Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
With the greatest of respect; that's utter horsecrap.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Einion Yrth said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
With the greatest of respect; that's utter horsecrap.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
ok so maybe not just a move to science, but certainly if you get rid of religion I think people will just fill this void with something else.
I would argue that human nature needs something to believe in, a group to belong to and for many a purpose for living that they will not get through their lives normally.
Rationalism and superstition only overlap in function where the latter provides easy fictitious explanations for the gaps in the former. Science doesn't replace religion, it just makes bits of it redundant (and in doing so exposes the general fallibility of scriptural authority, which is where the conflict between the two has come from in the past). It's all the literal word of God, apart from the bits we've proven to be false. Those bits are to be taken metaphorically.
otolith said:
Rationalism and superstition only overlap in function where the latter provides easy fictitious explanations for the gaps in the former. Science doesn't replace religion, it just makes bits of it redundant (and in doing so exposes the general fallibility of scriptural authority, which is where the conflict between the two has come from in the past). It's all the literal word of God, apart from the bits we've proven to be false. Those bits are to be taken metaphorically.
but this only works if you understand the rational arguments of science.When you accept scientific theory at face value without having any understanding of or concept of what these theories are or mean, then your rationalist is just the same as believing in a god.
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
I generally agree with that, everyone essentially has some kind of belief paradigm whether they like to acknowledge it or not. If one doesn't believe in anything then it can be a slippy slope towards apathy and nihilism.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
Yes the science text-book has pretty much replaced the religous text, not really a bad thing in my view, though as you say that doesn't come with moral instruction attached. The main thing that has changed with the decline of religion in Britain and West generally is attitutes towards sexual behaviour, a long standing preoccupation of religion.
Einion Yrth said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
With the greatest of respect; that's utter horsecrap.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
Efbe said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Einion Yrth said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
With the greatest of respect; that's utter horsecrap.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
And your phrase "faith in science" is an oxymoron. Faith is the belief in stuff without evidence or in the case of religion, in contradiction to the evidence. People accept science because of the evidence.
I don't believe in gravity, I know about gravity. If I hurl myself out of a top floor window, I don't have faith that I will fall, I know I will fall. I have evidence to call upon.
Smollet said:
Spot on. Religion is about belief. Science is about knowledge and thus requires no need to believe in its findings.
Knowledge and belief are invariably intertwined. Almost all human knowledge is imparted and understood through the use of fictional constructs, humans (in general) have a very hard time relating to the universe as a strictly abstract physical constant outside of it's relationship with the perception of the human mind, a kind of cognitive dissonance. And all of that relies on the vagaries of language, which is a very poor means of imparting knowledge of any kind - even the language of science and maths at times.That said less religion probably won't do us much harm as long as we keep telling each other our stories, experiences and thoughts in via other conduits, like internet memes and twitter.
Smollet said:
Spot on. Religion is about belief. Science is about knowledge and thus requires no need to believe in its findings.
I don't agree. There's a trust and an appeal to authourity involved with science that requires belief. For example, unless you have a large hadron collider in your back garden, you're going to have to trust and believe in the peer review process and it's output. And if a scientific view/theory is replaced with a new better one, you're going to have to perform a paradigm shift and modify the model of reality you believe in.FredClogs said:
Smollet said:
Spot on. Religion is about belief. Science is about knowledge and thus requires no need to believe in its findings.
Knowledge and belief are invariably intertwined. Almost all human knowledge is imparted and understood through the use of fictional constructs, humans (in general) have a very hard time relating to the universe as a strictly abstract physical constant outside of it's relationship with the perception of the human mind, a kind of cognitive dissonance. And all of that relies on the vagaries of language, which is a very poor means of imparting knowledge of any kind - even the language of science and maths at times.That said less religion probably won't do us much harm as long as we keep telling each other our stories, experiences and thoughts in via other conduits, like internet memes and twitter.
XJ40 said:
And if a scientific view/theory is replaced with a new better one, you're going to have to perform a paradigm shift and modify the model of reality you believe in.
Which a lot of top scientist don't even do... Sir Issac Newton himself spent the last half of his life trying to turn lead into gold such was his absolute conviction that it must be possible.Efbe said:
otolith said:
Rationalism and superstition only overlap in function where the latter provides easy fictitious explanations for the gaps in the former. Science doesn't replace religion, it just makes bits of it redundant (and in doing so exposes the general fallibility of scriptural authority, which is where the conflict between the two has come from in the past). It's all the literal word of God, apart from the bits we've proven to be false. Those bits are to be taken metaphorically.
but this only works if you understand the rational arguments of science.When you accept scientific theory at face value without having any understanding of or concept of what these theories are or mean, then your rationalist is just the same as believing in a god.
FredClogs said:
XJ40 said:
And if a scientific view/theory is replaced with a new better one, you're going to have to perform a paradigm shift and modify the model of reality you believe in.
Which a lot of top scientist don't even do... Sir Issac Newton himself spent the last half of his life trying to turn lead into gold such was his absolute conviction that it must be possible.FredClogs said:
XJ40 said:
And if a scientific view/theory is replaced with a new better one, you're going to have to perform a paradigm shift and modify the model of reality you believe in.
Which a lot of top scientist don't even do... Sir Issac Newton himself spent the last half of his life trying to turn lead into gold such was his absolute conviction that it must be possible.
t-tonne of energy, but it's possible.Efbe said:
When you accept scientific theory at face value without having any understanding of or concept of what these theories are or mean, then your rationalist is just the same as believing in a god.
I think Efbe has got this right. Most if not all religions will have been started in good faith (npi) based on the most up to date and accepted knowledge at the time but have deteriorated into superstitious claptrap over the centuries because of misunderstanding/misinterpretation and refusal to accept corrections as knowledge changed over the years. I have no religion and I don't think you have any conscious thought after death either but that's just my opinion however I have always enjoyed this article/story/blog whatever you want to call it.
Makes it nice to think of lost ones still floating around as energy
"You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.
And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him/her that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let him/her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her/his eyes, that those photons created within her/him constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.
And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.
And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly."
Makes it nice to think of lost ones still floating around as energy
"You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.
And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him/her that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let him/her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her/his eyes, that those photons created within her/him constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.
And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.
And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly."
Einion Yrth said:
FredClogs said:
XJ40 said:
And if a scientific view/theory is replaced with a new better one, you're going to have to perform a paradigm shift and modify the model of reality you believe in.
Which a lot of top scientist don't even do... Sir Issac Newton himself spent the last half of his life trying to turn lead into gold such was his absolute conviction that it must be possible.t-tonne of energy, but it's possible.otolith said:
Some people do accept what they are told because they are told it by an authority figure. Whether that's a priest, a doctor, a scientist or a policeman. That kind of faith in authority is the same mechanism, but it doesn't mean that the function is the same. Science may have pushed the church out of explaining some of the things we couldn't understand about the world, in the same way that the law or the welfare state have usurped other functions that the church used to provide, but none of them are directly replacing it, they're just making parts of it redundant.
I'd say a major function of both religion and science is to understand the world/existence and our place in it. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff