetic programming that drives us to eliminate each other, and we'll continue obeying that program until we evolve into another species. Sweet, aint it?

Don't give me that old atheist rant about religion causing everything wrong in the world.

Sheesh. That's so off topic.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



What would be more devastating...a 16th century inquisition....or a 21st century nuclear holocaust?


I would say the nuclear holocaust, but in retrospect I would be inclined to ask:

What is more frightening, A deity who commands it's followers to kill in it's name, or a methodology that could care less what people believe?

See, the way you worded your question implies that the nuclear holocaust would be an act of science. What if Jihad group acquired nukes, would it be the fault of science for discovery or the fault of the mindless barbaric violence of the religious group who uses that discovery to kill those who oppose their beliefs?


edit to add: it's not that science leads to war..it's that science leads to MORE DEVASTATING wars....


It's ignorant people with false ideologies and beliefs that twist science that leads to more devastating wars. Not saying strictly religious, but the implications of some religious groups deities requiring their followers to leave a path of destruction is inherently scarier for me than someone discovering nuclear physics.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Can science resurrect God? Well, I certainly hope it doesn't.

Life is difficult enough without Him around complicating things.


Thing is, from what I've read this morning, Bio-centrism doesn't appear to even have anything to do with God at all. I can't even figure out how the theory that it's life that creates the universe is equatable to some magical daddy figure living in the sky. The God buffs always draw empty conclusions from places where those conclusions don't even exist. It's like belief in God demands we toss out logical thought, no wonder we had the inquisitions.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


What get's me is that this idea is not "new", it's a re-branding of Solipsism.

It's utter garbage and wishful thinking in my opinion. Arrogant narcissism based on the egotistical desires of man to feel special and above nature. Poor bastards.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


"Don't give me that old atheist rant about religion causing everything wrong in the world. "

Earlier you said...

"Let's see... Religion exists for thousands of years without destroying Earth, Science comes to threaten our survival in only a couple of centuries."

There's a word for this. That word is "hypocrite"



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
We kill each other for no reason at all, we obey some weird genetic programming that drives us to eliminate each other, and we'll continue obeying that program until we evolve into another species.

Programmed by: Him Upstairs, apparently.

Bundle of laughs, He is. Pity his apologists on Earth aren't nearly so funny.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I do not have enough FAITH to believe in the scientific view of the creation of the universe and evolution.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by fmcanarney]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There's a word for this. That word is "hypocrite"

Wait a minute. Everytime I hear an atheist open his yap, it's a laundry list of complaints about the terrible things that religion has done to the world. When I counter by pointing out that Science is the sole source of every physical problem in the world today, I get called a hypocrite.

Wrong, friend. Turnabout is fair play.

— Doc Velocity



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join