Will Science Win Over Religion - Hawking thinks it will.

I think he has a point, atleast I had a recent idea that his idea fits with.

This topic made me think about that idea and make a thread about it. But I'd have to say I support his idea.

I don't see this doing much.

People will continue to be hot headed on certain subjects. Always will.

I think religion is here to stay.

Stupid people need things to ponder as well

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

LOL

RELIGIOUS FREAKS attacking a scientist

amazing that people wanna talk about the Israel crew here on ATS but forgets to talk about the religious crews ...

stop being personal

in 50 years tops, we will be able to create a universe in a computer (some people believe in less than that)

[edit on 14/6/10 by Faiol]

I understand what your saying and I agree. But we do have a long way to go - yes we may be able to create a universe but I'm betting we won't know what to put in it or even how. But lets suppose we can and do - will that make that scientist a GOD! No it won't he will still be a scientist and science will explain everything one day.

I love and really believe in science... but the universe is so vast... and we understand so little of it...

Scientists always go back to ``the god particle`` when they don't understand something... and since the universe is so large... we'll never understand everything.

We'll never reach the end of the tunnel...

Now MAYBE... just MAYBE... if the human civilization last a few million years... and we meet with lots of alien races... and we develop faster than light travel...and inter-dimensional travel... THEN MAYBE, science will win over religion... but since this is all unlikely, and even if it does happen, it's so far from now, that in the next few thousands, if not millions, if not billions of years, religion/God will always be there alongside science.

reply to post by majestictwo


yes, the scientists would become a GOD to that universe

we wont need to create a universe just like our, we may able to do a less complex one, or something like that, even if we dont do it, we will create AI in the sense you wouldnt be able to distinguish a computer from a person anymore

reply to post by Vitchilo


Personally I don't think we will last that long. Then I don't think we will need that long the human race will discover what its all about perhaps sooner than you think. I just wonder if we will be able to handle it, I'm not talking about the likes of science minded people but for general public who are not science minded.

To begin, I do not think IA was making a statement that Science will destroy Religion, rather that Science will inform and help evolve religion - removing the 'authoritarian' father figure and replacing it with 'reason' (to a degree).

I find this a very entertaining philosophical question one with no clear answer as the boundaries between science and religion will continually become more vague and difficult to identify.

I do think IA is a bit off when he states that 'observation and reason' will replace the authoritarian father figure, not because I see the later as infallible and static, but because I do not think there will ever come a day when mysticism and the occult will be stricken from the human-being.

These attributes are fundamental aspects of religious, spiritual, and superstitious belief structures and are also intrinsic to the human being.

There will ALWAYS be something out there bigger than science and bigger than human rationality - this is where the imagination and blind faith dwell. . .

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Animal]

reply to post by majestictwo


Science is religion, and Hawking is hoping his theology will beat out the others.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Black holes require the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

They can not be seen or detected by any means. They are metaphysical in nature. They violate the known laws of physics. Only their effects can be seen.


Dark matter requires the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

It can not be seen or detected by any means. It is metaphysical in nature. It violates the known laws of physics. Only its effects can be seen.


Indeed the list of totally unprovable hypothetical forms of matter and energy grows practically daily. All of them require a religious faith to believe in. There is no difference between God or hypothetical physics.

If it can not be demonstrated in a lab, it is not science, it is religion.

Will Science Win Over Religion - Hawking thinks it will.

Pope says he's wrong!!!

What the hell would you expect Hawking to say? "This science stuff is just a flash in the pan"? Get a grip FFS.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by majestictwo

 

Science is religion, and Hawking is hoping his theology will beat out the others.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Black holes require the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

They can not be seen or detected by any means. They are metaphysical in nature. They violate the known laws of physics. Only their effects can be seen.


Dark matter requires the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

It can not be seen or detected by any means. It is metaphysical in nature. It violates the known laws of physics. Only its effects can be seen.


Indeed the list of totally unprovable hypothetical forms of matter and energy grows practically daily. All of them require a religious faith to believe in. There is no difference between God or hypothetical physics.

