This is not a flame thread (Although, it might be inevitable).

I'm young, so maybe I dont know shit. Either way, here's a stupid kids thoughts ^^

I am interested in opinions on having a religion, not having a religion, detesting religions, etc from metal listeners points of view.

To keep it brief:

Things I like about religions:
-Set of rules or philosophies to live by which we adapted into modern society.

This can give people rules to live by that are generally enjoyed by people.

-Amazing historical works and definitely amazing stories.

Not much to say here besides the obvious. I would like to say they are great works of "fiction" but that would mean I would have to openly deny any gods or the likes. Take in what you would like from that.

-Can help people feel like they have a purpose during and after life.

Live your life and die? Or live your life and then go to a so called dream world? Which sounds more appealing ^^? Not to mention we are afraid of death as it is one of our great 'unknowns'

Things I dislike about religions:
-Fanaticism (Including trying to force religions upon others)

Brainwashing, obsession, whatever. I feel the number of people who take it too seriously is far too high - I consider those in this category to be weak minded.

-Wars (Directly related to fanaticism)

Same as above. Weak mindedness.

-Intolerance (Related to the previous two. Basically, the nonacceptance of any religions but one's own)
-Hypocritical at times
-Ignorance of modern day science.

Many years ago when religion and god was 'law' we were okay with that. Our knowledge of the universe was relatively limited and there were many great wonders to us, very much like today. Back then we decided "I dont understand this. I shall call it god." but with today's knowledge of many different things I dont think it is entirely acceptable to stand behind that same shroud of "Oh, it must be god" when we have scientists who are working very hard at making the universe around us make sense and to unlock its true potential for the human race (As destructive and stupid as we can be).

-People still thinking that without books such as the Bible or the Koran we wouldnt have society today in relation to morales, values, laws, etc

To me, saying that humanity is incapable of doing anything on our own without dusty old books written by nomadic desert tribes thousands of years ago is quite simply insulting.




My viewpoints on the matter?

I will try and keep this as unbiased as possible, but that is prettymuch impossible with an opinion. Anyways, I feel that religion is good and bad in many ways I have already described. My personal view on whether a person should or shouldnt believe in religion comes down to a couple of considerations which I feel are of utmost importance.

-There has been absolutely zero legitimate proof that an all mighty being(s) exists that created the world and universe as we know it.
-Scientists are finding some absolutely amazing secrets within the universe around us. Despite this, we haven't even scratched the surface of everything out there nor have we been able to prove that there wasn't some sort of being that created everything as we know it.
-As we have learned, intricate things REQUIRE intelligent design.
-If we were intelligently designed by something, what made it, and it, and it...
-The concept of suddenly 'existing' or even the concept of 'existence' is still far beyond us.
-We still cannot describe the 'human condition' of conciousness with any clarity.

TL;DR - Personally I think that you are a fool to either:
A)Believe entirely in religion without ever questioning the existence of a celestial being who nobody has ever been able to prove exists.
B)Believe entirely against religion when it has not been disproven by any legitimate means.

IMO a person should be:
C) Undecided, In between, both, etc. You may enjoy aspects of religion and believing in the purpose that it gives you for various things in life, pray to god, etc, but you do not mindlessly follow. And, as a modern and intelligent human, you should question an age old belief that has no completely legitimate proof of its existence but keep in mind that there is no legitimate proof of its non-existence.





Anyways, this has been on my mind a lot recently and I figured here might be an okay spot to discuss it and put out my thoughts on the internet. I'm sure with what I wrote I stepped on a few toes (apologies) and I hope if I did, you come in and debate it. The dawn of the internet is one of mankind's greatest triumphs and should be used to its full potential to advance the human race through the absolute complete sharing of knowledge and opinions. Things that are discussed now could lead to all that much of a better future for your children and mankind.

