Will science one day make religion redundant

Until the 20th century, belief in Panpsychism, that all of reality has a mind-like aspect, was suggested by a great many philosophers including Thales of Miletus, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson. As science today starts to break through the resolution of reality. Panpsychism again is making a small comeback. Especially in fields questioning the hard problem of consciousness (how experience arises out of non-sentient matter) and the logic defying Wheelers delayed choice experiment. Could panpsychism one day make religion redundant for all. Explaining the conciousness of reality without requiring Gods or Messiahs that in many ways are just labels in our mind that arn't really defined. Allowing dogma to take on a life of its own.

A video I watched recently featuring Bernardo Kastrup surprized me with some insights. People with multiple personalities don't share all of their memory with other personailities. Yet in their dreams, each personality acts as a different person, in the same dream. It doesn't take much imagination to see reality as a greater dream in which we all all act as different persons from the one conciousness that is the mind of our universe.

I hope the following interview with Bernardo Kastrup, challenges your thoughts, as it did mine ...



Live Long and Prosper

a reply to: glend

Didn't you or someone else post this a day or two ago? Why the repeat post?

a reply to: jondashipsu

Not me, if it has been posted, please delete administrators

I dont think science will make religion redundant, any more than it will make art redundant. The different disciplines serve different purposes; they possess contrasting explanatory powers.

Most likely. Or it will prove we are right all along, at least in concept if not the precise details. For instance what many of us call God, who knows what he or she or even "IT" really is. Could be something way beyond our level to even comprehend.

I suggest that version of God is more likely than the benevolent hippie wearing a white robe. Maybe that is all our little primate brains could understand

Either way, I suspect the distinction of what we call science and what we call religion will merge

I only hope the gist of Christianity is more accurate than some of the other murder-inclined religions out there (yes yes I know the Catholic church burned heretics at the stake too, once). Just throwing this out there....if the aliens..sorry, God, is benevolent, forgiving and has our best interests at heart, we will be lucky

originally posted by: tovenar
I dont think science will make religion redundant, any more than it will make art redundant. The different disciplines serve different purposes; they possess contrasting explanatory powers.

I shouldn't post this there and I apologize if I derail this thread in any way. Just thought it was odd you and I registered on ATS a mere 6 days apart....16/17 years ago

If that isn't intervention from somewhere...what the heck are the odds of that

a reply to: glend

I believe Religion ...makes Science redundant.

Now.

a reply to: glend

This topic is already being discussed here


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: jondashipsu
a reply to: glend

This topic is already being discussed here


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not quite the same. This one can exist along with the other because...different premise.

a reply to: glend

No it will not, Science on the other hand has already become a religion to many people whom BELIEVE in it, BELIEVE in the opinion of it's high priests the scientists and believe in it's Dogma something that often holds back scientists once they break ranks with scientific papers and theorems being there scripture.

There is truth in Science but it is actually in no way incompatible with Christianity for example, only the interpretation may vary but as long as empirical science is followed it is actually quite compatible, once again interpretation is often the key there.

There is also a deep rooted anti religious bias in much of the scientific community which does not help.

But even Atheist Scientists can sometimes come to surprising conclusions and even turned to faith learning to believe in God, there were a few story's going back about a top quantum researcher whom had written several influential papers whom realized that only God (an intelligence) could explain much that he could find no plausible alternative answer for and several other similar real life story's.

But NOT Science it is a tool when used correctly not a belief system but Political Dogma, Secularists whom are actually quite evil and the driving force behind what many on this site called Liberalism (real liberalism is something quite different and is a quite conservative BRITISH political ideology though the term can be abused to mean being liberal with thing's or even being generous) whom are only too happy to get some group of scientists to say that science is undisputable fact, many of it's observations indeed are but the interpretation is the point were it becomes science and that is really down to the observer?.

Science used in forensics for example is great for catching criminals BUT it can be wrong, it can even lead to innocent people being unjustly punished when it is wrong but the jury, the judge and others relied upon someone's expert testimony to arrive at there conclusion.

So NOT science.

Any Scientific Theory may be supported but NEVER PROVEN.
Any Proof to the the Contrary PROVES the Theory is not correct.

This problem and the fact we tend to round up means that our science is sketch at best a lot of the time, it has even given rise to the Pseudo science and quackery of Chaos theory to explain away why especially at the quantum realm precise calculations become increasingly impossible the smaller you go.

