I don't think science will replace religion, but I think science has had a positive effect on religion for reasons already mentioned in this thread. I find that most if not all major religions have a mystical element even if its emphasis is dogmatic. And, of course, some are inherently mystical. Sometimes Meister Eckhart has more in line with Taoism than with his own dogmatic tradition, and yet he was thoroughly informed in the Aristotelian/Thomistic thinking of his day. Orthodox hesychasm is not wholly unlike Pure Land Buddhism in terms of method. I don't think science has a way to replace that mystical experience that permeates virtually all religions, whatever that experience might be. Significantly, I don't think any of the currently popular, Christian contemplatives, e.g., Cynthia Bourgealt, Thomas Keating, or Richard Rohr are fundamentalist; they all embrace current scientific understandings. I think any religion/spirituality worth its salt will look something like that.

This really does depend on the definition of "science" and "religion". You can have science presented as this systematic method of studying reality and religion as mere appeal to authority. You can also have science presented as being dogmatic and religion as being more rational than science. I would say you need to define clearly your terms. However, I read from your post that science is meant to be more truthful while religion is meant to be more ethical. The thing is, Goodness and Truth are really the same thing, at least in Catholic theology.

From a brief gloss of other comments, I would agree that religion is quite heterogenous. I am not even sure what is the clear unifying aspect of all religions. Though perhaps most are based on mystical experiences or encounters with beings or Being other than our own being as humans. In this case, I don't think science will replace religion, instead science will merge with religion and synthesize to form the single understanding of Reality as it is. A replacement of religion implies the utter annihilation of mystical experiences, at least in the majority. Yet in so far mystical experiences are experiences like any other, they will eventually be tackled by science as well, if science can be purified from some dogmatic assumptions as well such as materialism, or at least shallow materialism.

It might be worth mentioning Science and Non-Duality. This started as a conference in San Rafael in California in 2009.

The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience.

They now have conferences in many other locations and a large number of recorded lectures and seminars on Youtube. Their web homepage can be found at https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ and on youtube https://www.youtube.com/@scienceandnonduality

It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.

Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory. — Art48

Given the shrinking of religions (despite their popularity still amongst certain societies and subcultures) I suspect religions will disappear (unless they can escape literalism and evolve). Certainly for many millions of people and gods and goddesses are irrelevant. That number is not shrinking.

But we can't underestimate the fear people have of uncertainty, not to mention technology and science and how a retreat into creationism, tradition and superstition - call it what you will - may be highly appealing as a kind refuge from the perceived troubling present.

I don't think science is the replacement as it does different things to religion. But science has done a far better job in explaining most of the things religion used to explain. For some folk this is enough.

Morality will generally take care of itself - even most religious folk don't really follow religious morality and in Christian cultures most of theists can't even name more than 3 or 4 of the ten commandments.

As for Christianity, I think Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong (my favourite, now deceased, religious writer) is probably on the money:

“Unless Biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith.”
― Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel

Considering the fact that scientists are attempting to look 13,800,000,000 years into the past, I'd say they're functionally the same. — Tzeentch

1. The Bible attempts to look 10,000 years into the past, not 13.8 billion. Google to see how Christians calculate the age.
2. Science really looks. It uses sophisticated instruments (like the LHC or the James Webb) to gather data and then uses logic, reason, and math to makes sense of the data. The Bible does its looking by repeating ancient imagined tales mixed with a bit of history.
Functionally the same? No.

Roughly speaking, science tells us how things are, while religion attempts to tell us how things ought to be, usually very badly.

Science and religion are working in opposite directions.

So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did.

So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

:up: :up:

The latter tricks many into ignoring their symptoms whereas the former contributes to the health of most. — 180 Proof

Placebo could also be considered behaviour, beliefs and attitudes that confer a positive health outcome. In that sense they don't "trick" anyone so much as it is likely certain behaviours and attitudes are better for someone's health.

For example, not being psychologically stressed about your health, means you have less cortisol flowing, and thus stronger immunity against infection. In this case we see how attitudes directly effect the functioning and resilience of the organism to disease.

If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason.

But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

What would say about a new religion of spiritual belief that exemplifies ethics to the point that they are synonymous? Or even more exaggerated a case, one that furthers our ethical understandings beyond what they currently are.

Its usually the specific arbitrary parts of religious dogmas that restrict religions ability to be ethical. However new simpler dogmas can be created that may include not only ethics but scientific principles, as well as an origin explanation and the other facets of realities largest questions and mysteries.

What would say about a new religion... — Benj96

Not much.

The point would be to replace dogmas with problem solving.

There are no "placebos" in foxholes. :mask:

If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason. — Benj96

The "trick" is the belief that a placebo "cures" an ailment without active medicinal ingredients (ergo the placebo effect). Ignoring symptoms, however comforting, only allows the untreated ailment to get worse. IME, religion is mostly used as a placebo – consolation – for existential dread as well as cultural and/or historical and/or scientific ignorance (i.e. phobias & bigotries).

For sure. Scientism is definitely a thing. Now, there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology. But I think there is also a good argument to be made that this is a No True Scottman fallacy given some of the world's most famous scientists write best sellers in the science category that are substantially or even mostly about ontology, the origins and nature of the world, or make explicit claims about morality and moral realism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, Scientism seems to be a vague-but-firm belief system based on modern "real-world" revelations instead of ancient ideal-world myths (handed-down from primitive priests). On this forum, true-believers in Scientism act just like religious faithful when their core beliefs are challenged. For example, instead of philosophical arguments, they may give you book, chapter & verse of a technical tome to serve as the authority for a specific belief, or they may just tell you to read some abstruse text by a presumed expert (secular priest), leaving you educate yourself in The Truth, and out of the vale of willful Ignorance. Does that sound like a bible-thumper to you?