Regarding the existence of God. As you mention above intricate things require intelligent design. I don't think that human mankind is or will ever be intelligent enough to prove the existence of God. Mother Nature itself proves that a superior being exists. The perfection of how things work (the human body for example) tell us that there is something superior than us. We have to make clear here that most of major religions (major meaning the wide spread and I''m not gonna talk about occults and religion groups) have many common points and started based on almost same ideas. You'll be surprised to know how common religions are. For example Jesus Christ exists in Koran and the Bible, two diffent and for many contraddicting religions.
Now imo it's not foolish to live your life by certain rules that a religion is saying as long the rules don't insult other people's beliefs, integrity and general existence. Now regarding crimes, war, starvation and general bad or shitty things that happen around the wolrd, I don't believe that it has nothing to do with God. Humans are responsible for these things. People start and end wars, are responsible for the financial crimes that make people poor and bring starvation. No God waged war at Iraq no God turned things upside down in EU and no God slaughtered innocent people in the crusades or the so called holy missions.
My belief is that God gave us free will. And that's free will to love, to create, to kill, to destroy and to discuss here right now. I also believe in justice and in trial. Like Earl Hickey believed in karma so do I hahaha!!! Do good things with your heart (not by asking something in favor) and good things will happen to you.
"Offtopic" you started a very good topic here

Thanks ^^

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Written by Zealot644 on 24.01.2012 at 06:03

To me, saying that humanity is incapable of doing anything on our own without dusty old books written by nomadic desert tribes thousands of years ago is quite simply insulting.

Well, the New Testament was already written in Greek. Not to mention that St. Paul to whom many texts from the NT are attributed to, was a citizen of Rome. Christianity evolved within Roman Empire. The important figures of early Christian literature such as St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others lived and worked in the Roman Empire. Besides, Jewish people of that time were not exactly what you could call a nomadic desert tribe.

If you take the Old Testament, then yep. You've got many points there that revolve around the survival in the desert climate. Not only this but also many other things written in the Bible are not applicable in some other society in some other time and place. Those examples are more difficult to interpret but it's not impossible. The most important thing is the moral of those stories. You don't have to be familiar with the culture and life of ancient China in order to benefit from an old Chinese tale with a smart message. (Although, yes, you might need someone who is familiar with it and can uncover the moral of the story to you which you might miss otherwise.)

All in all... sure, humanity is capable of anything without having to know the fine to be paid for breaking the leg of your neighbour's ass.
The spiritual thing, however, that is also present in the Bible, and also in texts of Hinduism and Buddhism and other religions, is something that can open up a soul and mind. Life's not just eating, shopping and sex...

Anyway, the last part of your post is good. As is the reply to your post by Leonidas.

Plus... Why couldn't we discuss those things in the "religion thread"?

Written by theFIST on 24.01.2012 at 22:24

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Yes?

Well if it's there then it's there with a purpose. Herbivores have it to house bacteria which facilitate digestion of cellulose. Since humans have a different diet, the appendix is not that important any longer. It is said, however, that it can preserve healthy bacteria in case an infection of the digestive tract destroys the micro-flora in the rest of the intestine.

I'm an Agnostic. I'll believe it when I'll see it kinda deal. I first and foremost believe in sience and cold hard established facts, but I kbnow that even there, some studies and school of thinking contradict themselves. I don't think there's anything after death even if that might be hard or others to swallow and I take my motivation and recognition from my familly instead of any religions or gods

First of all, people who believe in God are not by default stupid. In the same manner, people who don't believe in God are not by default evil. Fanatic christians/muslims are just as bad as fanatic atheist, who basically do the same thing: they force they believes on everyone else. You can be perfectly normal and believe in God, and perfectly normal and don't believe in God. In other words, you being normal, decent human being has nothing to do with your Faith or lack of it.
The problem is that human mind is both rational and irrational. Faith is governed by irrational - like Erasmus beatufuly put in his "The Praise of Folly". Simply put, if you believe in God, you're crazy, because noone in his right mind can believe in invisible guy living in the clouds. So, Faith is the matter of irrational and spiritual, with little to do with rational, materialistic thought. One of the greatest atheists ever, Douglas Adams, used the perfect analogy: if someone scientificaly or logically proved that God exist, God would cease to exist. Paradox? That's faith for you. There is so much more to be said on this subject, but I won't go any further.

