[thedoc (OP)]

David asked the Naked Scientists:
   Is Science replacing Religion as a new means of belief?

In other words, Science proving religion has no place in regards to life, the planet and the Universe?

or

Is religions only purpose and function based on the belief of an after-world as a way of softening the prospect of death? (although, I believe it is more to do with social control of a large population).
What do you think?

[alancalverd]

There is such a wide variety of religions that it is difficult to identify any common characteristic except that each one teaches you to despise adherents to all the others. Science teaches you to work from observation, not prejudice, and is therefore more likely to bring happiness to the world.

Unfortunately science seems to be in retreat as more and more of the world is ruled by hatred, loathing and contempt, or the irrational dogma of economic expansion. The unholy alliance of Trump-Putin  will inevitably conflict with the disgusting side of islam and civilisation is doomed.

[Semaphore]

I always think of science as illuminating a dark room, first with a candle, then with an oil lamp, then with a 12V bulb - and now we have floodlights. There's very little room for a god to survive.

Religion was always about crowd control, wasn't it? Promise people (sheeple?) something that costs you nothing - heaven or paradise - and threaten them with something that costs you nothing - hell - and make sure you indoctrinate them from an early age, and that's job done.

[jeffreyH]

"Imagine"

Imagine there's no heaven
 It's easy if you try
 No hell below us
 Above us only sky
 Imagine all the people
 Living for today... Aha-ah...

 Imagine there's no countries
 It isn't hard to do
 Nothing to kill or die for
 And no religion, too
 Imagine all the people
 Living life in peace... You...

 You may say I'm a dreamer
 But I'm not the only one
 I hope someday you'll join us
 And the world will be as one

 Imagine no possessions
 I wonder if you can
 No need for greed or hunger
 A brotherhood of man
 Imagine all the people
 Sharing all the world... You...

 You may say I'm a dreamer
 But I'm not the only one
 I hope someday you'll join us
 And the world will live as one

[Semaphore]

I used to work in finance, and religion is a decent business model - though rather different from the ones I was used to. No engineering or manufacturing costs, but plenty of investment in marketing, sales and facilities. Sales incentive programs like saints, relics and miracles. Revenue growth would be a problem without growing the business, hence crusades/colonialisation/population growth (no birth control) - but look how rich most religions are, so it clearly works well. Way to go.

[alancalverd]

Science is all about scepticism and disprovable hypotheses. Religion, politics, conjuring and advertising are about gullibility and nondisprovable hypotheses.

[evan_au]

The world-wide occurrence of religion suggests that it confers a significant evolutionary advantage (or at least, it did in the past).

In addition to the negative outcomes quoted above, some have suggested that religion promotes social bonding, an agreed mode of behavior, and an incentive to overcome our darker impulses in favor of a more altruistic outlook. A belief in god enforces a touch of humility, does something to overcome the common aspiration to become "top dog", and encourages people to look beyond the immediate surroundings in which they find themselves.

The hormone oxytocin also promotes social bonding, between mother and baby, and within families. Some people started calling it a "love drug" - until it was discovered that in larger doses it promotes xenophobia (fear of outsiders) and aggression.

At this stage, science does not seem to promote social cohesion (except, perhaps, among scientists themselves); at best, science seems to promote people heading off on independent tracks. For every scientific paper you can point to another which presents an alternative view. This makes it very hard to translate scientific findings into social policy. The FUD vendors (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) have managed to derail public action on smoking, asbestos & climate change for decades, even after the evidence became overwhelming. 


But perhaps the most difficult part of translating scientific findings (or religious beliefs) into law is that this process is governed by politicians, a class who (to some extent) do think that they should be "top dog". And this group is not selected based on scientific or mathematical (or even logical) literacy. Listening to some politicians with a scientific background, it seems that the main barrier is the essential aura of infallibility - that they cannot make (or even be seen to make) an error. Scientific concepts like "This sounds like a good idea, let's trial it, and see if it works" is totally alien and abhorrent, because it may reveal a chink in their aura of omniscience.

