IF Science were to claim both the origins of life and the singularity...

[6Pax]

...Would religion be able to survive?

I'm just talking hypothetical here.

My question is, if science, say in the near future, was able to demonstrate how things like abiogenesis, or the big bang, could have occured spontaneously, without the need for a higher power of any kind, would religion be able to continue to propagate throughout the globe?

I know of course, that nothing is provable in the world of science, but if we were able to replicate these sort of things, and gather enough evidence to show that these things can occur in nature without the need for some sort of god figure, what then?

In my opinion, the only things that religion can really claim science doesn't own are- the emergence of life on earth, and the singularity. Sure, science has theories, but nothing as agreed upon or as supported as, say, evolution. Say in 100 years, we do. I feel that if these two things were covered by science, then belief in a higher power really would have no groundwork in the rational world, because we would essentially have no BIG question that science couldn't answer with evidence.

What do you think?

[Mr Beer]

No, because people will still be afraid of dying and want to believe they will see their loved ones again.

[r0gue6]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

No, because people will still be afraid of dying and want to believe they will see their loved ones again.

This.

It's a comfort thing.

[6Pax]

Originally Posted by r0gue6

This.

It's a comfort thing.

Fair enough, big part of it no doubt

[Heavy_Beats]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

No, because people will still be afraid of dying and want to believe they will see their loved ones again.

Pathetic, who is with me.

[6Pax]

Originally Posted by Heavy_Beats

Pathetic, who is with me.

I wouldn't call it pathetic, I'm pretty sure most of us would like to enjoy an eternity of bliss with our loved ones (Of course I find the very idea of heaven to be fundamentally flawed, but for the sake of the argument, lets go with it)

But that doesn't change the fact that its very likely not true, its sad what people will declare just to have the comfort of an unjustified belief.

[IEatPowerRacks]

No, because with all those explanations, they would still say "God did it." Look at the the science we have today that they still reject or say "God did it." - evolution, big bang, etc...

[6Pax]

Originally Posted by IEatPowerRacks

No, because with all those explanations, they would still say "God did it." Look at the the science we have today that they still reject or say "God did it." - evolution, big bang, etc...

Well lets be honest. I don't believe in any sort of god whatsoever, but I don't see how its so difficult for a Christian to believe that evolution was gods mechanism for putting life on earth. Neither do we know what "pulled the trigger" on the big bang, a higher power is a decent, if unlikely explanation for that too.

[Weightaholic]

No. They would merely use (more) sophistry to justify their absurd beliefs.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by 6Pax

...Would religion be able to survive?

I'm just talking hypothetical here.

My question is, if science, say in the near future, was able to demonstrate how things like abiogenesis, or the big bang, could have occured spontaneously, without the need for a higher power of any kind, would religion be able to continue to propagate throughout the globe?

I know of course, that nothing is provable in the world of science, but if we were able to replicate these sort of things, and gather enough evidence to show that these things can occur in nature without the need for some sort of god figure, what then?

In my opinion, the only things that religion can really claim science doesn't own are- the emergence of life on earth, and the singularity. Sure, science has theories, but nothing as agreed upon or as supported as, say, evolution. Say in 100 years, we do. I feel that if these two things were covered by science, then belief in a higher power really would have no groundwork in the rational world, because we would essentially have no BIG question that science couldn't answer with evidence.

What do you think?

recently scientists have shown that RNA could have occurred spontaneously with the chemistry and environment that would have been on the earth at the time by replicating it, and thus proving the first monumental step in abiogenesis.. just sayin.

and no, i'm pretty sure religion is going to stick around.. the majority of the human population is becoming more stupid all the time.

edit: not that all religious people are stupid, some are much smarter than i am.. it's just that stupidity seems to inevitably come with religion by default.

[Mtguy8787]

Originally Posted by 6Pax

...Would religion be able to survive?

I'm just talking hypothetical here.

My question is, if science, say in the near future, was able to demonstrate how things like abiogenesis, or the big bang, could have occured spontaneously, without the need for a higher power of any kind, would religion be able to continue to propagate throughout the globe?

I know of course, that nothing is provable in the world of science, but if we were able to replicate these sort of things, and gather enough evidence to show that these things can occur in nature without the need for some sort of god figure, what then?

In my opinion, the only things that religion can really claim science doesn't own are- the emergence of life on earth, and the singularity. Sure, science has theories, but nothing as agreed upon or as supported as, say, evolution. Say in 100 years, we do. I feel that if these two things were covered by science, then belief in a higher power really would have no groundwork in the rational world, because we would essentially have no BIG question that science couldn't answer with evidence.

What do you think?

are people really this dumb? The transcendental/metaphysical questions that pretty much every thinks about from time to time are in principle, beyond the entire concept of scientific investigation, and have nothing to do with any observable process. If abiogenesis were observed in a lab, it is still in a fundamentally different realm than the big questions that most people think about. It does not take us any 'closer', because they are two fundamentally different things.

we would essentially have no BIG question that science couldn't answer with evidence.

I guess some people's minds really are small. Discovering how life originated on Earth is big in terms of scientific understanding, but it means nothing as far as the transcendental questions go. You can acquire all the scientific knowledge that it is possible to acquire in the universe, and the underlying common questions of religion/spirituality/etc are still the same.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Mtguy8787

I guess some people's minds really are small. Discovering how life originated on Earth is big in terms of scientific understanding, but it means nothing as far as the transcendental questions go. You can acquire all the scientific knowledge that it is possible to acquire in the universe, and the underlying common questions of religion/spirituality/etc are still the same.

really? like what.. let me guess: "why are we here?" "what is our purpose?" **** like that?

these questions are invalid.