Now, I believe in God in a gnostic kind of way. The world was created by a Demiurg, aka Lesser Deity who is unperfect. Ergo, our own world is unperfect and pretty much evil in it's core.

As far as religion, I have opposite views on early christianity - "current" christianity, or Church, is a full-blow organization and spiritual corporation so I don't put it in equation. Early christianity however pretty cool concept: if you are weak, you will be strong in the afterlife. If you repent, you will be welcomed in Heaven as much as someone who was good his entire life. Seems unfair? By logical standards, yes. On the other hand, it makes perfect sence in Faith. I have read Gospels numerous times and Jesus says some pretty normal stuff. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars. Respect people. Be nice to everybody. Help you kindred soul. Pretty decent stuff. The Jesus himself is, on the other hand, pretty arogant dude, a guy who demands unchalenged Faith, who gets angry in numerous occasions, who kick the shit out of traders in the Temple and so forth. But I like this, because it shows that he was genuinly one of us, not some divine, sinless Super Man. And the Gospel tell us one of the most awesome stories in the world: a story of a young god who sacrificed himself for the good of humanity. I mean, you can think that God doesn't exist, but the fact remains that the Bible is still one of the greatest works ever written.

And after came the Church and everything went into the shitdrain.



IN SHORT, faith and religion are by default great concepts. But again, so is communism, democracy, capitalism, free speech etc.
Basically, you can have the greates concept in the world, and people will still find a way to fuck it all up.

Written by malaikat on 24.01.2012 at 23:11

IN SHORT, faith and religion are by default great concepts. But again, so is communism, democracy, capitalism, free speech etc.
Basically, you can have the greates concept in the world, and people will still find a way to fuck it all up.

The Lucifer's Principle by Howard Bloom explains that fact (and many others) beautifully It's a really good read. I reccomend it to anyone interested in science and social psychology. It has been banned from certain contries thought.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 24.01.2012 at 23:23

Written by malaikat on 24.01.2012 at 23:11

IN SHORT, faith and religion are by default great concepts. But again, so is communism, democracy, capitalism, free speech etc.
Basically, you can have the greates concept in the world, and people will still find a way to fuck it all up.

The Lucifer's Principle by Howard Bloom explains that fact (and many others) beautifully It's a really good read. I reccomend it to anyone interested in science and social psychology. It has been banned from certain contries thought.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it up

Maybe it's band in some countries, BUT IT SURE AIN'T BANNED ON INTERNET

Written by theFIST on 24.01.2012 at 22:24

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Don't forget about wisdom teeth.

I feel as though the multitiude of faiths themselves proves the point that none of them are correct.
If religion were made by god, it wouldn't make sense to have so many conflicting ideas. If religion were made by man, then the number of conflicting faiths makes perfect sense.

Written by Alecbirds on 25.01.2012 at 04:30

I feel as though the multitiude of faiths themselves proves the point that none of them are correct.
If religion were made by god, it wouldn't make sense to have so many conflicting ideas. If religion were made by man, then the number of conflicting faiths makes perfect sense.

That's a very wise thing to say.
You see none of the religions, as we know them today, is as God "formed" them. Almost all of religious scripts and documentations are written and expressed by men. The so called "rules" are mostly made by man. Actually not made but expressed if you like. You see God (of any religion) asks for simple things.Things like don't harm other people, don't exploit nature in a bad way, help the poor and the weak and in general forms live a decent and honorable life. Now men took this general idea and created some rules that express this idea on one hand but serves certain interests on the other hand. And while time passed and passes by those rulles became more and more comlpexed and even contradictive.
Tha'ts cause religious rules have various individualities, because they developed around the world according cultural and territotial facts. As ancient traditions vary so we have religious variaty. And that's why we have so many religions based on common principles with different affects and actions.
I believe that today is important to distinguish church from God. Imo the church and the priests have more to do with men today than with God. They are not representatives of God to men. God doesn't need representatives. On the contrary they are representative for men to God. And as corruption and filth infiltrates in any social form and political system so does in church.

If I may add a point - Muslims not eating pork.

Why? Ask any and you will be told "It's a dirty animal". This relates to what I mentioned about "I dont understand this, I will call it god"

Well actually, no, back when people lacked proper storage techniques for food pork ended up being spoiled and unsanitary and upon eating it, making people sick. As we now know, improper storage can make any meat rancid - especially pork (You can actually eat, similar to a steak, medium or medium well cooked pork. Modern storage techniques allow this). We now know that people got sick because they ingested bacteria and such that is present on any type of meat that is not stored or cooked properly.


I do like the replies so far ^^ very interesting points I'm seeing.


I mean, I guess that's justified when everyone else in the world eats it just fine without getting cursed by demons or whatever.

Written by Giza on 25.01.2012 at 03:21

Written by theFIST on 24.01.2012 at 22:24

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Don't forget about wisdom teeth.

those at least don"t randomly kill people as far as i know
added tailbones to the list
your turn

Written by theFIST on 25.01.2012 at 17:23

Written by Giza on 25.01.2012 at 03:21

Written by theFIST on 24.01.2012 at 22:24

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Don't forget about wisdom teeth.

those at least don"t randomly kill people as far as i know
added tailbones to the list
your turn

those things neither prove or disprove a creator, they prove evolution. and add to this list the rudimentary third lid, that rudimentary muscle that moves the ear auricle and the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I also want to say that by discrediting the world's major religions, you're not disproving the existence of a god, gods, or other forms of designers.

Written by Guest on 25.01.2012 at 18:04

Written by theFIST on 25.01.2012 at 17:23

Written by Giza on 25.01.2012 at 03:21

Written by theFIST on 24.01.2012 at 22:24

Written by Leonidas on 24.01.2012 at 15:33

The perfection of how things work (the human body for example)

Appendix

Don't forget about wisdom teeth.

those at least don"t randomly kill people as far as i know
added tailbones to the list
your turn

those things neither prove or disprove a creator, they prove evolution. and add to this list the rudimentary third lid, that rudimentary muscle that moves the ear auricle and the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

agreed, but they do disprove the idea of perfect life intelligently designed, an idea Leonidas seems to view as most valid

Written by Zealot644 on 25.01.2012 at 14:09

Well actually, no, back when people lacked proper storage techniques for food pork ended up being spoiled and unsanitary and upon eating it, making people sick. As we now know, improper storage can make any meat rancid - especially pork (You can actually eat, similar to a steak, medium or medium well cooked pork. Modern storage techniques allow this). We now know that people got sick because they ingested bacteria and such that is present on any type of meat that is not stored or cooked properly.

I've heard that the Semitic people simply didn't have any pigs in their natural habitat. Therefore, pig was an "exotic" animal for them. And you know that people are always afraid of eating "exotic" animals... (remember the "Tastes like chicken" cliché from numerous films?)

Another thing is that pigs, unlike cattle, are omnivorous. That means that they have virtually the same diet as humans. In northern areas where pigs are used as food, they are fed with leftovers from human food. In desert areas it's economically irresponsible to raise pigs because they'd be competing with humans for food that is a lot more complicated to obtain in this less fertile environment.

Plus. Pigs eat leftovers. Leftovers can rot a lot faster in the areas where the Semitic people originally lived which implies that pigs were very vulnerable to all kinds of infections that could be passed on to humans.