If it can not be demonstrated in a lab, it is not science, it is religion.

well said. and not to derail the thread but, mnemeth, ive been a lurker for years. i enjoy your posts and look forward to more of them on an electric universe

Originally posted by majestictwo

Stephen Hawking, known for his ground breaking work in physics, told Diane Sawyer that when it comes to reconciling science and religion, there is only one outcome: "science will win because it works."

Any thoughts?

I think Carl Sagan figured out what is happening, he talks about it in this clip starting at around 2:30.

1966 interview with Carl Sagan about UFOs


Basically he agrees with Hawking to an extent that science is forcing people to take another look at religion, and it's causing some people to dismiss some previously held religious views.

However, he notes that despite this fact, people have the same need to believe in something that they always have, so what do we see? People abandoning traditional religion, and coming up with replacements for it. One type he mentions is in the field of UFOlogy where some people believe that aliens are benevolent and will come to Earth to save us from ourselves.
But it's not just UFOlogy, there are other replacements for religion like metaphysics. I didn't want to believe it at first, but after careful observation, I think Sagan is right. use science to take away people's traditional religion, and they're going to look for some other superstitious beliefs to replace the old traditional religious beliefs. I see it a lot.

And science has also left a lot of people behind. One in five Americans and one in four British thinks the sun revolves around the Earth. That's pretty sad. I expected numbers like that in perhaps rural China but not in industrialized Western countries.

And we have seemingly a whole lot of people that think all mainstream scientists are deluded and they think know more than the scientists. I think science was advancing the knowledge of the general population during the space race in the 1960s, but I don't think that's happening any more, it seems like science continues to advance in the presence of scientists, while many non-scientists in the general population have a growing disdain for science and a strong desire to revert to superstitious beliefs, going back to the middle ages or the dark ages.

Here's an example I recently encountered showing how badly science fails to get through to the general population who seem to think they are smarter than the scientists. It's an article written by a PhD about the toxicity of apple seeds and cherry pits, and some other seeds:

Yes, Apple Seeds and Cherry Pits are Poisonous

I noticed an infomercial trying to sell juicers and they didn't even remove the seeds from the apples before juicing them, which I thought was crazy. I think they were just trying to make it look so effortless and easy to use the product so they skipped the step of removing seeds, but I wouldn't recommend it. Grinding them up in a juicer is way worse than just swallowing a few of them whole which I've done before with no ill effects. When you grind the seeds up into small pieces, you can ingest a lot more of the cyanide than when you just swallow them whole.

So for trying to educate people about the seed toxicity this PhD gets attacked by the general population, being told she's crazy, these seeds are good for you and cure cancer, and other superstitious claims. And the people attacking her failed to notice a few posts of surprised people whose loved ones were in the hospital for exactly this kind of seed poisoning and just found this article about seed toxicity.

I felt like reading the comments in that blog was like watching an episode of the twilight zone, seriously! I can't believe how badly science is losing the battle to educate the general population as this article clearly illustrates by the comments posted in response.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thank you for that video
I only know Sagan as an old guy. Man he looks different. Sounds the same tho.,

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by majestictwo

 

Science is religion, and Hawking is hoping his theology will beat out the others.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Black holes require the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

They can not be seen or detected by any means. They are metaphysical in nature. They violate the known laws of physics. Only their effects can be seen.


Dark matter requires the same faith to believe in as believing in Christ.

It can not be seen or detected by any means. It is metaphysical in nature. It violates the known laws of physics. Only its effects can be seen.


Indeed the list of totally unprovable hypothetical forms of matter and energy grows practically daily. All of them require a religious faith to believe in. There is no difference between God or hypothetical physics.

If it can not be demonstrated in a lab, it is not science, it is religion.

I can see where you coming from, however science isn't determined to be useful or not from those two examples. To add another how about exoplanets we can't see them but we know they are there because we can calculate that from movement of the planets star. The "effect which we see" can in this case be calculated very accurately, it's not blind faith this is fact even though we cant see it. We cannot see gravity but we can see the effects and again we can calculate this very accurate.

So just because you pull a couple of examples that "are still being researched" one day science will have the answer for your black hole and dark matter problem

MJ2