And since OUR world is really made up of the quantum by default all our calculations and results at this level in more practical science while they work are actually in reality rounded up.

Science is the best TOOL we have at the moment but it is only a tool NOT a God though many put it on that pedestal to fill a void in there lives which is actually rather sad.

a reply to: glend
Unlikely. Panpsychism is a bit too generic and emotionless for most people. Religious belief is usually passionate, rigid, and tribal. Panpsychism makes no claims or promises before or after death. Divinity is very archetypal in our species, hence why even atheists will sometimes revere authority figures to the point of religious fervor. I'm tempted to say we're hard-wired for it, but I'm not convinced of that.

a reply to: tovenar

I dont think science will make religion redundant, any more than it will make art redundant. The different disciplines serve different purposes; they possess contrasting explanatory powers.

You presume that religion was not science at the time it was written. A science that described the greater reality to people that for the most part wern't educated. Explaining the greater reality in labels that farmers and the like could relate. Like a tree in a garden with fruit.

Science has in many ways refuted religion yes. But I do not see them as mutually incompatible. Both search for truth. Many Religions might have a greater grasp of our true being today. But there is nothing to say that science will not realize that greater truth in the near future.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Yes science is fallible. But are you throwing stones from a religion that is infallible. Many, burnt at the stake might dissagree if they could talk. I know you don't believe in all religions. Nor do I suspect scientist believe in all science. I don't think one should be threatened by one or the other. Anything that increases our search for greater truth within human conciousness is a good thing.

Going forward I believe the far more educated youth of todays age are going to reject the morality of books written 3000 years ago (stoning Unruly Children etc, drinking blood etc). I can see science and religion merging into one. Searching for the same truth.

Going forward I believe the far more educated youth of todays age are going to reject the morality of books written 3000 years ago (stoning Unruly Children etc, drinking blood etc).

Why didn't you just leave it at the first part instead of leaving yourself an "out"
Ever thought that that was precisely what is wrong with the world today ?
Folks have left morality behind them , and it is forgotten .

Personally, I like both, and I think they need each other.

a reply to: glend

I'd be very careful with stuff like this multiple personality because you only know what people tell you it's not much more or less credible than ufology.
'Everything is mind' is the dumbest statement that ever entered pop-philosophy. True-ish would be to say: my human experience is mostly mind.

Personally I came to enjoy the idea that information not particles is the fundamental basis of everything and consciousness the organising force, that's not quite the same as 'mind'.
But I haven't written or published my book yet lol so how'd you know...

Anyhoo religion is seeking personal relationships with the awe inspring kosmos, my position and purpose in the universe, deeply subjective.
Science is objective per definition.
So I don't see how anyone would think one could replace the other?

a reply to: Klassified

What is not uplifting in belieiving the universe is endowed with an intelligence far greater than our own? If it can enthral minds like Plato it can certainly enthrall minds like our own. Humans have always tasted things, even smoked things. When they smoked a special type of burning bush an intelligence appeared. The mind that described that intelligence did so from a intellect of a goat herder. A goat herder full of emotions and tribalism. So yes religion can be full of passion, rigidity, and tribal influences. But society and knowledge evolves. Another Einstein will eventually break through the barrier of reality. Giving us a different perspective of what is.

Other way around, I think.
The more we learn, the stranger it becomes.
Everything is a pixel plank. Separated by large volumes of space. Each plank never getting anywhere close to hitting another plank.

We live inside a dream. We are billions of dreams happening at once inside a big dream. All of this equals experience and food for the universe/god/collective oneness of everything and nothing.

a reply to: Peeple

I appreaciate the warning peeple, I really do, but its not about what people have told me. It's more-so what I have experienced that guides me. A great many people have and do experience the greater conciousness but do not openly talk about it. Because egoism itself obstructs the very entrance to that abyss.

Yes particles are just pixels of reality but information too is just memory. that cements our local self into being. Our true self is not bound by the limitations of mind and body. So entrapping yourself into knowledge is entrapping your self into its own limitations.

Its my wish that you experience the truth as you have far greater capacity to express that truth than I do. I wish you luck with your book. Yes I'd be interested in reading your views.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Agree EmmanuelGoldstein. I woke this morning from a dream in which I was reciting a quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj ...

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”