But how can you explain all those things to a simple farmer? It's easier to say "God doesn't want you to eat it."
In fact, muslim people have told me that Islam forbids things that are potentially harmful to human body, including alcohol and pork. Since pork can be harmful under certain conditions, then it's actually correct to assume that for the muslims of medieval era, eating pork was indeed unhealthy.

Also, if your culture considers eating pork (or anything else) a taboo, then you don't even have to be religious in order to avoid eating it. A schoolmate of mine who's from Kazakhstan which is a muslim country, said during a class "Pork? No, I don't eat pork. Who eats pork?!"
Then I asked her about eating horse meat, to which she replied "Horse? Oh yeah, horse's tasty!" And this girl wasn't exactly what you'd call a stereotypical muslim girl. Not only had she fair hair and European features, she didn't wear any hijab either.

You see, for someone who's from European culture space, eating pork is normal while eating horses, cats, dogs, bugs etc seems repulsive. At the same time, for people of different cultures, eating some of those things that we consider nasty, can appear as something much more acceptable while they regard pigs as similar to cats and dogs. It's beyond religion, actually. I am almost sure that the Semitic peoples didn't eat pork even before Islam.

Written by theFIST on 25.01.2012 at 18:16

agreed, but they do disprove the idea of perfect life intelligently designed, an idea Leonidas seems to view as most valid

I can't see how it disproves this idea.

Life functions remarkably wondrously. It's even more wonderful to see how all living organisms, whether little sponges or huge whales have the same patterns in their bodies that make them function, down to the molecular level.

Forgive my banal comparison but if you create some environment and/or its separate elements in a computer program, you use simple commands, simple elements to create simple things and you use the same things in order to create more complex structures as well, just by varying their layout, order etc.

I'm not saying you can prove intelligent design. But neither can you disprove it. Q.E.D.

Written by theFIST on 25.01.2012 at 18:16

agreed, but they do disprove the idea of perfect life intelligently designed, an idea Leonidas seems to view as most valid

My friend I think you misunderstood things here. I refered to the human body as an example of how life works around and inside us. The idea was to compare a complex mechanism, like the human body, to something that man couldn't have created on his own. Don't get stuck to words as words but try to see the inner meaning. After all there's no proof of materialistic existence of God and I don't believe that will ever be one. All there is faith and good will

My thoughts now are trying to merge science with religion to get full scope of creation, but im still in the infant process of creating my complete theory and have alot to work out. Heres where im at so far:

If scientific creation theory is correct(which is likely) then we can trace back our existance in time to 13.7 billion years ago. First through evolution of man to animals to the formation of earth/solar system/galaxy all the way back to the BIG BANG. But the questions still remain, what happened before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang?

Unfortunately it is scientifically impossible to see beyond the Big Bang b/c there is no physical matter before it. This leaves the door open for a God theory..

So far Christianity is the only pre-established religion I am considering, due to the fact that Jesus is documented to have indeed lived by non-christian followers of the time. But the Bible has Major flaws in consistency with science and the more i read it the more questions i ask. My thoughts are that Christianity may be real but the Bible definately not entirely. The Old Testament is can be very challenging when relating to science and the New Testament flawed as well. So far my understanding is to not live by the Bible word for word but rather use it as a book with good morals and some real Truths hidden behind embelished stories.

For example; combining science with the story of Noahs Ark. There is NO geological evidence that the entire Earth flooded during human times. BUT there is proof that a very large portion of land flooded in the Middle East during times of human inhabitation. To those people living there the world as they knew did indeed flood. So the writers, not having the knowledge that the world was much bigger then they thought, wrote the entire world flooded, when only a portion really did.

Again Im still working out these ideas and they are subject to change. Any suggestions or thoughts on this??

Written by AngelofDeth on 26.01.2012 at 00:41

Again Im still working out these ideas and they are subject to change. Any suggestions or thoughts on this??