If you focus on some of the early work on evolution, you may conclude that the world is a "dog eat dog" place, where the golden rule is "Do to others before they do you", and the only solution is for you to become "top dog", with all the aggression that entails. 

In more recent times, there has been a lot of research on the origins and basis of altruism, which show that there is a continual competition between immediate gratification and longer-term success which plays out at the level of individuals, families, nations and the whole world.

Our interactions, at the level of the individual, families, cities, nations and the world are not a zero-sum game.

[Semaphore]

I'm sure that religion did provide an evolutionary benefit by bonding the tribe together, which is exactly what we don't need now. The ideas of democracy, equality for women and minorities, freedom of expression and all the other things that people now expect are pretty much opposed to what most religions teach, which is why there has been a gradual move away from faith in some countries at least. Maybe the OP should ask if science is disproving some religious teachings while democracy and its associated ideas are replacing others. We should, after all this time, finally be in the age of reason.

[Tim the Plumber]

David asked the Naked Scientists:
   Is Science replacing Religion as a new means of belief?

In other words, Science proving religion has no place in regards to life, the planet and the Universe?

or

Is religions only purpose and function based on the belief of an after-world as a way of softening the prospect of death? (although, I believe it is more to do with social control of a large population).
What do you think?

Whilst I woul dlike to think that scientific thinking is replacing religious dogma I find there are a lot of areas where the dogma of religion is used, with scientific words, to support wrong headed bad science.

[smart]

Whilst I woul dlike to think that scientific thinking is replacing religious dogma I find there are a lot of areas where the dogma of religion is used, with scientific words, to support wrong headed bad science.

I agree. Climate changes is becoming a new religion. By engineering the climate, we can now create artificial rain and snow to force peoples changing their behavior and attitude. But the reality is that God doesn't play the dices with its creations. The risks of climate engineering in creating planetary havoc will be a human error listening to bad science instead of their own consciousness.

[puppypower]

I don't think science is replacing religion, since each specialized for a different thing. Science is about the outer world, whereas religion is about the inner world.

Science can come up wth important discoveries that can help humanity. But science can also make better bombs, weapons, military grade virus, machines that strip the earth, or technology that can make greenhouse gases, which then make some people paranoid. Religion is there to help people regulate their feelings and impulses, so science can be used more the good than for bad.

Religion does make use of mind control, since religion is about regulating the inner world. This is good practice, since political parties, media and marketeers also use mind control. Usually the latter, do this for short term gain using emotional manipulation and misinformation. Religion provides a checks and balance geared to the needs of the natural inner man. For example, PC manipulates feelings based on placing sounds and noises in the role of god. It places subjectivity ahead of the objectivity taught by science. Religion will help science by saying, these are false gods created by man. These noises have no universal power common to all people. Based on PC, you cannot do objective science, if your research makes the wrong noise.

As another example of mind control, the Democratic presidential candidate does not run on her merits; cause and affect. Instead, they make use of a relative reference illusion. The goal is to pile enough mud on her opponent, to make the other candidate look smaller, so she, without changing anything about her record, can appear to rise above (as the other sinks).

Relative reference, as taught by science, when misused, makes her base vulnerable to this magic trick. Religion does not believe in relative reference, but believes in an absolute reference, and therefore those in religion are less easily conned by relative reference illusions; mud slinging. Mudslinging places subjectivity ahead of objectivity; away from science. Only records are objectively recorded. Religion would teach it members to turn the other cheek, thereby neutralizing the subjective induction, so the victim can remain like a scientist. It will also teach, forgiveness of sin, so the herd does not go subjective and can remain as the scientist.

[Bill S]

There is much in this thread that I read and think: “If only that were true, the world would be a much better place.”  It’s very easy to contrast good science with bad religion, or bad science with good religion.  We probably all do it at times, just to make our favourite points.

Perhaps it is nearer to reality to reason that there is no such thing as good or bad religion, or good or bad science; only good or bad people using both for their own purposes.

