Originally posted by trope
I don't think any of the classical, major religions started explicitly as hoodwinks (though I do think more modern religions such as Scientology
did). This is just so say that the sweeping statement of religions being designed to hold us back is in my opinion incorrect, and the notion that
we've somehow attained enough scientific understanding to resolve the questions that cause religion to arise in the first place seems naive. Early
religions evolved more so than they were created -- like bdelloids, they picked up pieces of stray DNA along the way and turned into something all
together different than they started out. It's clear that not all of those myriad pieces were positive additions. I think it's also worth noting
that science has not been a total walk in the park for humanity either, does not always operate in the interests of humanity, and often lacks the
heart to know when to stop. Did the Franciscan monks build a nuclear bomb? Did Mother Teresa create sarin gas? This is just to say that a little
perspective is in order. There are pros and cons to everything and everyone. It's easy to judge people when we think solely of our strengths and
their weaknesses -- harder when both sides are considered in totality. It's also easy to forget that despite the fact that we have many answers, we
do not have all the answers, and that not all human brains will react to that emptiness in the same way. If science wants to end religion, then
science will have to sufficiently answer more of the bigger questions than it currently answers. And while I sincerely hope we get there, we just
aren't there yet.
edit on 20121117 by trope because: Removed stray word.
very nicely said.
and while i do not disagree, i'd like to add a few thoughts:
In my opinion, not only does science not have all the answers, many of the accepted ones are incorrect and lead to misleading conclusions. These
answers are based upon a few important assumptions. Some of these are false.
for example :
the universe is , on average, homogeneous. If this assumption were not true, then most of the math we use to describe said universe would be invalid.
The primary force acting on celestial objects is gravity. This assumption leads to the nessesary idea of dark matter and dark energy: both pretty
obviously a stretch to accommodate a basic assumption that is incorrect.
energetic exchange is mediated by particles. this leads to the search for the "God" particle: the Higgs.
and some *very* important questions remaining to be answered (aside from the whole God thing):
what is mass and gravity? Our best definition is a precisely carved block. and being able to predict forces in a gravity field (thank you Newton et
all) with math is not the same as knowing what give rise to that force. We do not understand Gravity: that's a big deal.
what is inertia? Why do objects wish to stay still when still and stay moving when moving: no clue.
whats with the dual particle/wave nature of energy? Why does it change? is it really changing? We believe that somehow our observation changes its
nature: this is incorrect.
what is entropy?
Changes in our understanding of these fundamental forces will drive huge changes in science when they occur, leading to a brand new set of
but at least science changes.
Religion becomes quickly dogmatic and violently defended leading to all sorts of human suffering. Religion touches us deeper than anything and so the
responses are so much more heated, so much more bloody. But for those who can find their God, their deep hearted meaning, life is transformed: made
in my opinion, God is reasonable, and therefore, ideas describing God that are *not* reasonable must be discarded. Yet the experience of God is
fundementaly unreasonable (as are all emotions and may desires) and can not be 'known' so when a 'thing' cannot be proven logically false then it
must considered, even tho it may not also be proven logically true.
ultimatly, God can only be known by the heart and the logical mind must let go of it's need to *know* and trust those feelings. yet logic error
checks and must not be ignored.
i wish i could go into more detail.....