I haven't red it, but if your building a theory that merges religions and science you should definetly look at the Coran. Many scientific facts have been written way before modern science had thetechnology to prove them. Was it blind luck? Is their also numbers of theories that are flawed hidden in there? True divine intervention? Might be worth it to check it out.

To an ant, a man is a god. Perhapes a god is an ant to an even higher being.

Religions are fine. They're all pretty much the same - they all encourage people to be good people. Most of the values are the same in most religions, and are widely usin in society (most, if not all, religions say that killing and stealing are wrong). People can believe in whatever they want.
The problem is the religious institutions and heirachy. The pope is not apointed by god, but by men who appoint a pope who'll look after their interests. It's the religious leaders who trick their followers into going to war not in the name of their god, but in the name of their leader who uses and twists the words of their god for their own gains.

Written by Guest on 25.01.2012 at 18:13

I also want to say that by discrediting the world's major religions, you're not disproving the existence of a god, gods, or other forms of designers.

Just because a Diety can't be proven or disproven doesn't make evidence for it's existence. If science can't explain how the first molecules came together to form complex life, that doesn't mean that an intelligent designer should be immediately assumed.

IMO Religion is Religion and I think by defining, stating rules(strong or moderate), ill fated beliefs( if it is!), affected consequences within the boundary is not something you can actually get the concept of Religion. It's a big field of many many things which till now we haven't discovered or be unknown and thus overlooking and smashing your thoughts[by ignoring them!] that this is right or it's been wrong is subject to stupidity. Reading articles will clear your facts about other religion but won't be known the real essence of that. You can be best about your own religion but not of the others. It's best to do a PhD innit. * Flying over the city called "Religion"*

Interesting reading. I'm going to throw out a thought I've had for some time:

Religion has followed human history since the beginning. What we call myths today were once religions, created to explain how nature works. As science progressed and was able to explain the until then mysterious events, religions were rendered into myths because they were no longer needed. Instead new religions evolved, more complex and with reference to written sources to validate themselves.

How long will it take until our current world religions become myths?

(Note that this is merely a simplified line of events phrased to get my question across)

Written by Nicoline on 27.01.2012 at 01:46

Interesting reading. I'm going to throw out a thought I've had for some time:

Religion has followed human history since the beginning. What we call myths today were once religions, created to explain how nature works. As science progressed and was able to explain the until then mysterious events, religions were rendered into myths because they were no longer needed. Instead new religions evolved, more complex and with reference to written sources to validate themselves.

How long will it take until our current world religions become myths?

(Note that this is merely a simplified line of events phrased to get my question across)

Well not all myths today were in themselves religions, although they might be associated with religions (like the myth of a flying horse was related to Greek mythology). But I see your point, and what I just mentioned is a good example; Greek 'MYTHOLOGY'. What was their religion, is to us mythology.

As for when modern religions will become mythologies (or if) I don't think it's easy to answer. Historical circumstances are too different to make any sort of prediction. It usually involves a change in sets of beliefs though, one religion is replaced by another. Can science completely replace religion? I'm not sure, personally I would guess no. Religion is part of human nature, even if some choose science over religion would all people give up on faith? Faith in science is of a very different sort to faith in religion. I don't think it can completely replace religion.

And if it did, would science be an 'end of the road' sort of deal, from which we go no further? Perhaps we will again feel the need for religion once science dominates?

Written by R'Vannith on 27.01.2012 at 05:08

And if it did, would science be an 'end of the road' sort of deal, from which we go no further? Perhaps we will again feel the need for religion once science dominates?

I think that if science is ever to rule, we would just fight to know wich scools of thought to follow. I mean, the numbers of studies that are made for the sole purpose of discrediting another one is incredible. Every researcher seeks fame and it's sad to say but science follows trends, so even if one is right, if his research goes against the wind or might arm someone politically let just say he's basically committing a profesional suicide.

Written by R'Vannith on 27.01.2012 at 05:08

Well not all myths today were in themselves religions, although they might be associated with religions (like the myth of a flying horse was related to Greek mythology). But I see your point, and what I just mentioned is a good example; Greek 'MYTHOLOGY'. What was their religion, is to us mythology.

As for when modern religions will become mythologies (or if) I don't think it's easy to answer. Historical circumstances are too different to make any sort of prediction. It usually involves a change in sets of beliefs though, one religion is replaced by another. Can science completely replace religion? I'm not sure, personally I would guess no. Religion is part of human nature, even if some choose science over religion would all people give up on faith? Faith in science is of a very different sort to faith in religion. I don't think it can completely replace religion.

And if it did, would science be an 'end of the road' sort of deal, from which we go no further? Perhaps we will again feel the need for religion once science dominates?

I do not think religion in itself is a part of human nature, but the need to explain, discover, justify and understand is. We constantly strive to find meaning in life, but the major philosophical questions are not easily answered (and should not be). Religion is a way to satisfy these needs, and help us feel less small.

Still I share your opinion on religion as an ever-present faith that cannot be entirely replaced by science. However, I hope that religion as an institution will change. It is not right to let religion dictate the believer's life in a way that is damaging to health or contributes to discrimination (I'm referring to refraining from using preventatives and discriminating homosexuals and women).

Written by Nicoline on 27.01.2012 at 11:42

I do not think religion in itself is a part of human nature, but the need to explain, discover, justify and understand is. We constantly strive to find meaning in life, but the major philosophical questions are not easily answered (and should not be). Religion is a way to satisfy these needs, and help us feel less small.

Still I share your opinion on religion as an ever-present faith that cannot be entirely replaced by science. However, I hope that religion as an institution will change. It is not right to let religion dictate the believer's life in a way that is damaging to health or contributes to discrimination (I'm referring to refraining from using preventatives and discriminating homosexuals and women).

Very true, religion as a means of expressing our understanding of the world around us isn't part of human nature. At least not in the sense that religion is synonymous with this need to explain, discover, justify and understand. As you say it is a way to satisfy this need. In the past, most especially before the development of modern science, I would say that satisfaction of those needs was considered almost entirely within religious frameworks, or at least in some loose affiliation with them.

These days with religion under far more scrutiny the fulfillment of these needs has become far more varied. That is we can see many more alternative forms of spiritual expression (New Age etc.) that function in a way increasingly dissimilar to organized religions.

Perhaps we will see things like this take the place of religion, rather than science. In a world in which science dominates perhaps religion is impossible and spiritual explanations and understandings are 'diluted' in some way, or don't come under any cohesive, organized body but exist in an erratic way. Religions themselves can't be seen in this way either, as clearly defined and agreed on by all, that much is obvious.

With the challenges to organized religion of today (whether from other religions, science or anything external of that debate like politics), fanaticism and a tendency to clutch stubbornly onto archaic ideals seems to just grow and grow. Where that trend is taking us I would hate to think. Religion has always been problematic and can often be seen as incurring violence and discrimination. In my view though these negatives are far outweighed by the positives; our culture/artistic expression/imagination I would say would not be what it is today and throughout history without religion.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 27.01.2012 at 05:31

Written by R'Vannith on 27.01.2012 at 05:08

And if it did, would science be an 'end of the road' sort of deal, from which we go no further? Perhaps we will again feel the need for religion once science dominates?

I think that if science is ever to rule, we would just fight to know wich scools of thought to follow. I mean, the numbers of studies that are made for the sole purpose of discrediting another one is incredible. Every researcher seeks fame and it's sad to say but science follows trends, so even if one is right, if his research goes against the wind or might arm someone politically let just say he's basically committing a profesional suicide.

That's one thing that's always going to be a part of human nature, conflict. No matter where religion goes from here, whether it disappears, changes, stays the same, we can always expect conflict. Schools or opposing theories of science taking arms against one another is a rather strange vision to me, but definitely not one I can't imagine.