Take this thought a little further, though, and we may find that Jean Liedloff was right and there are no villains -  “just victims of victims.”

[alancalverd]

In addition to the negative outcomes quoted above, some have suggested that religion promotes social bonding, an agreed mode of behavior, and an incentive to overcome our darker impulses in favor of a more altruistic outlook. A belief in god enforces a touch of humility,

Would that be the religion of "an eye for an eye", the Inquisition, or "Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day" ? Does humility include the Divine Right of Kings?

[wheelMetal]

Do remember that behind the Science, is made up of human, and human is prone to bias.... or human is born to believe.

Example from the Wright Bros, despite public demonstration of human flight, the scientific authorities & US Army & the media dismissed it as hoax (and probably even mock the bros) without examining the evidence. It was only until President Theodore Roosevelt, an even higher authority stepped in, ordered the Army and scientific press to look at the reality..... somehow in this case of "heavier than air flying machine", science became a religion where majority of people choose to believe it is not possible, instead of doing what Science is supposed to do, "explore the possibilities".

A rather interesting case, even the "conservation of energy" also had its fair share of reject from the Scientific Authorities of that time, probably because Julius von Mayer was a nobody, so his scientific papers on the subject was largely ignored. In fact later the credit was given to someone else, and with other misfall caused him to nearly committed suicide.

[Semaphore]

There is much in this thread that I read and think: “If only that were true, the world would be a much better place.”  It’s very easy to contrast good science with bad religion, or bad science with good religion.  We probably all do it at times, just to make our favourite points.

Perhaps it is nearer to reality to reason that there is no such thing as good or bad religion, or good or bad science; only good or bad people using both for their own purposes.

Take this thought a little further, though, and we may find that Jean Liedloff was right and there are no villains -  “just victims of victims.”

I think there is definately bad religion, which tries to regulate birth control and demonise gay people, or which relegates women to second-class citizens and demonises gay people, and that's just two of the major ones. ISIS anyone?

Science is neither good nor bad, just the search for truth.

No villains? Hitler and Stalin were just victims then....

[smart]

I think there is definately bad religion, which tries to regulate birth control and demonise gay people, or which relegates women to second-class citizens and demonises gay people, and that's just two of the major ones. ISIS anyone?

BTW, the war on terror and "ISIS" are a fabrication of globalists think tank to destabilize sovereign regimes from having their own nationality and religion. While I agree that some religions used to create violent conflicts, it is the militarization of science and military technology that needs to be replaced, not religions. Please do not let this thread fall into the ideological advocacy of the new world order. Religions are part of human nature and science must not become a tool to promote religious beliefs.     

[chiralSPO]

The world-wide occurrence of religion suggests that it confers a significant evolutionary advantage (or at least, it did in the past).

That's a plausible interpretation, but I think that it only shows that religion, once established, is an enduring social construct (meme, in the Dawkinsonian sense). I once likened the religion to the shark, and I still like the analogy. Like the shark, it is very old, and hasn't changed very much since, but it really hasn't needed to adapt to much. The religions that exist now (with the exception of recent "cults" that have yet to establish themselves as religions) do an excellent job of surviving, passing on their idea(l)s and limiting the expansion of their competitors.

[Semaphore]

Sharks kill people.....

[chiralSPO]

Sharks kill people.....

and people kill sharks, and people kill people, and sharks kill sharks..... :-)

My analogy was not intended to indicate that religion is dangerous to people, rather that it is a very well adapted meme that is firmly intrenched in most (if not all) of our societies.

[Semaphore]

I think your analogy is very apt. Religion is very well adapted and very dangerous to people.

Look, we're just one stage removed from animals and we're still trying to throw off our bestial nature. We've invented democracy and human rights and justice and equality and science and a host of other things that make us more civilised. The last thing we need is a primitive throwback like religion to keep us chained in the old ways. It's already dying out in Europe and more slowly in the States, and if there was a way to prevent the indoctrination of children it would die out very quickly.