In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. So, those of us not specially-trained must accept, on faith, the "facts" of those arcane experts. Yet, there is no profane pope to serve as the judge of last resort for contentious questions*1. So Scientism faithful are left to their own devices to determine Ethical & Ontological answers to philosophical questions, that are irrelevant to physical & mechanical Science. Maybe that's why they post on a Philosophy Forum instead of Science Site.

Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. Hence, their doctrine is simply classical Newtonian mechanics,with Random Chance in place of Newton's clockwork designer. If that works for ya, you may not need philosophical reasoning to fill-in the blanks of scientific & religious faith. The rest of us must keep an open mind, while searching for the elusive butterfly of truth. :smile:


*1. And their hypothetical Bible is referred to as "Settled Science". Is there any such thing as a final fact in science?

In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. — Gnomon

Sorry but :rofl: ...

Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". — Gnomon

This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.

In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking?

Science cannot solve all the problems inherent in the human condition. Organized religion is an attempt to pacify, if not solve, those kinds of problems that science cannot help with. It very well may help many people to live happier lives than they otherwise would, but it will always remain a 'bandaid' solution if it is not attended by spiritual, that is ethical, practice. Religion will be around as long as there are people afraid or incapable of thinking for themselves and developing their own ethical ideas and practices.

So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

You think it would be a good thing if ethics were based on faith and a social hierarchy?

I say let religion die.

You think it would be a good thing if ethics were based on faith and a social hierarchy? — praxis

No.

Where did that come from?

I say let religion die. — praxis

What if it won't die? Kill it?

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.

Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry.

:fire:

What if it won't die? Kill it? — Janus

Killing people because of their beliefs is what religious folks do.

This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.
In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking? — Banno

Yes. In retrospect, the irony of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, is that it rejected the authority of Church & Pope, but accepted the authority of a book compiled & edited by that same organization. Indeed "how odd". For the record, Gnomon does not place credence in the "holy" book of both creeds.

Regarding the necessity for a "priestly caste", I'll simply refer you to a fundamental concept of Protestantism : the priesthood of all believers*1. If you don't come from a Fundamentalist background, a lot of these doctrinal paradoxes will seem "odd".

I assume the "who was it?" question was rhetorical, so I won't go into a history lesson. But if you interpret my comments, on this thread and others, as "fundamentalist buttressing", you have completely missed the point . . . nay, reversed it. Perhaps you are confusing Gnomon with someone else.

If the "Catholic Bible" comment was "ambiguous", that may be because I was making an analogy to a science-based, instead of bible-based, alt-religion*2. The Fundamentalists, and indeed most Protestants, accepted the "faith only" Pauline version*3 of Christianity, while officially rejecting the "idol (icon) worship" and "salvific works" that emerged within the Imperial Church of Rome. To be clear, the "who?" is Christian Fundamentalists on one hand, and Atheist adherents of Scientism on the other. Both seeking higher authority for their favorite beliefs.

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? I don't stand on either side. :smile:


*1. Priesthood of all believers :
The doctrine asserts that all humans have access to God through Christ, the true high priest, and thus do not need a priestly mediator. This introduced a democratic element in the functioning of the church that meant all Christians were equal.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/priesthood-of-all-believers

*2. Modern Alternative to Religion :
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. ___Gnomon, from this thread

*3. Not by faith only :
James 2:24 : You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Note -- A direct contradiction of Paul's doctrine. Just one of many discrepancies in the "Catholic" Bible.

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.
Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry. — Tom Storm

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. As you implied, Science, as a dynamic body of knowledge, is not static, but constantly evolving. That's why classical Newtonian Mechanics is no longer The Ultimate Authority on Physics. As soon as a fact reaches consensus, a new fact emerges to cast doubt on it. Ironically, even the Bible of Abrahamic traditions has evolved, both in fact and philosophy over the ages. That's why complex re-interpretations are necessary to harmonize the discordant notes.

Adherents of Scientism on this forum make very confident assertions about how the world works, despite the commonly accepted opinion that, although Quantum Math is more accurate than Newtonian Math, it is ultimately grounded in Randomness & Uncertainty. So an open & flexible mind is necessary for navigating the "pathways to truth". Einstein seemed to have such an adaptive mind, so if he was around today, I think he would grudging admit that "god does play dice with the universe", but he still wouldn't like it. :smile:



Has Newtonian physics been disproven? :
It was published in 1687 in the book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica written by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's “Law of Gravity” has been declared wrong; however, scientists prefer to continue with Einstein's theory of “General Relativity” still showing suspicion in his theory too.
https://happenings.lpu.in/newtons-law-of-gravity-proven-wrong/

Classical vs Quantum Physics :
Newton's laws are used to explain our daily life while at the atomic level, they fail to explain the motion and nature of atoms and that is where quantum mechanics come in.
https://sherpa-online.com/forum/thread/physics/gcse/newtons-laws/were-newtons-laws-superseded-by-quantum-mechanics

Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics?
Closer examination, though, reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or its indeterminism, although he did think—for solid scientific reasons—that the randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-really-thought-about-quantum-mechanics/

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. — Gnomon

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction.

:up:

I wasn't talking about killing people.

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction. — Tom Storm

Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. :smile:

Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism.

there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this.

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? — Gnomon

Why not.

But my point was missed, so I'll put it again, more directly. There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another. Such folk might miss the distinction makes.