[Mtguy8787]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker021

really? like what.. let me guess: "why are we here?" "what is our purpose?" **** like that?

these questions are invalid.

no.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Mtguy8787

no.

then what questions?

[9987]

You'd still have to contend with philosophy of science issues.

[6Pax]

Originally Posted by Mtguy8787

are people really this dumb? The transcendental/metaphysical questions that pretty much every thinks about from time to time are in principle, beyond the entire concept of scientific investigation, and have nothing to do with any observable process. If abiogenesis were observed in a lab, it is still in a fundamentally different realm than the big questions that most people think about. It does not take us any 'closer', because they are two fundamentally different things.



I guess some people's minds really are small. Discovering how life originated on Earth is big in terms of scientific understanding, but it means nothing as far as the transcendental questions go. You can acquire all the scientific knowledge that it is possible to acquire in the universe, and the underlying common questions of religion/spirituality/etc are still the same.

A- I wasn't saying, scientists prove definetively that abiogenesis is the way things happened, case closed. I was just saying, if they were able to maybe demonstrate it in a lab and reach some sort of consensus on the issue you know, showing that it would have been possible for life to originate without an intelligent designer, then those of us who don't believe in religion would have an answer to the "How" question.

B- What are these transcendent questions I wonder? Why are we here, whats our purpose, all that stuff? Most of us really aren't too concerned about stuff like that, at least I'm not. I'm here, even if I have some purpose, I'll never be able to understand it, so thats as much worrying as I need to partake on the subject.

[Lux-Veritas]

Originally Posted by Mtguy8787

are people really this dumb? The transcendental/metaphysical questions that pretty much every thinks about from time to time are in principle, beyond the entire concept of scientific investigation, and have nothing to do with any observable process. If abiogenesis were observed in a lab, it is still in a fundamentally different realm than the big questions that most people think about. It does not take us any 'closer', because they are two fundamentally different things.
.

The philosophical questions would rule out the possibility that there is a reason behind our existence, and our purpose of existing.

[Pay_Me]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

No, because people will still be afraid of dying and want to believe they will see their loved ones again.

^^This. Dunno if anyone reads sci-fi here...But Peter F Hamilton is a good author if you like space opera. Which he covers certain aspects of it after life, in a fictional manner.

[Mr Beer]

Originally Posted by Pay_Me

^^This. Dunno if anyone reads sci-fi here...But Peter F Hamilton is a good author if you like space opera. Which he covers certain aspects of it after life, in a fictional manner.

Read the series, good stuff.

[Mtguy8787]

Originally Posted by 6Pax

A- I wasn't saying, scientists prove definetively that abiogenesis is the way things happened, case closed. I was just saying, if they were able to maybe demonstrate it in a lab and reach some sort of consensus on the issue you know, showing that it would have been possible for life to originate without an intelligent designer, then those of us who don't believe in religion would have an answer to the "How" question.

B- What are these transcendent questions I wonder? Why are we here, whats our purpose, all that stuff? Most of us really aren't too concerned about stuff like that, at least I'm not. I'm here, even if I have some purpose, I'll never be able to understand it, so thats as much worrying as I need to partake on the subject.

Youre trying to argue against the god of the gaps concept..... when your argument is based on the flip side of the god of the gaps.
Its common for religious people who believe in evolutionary theory + religious ideas to believe that God created life by establishing 'natural laws' that would give rise to life. The questions of how life originated on Earth is pretty insignificant when looking at the big picture. Thinking that intelligent design = the Earth was inanimate, then poof, everything came into existence, is a pretty narrow, unsophisticated, and primitive way of conceptualizing it, even if you don't believe it it.

The God of the gaps is a primitive way of looking at things. And the reverse God of the gaps, arguing that the more scientific knowledge we gain, the less rational it becomes to entertain anything related to the general concept of god -- is equally primitive and stupid. But this is what your approach is based on, and it is a pretty common approach.

Any intelligent discussion of metaphysical questions will at the very least go to the base of reality as we know it -- things like the universe as we know it, our concept of 'natural laws', and other things. Any halfway-intelligent discussion on these will go to, and beyond these things -- but science by definition, cannot prove anything about it. Any intelligent discussion of the general concept of intelligent design starts, at the very least, starts where science ends.

I'm not religious, but most of the common arguments against intelligent design are equally as stupid as the common arguments for it. The fact that you think that observing abiogenesis in the lab answers the 'how' question shows that your approach is more like that of many religious people in the west, than it is different from it. It doesnt answer 'how', it answers 'what'.

Again, this is based on the primitive approach that any concept of intelligence inherent in nature/intelligent design = poof, life appeared out of nowhere, as far as we can tell, and the physical evidence would reflect this. Observing something like this merely pushes the god of the gaps back one step -- it doesnt mean anything, as far as discussion of more sophisticated concepts go.


And for discussions like these, claiming that even though you can't prove things 100%, you can still find evidence that makes it less rational to believe it... you are basically contradicting yourself. Making a claim of a metaphysical concept, such as one of the numerous conceptions of god, being less likely than more likely implies evidence. Even if it is not implying absolute evidence, it is still implying evidence. And there is none, and never will be.

It's like dividing by zero -- the answer is undefined... it simply doesnt apply. Its like one person asking another if he thinks something is beautiful or not, and the other person replying that he does not think so, because there is no evidence that it really is. Such an answer simply doesnt apply.

[DaCougarMech]

there's always something that the religious will attribute god to