What if science is right?

Question

What would the global implications be if we all started accepting that scientific research proved to be to overwhelming for religion to be accepted.

Answer 1

If done in a humane manner the implications would be a much better lifestyle for us all.

Answer 2

Science is NOT contradictory to religion.

Science = how.
Religion = why.

how do you think Scientific method can prove the origin of things? it can speculate, but it cannot prove or disprove any further than religion can for things... you know, like the part leading up to the planet and stuff coming into existance? or the material before that existing... or coming into how it is....

and it can't give any "why" to any of it.....

there are things that exist, that are beyond the scope of the science we have at this time, or are likely to develop any time in the anywhere remotely near future.

as said, stuff DOES happen that IS beyond what science can explain.

and SOME things, Occam's razor results in the religious or spiritual answer. its funny to see the bizzare mental and logical contortions "science minded" people can go through to avoid a MASSIVELY simpler spiritual solution.

>>"Science is right. Face it - there was an actual time ppl actually thought the world was flat and burned ppl at the stake when they disagreed. "<<

and there was a time that "Science" thought Flies spawned from nothing, that the rest of the universe orbited the earth....
eventually Science will "prove" that souls, and the "afterlife" exist. its not that hard. it is still consistent enough to be subject to the PRINCIPLES of scientific method, its merely the problem that the sense of it is more subtle than the organic senses, and less consistent and easily shown objectively. these combined in such a way, result in the metaphysical world simply being beyond the scope of science's current methods.

Answer 3

Actually, the thought that science and religion are at odds, is outdated and a result of propaganda. When the Origin of Species was published, it was thought that cells were merely sacs of fluid. As knowlege of biology and genetics increases, not to mention cosmology and astronomy, more and more scientists are revisiting the notion of God. Evolution would have never gotten off the ground if we knew then what we know now. It is propped up by propanda and Christians have become intimidated into thinking it is based on solid evidence. Also, physicists pretty much agree now that the universe started from an infinitely small point (a singularity) and exploded into matter, energy, time and space; none of which existed beforehand. Sounds suspiciously close to creation theory to me; just a little less detailed.

Answer 4

Science is an evolving dynamic set of beliefs,theories,and ideas. It was never meant to replace faith in a higher power. Faith is more static in most belief systems and should not be used to pretend that reality does not exist or that scientific ideas are wrong or right. A good faith needs to be internally consistent with that which you know to be true. For example, many people have no problem saying 'evolution is real, but god exists', but others seem to think the two are mutually exclusive demonstrating that they are unwilling to accept reality and try to use faith to replace reality. I admire the first group and pity the latter group. Science shouldn't replace faith but rather enhance it

Answer 5

In my opinion it's just a matter of perspective. You can still have faith and believe in science at the same time. In the movie Contact (starring Jodie Foster) they found alien life in deep space. The result was disagreement and chaos between the scientists who wanted to push through with the mission and the religous. This is an interesting movie. It could happen in real life too.

Answer 6

There is no dispute between authentic science and authentic religion.Science has the answers.It stands in awe at the design of this universe in which we live. For the iron chain of cause & effect has been loosed. Once again scientist talk of the oneness of the cosmos and of a Consciousness within.

Answer 7

As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln wrote on this issue:

For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it… But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and established itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them.25

As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters....

Answer 8

Science is right. Face it - there was an actual time ppl actually thought the world was flat and burned ppl at the stake when they disagreed. Ppl are just not as smart as we'd like to think, and if it doesn't fit into our little window of a world we just go tossin **** aside instead of having open minds to explore possibilities...we CAN coexist...there must be a vaccine out there somewhere...

Answer 9

Why do most people think that science can disprove God's existence? It can't. There are alot of believers out there that think God had something to do with evolution, and know better then to put all their faith in some outdated book.

God and science can coexist, it's organized religion and fundamentalists that have a problem with science.

Answer 10

Science is right. Religion just ignores it. People such as astronomers have lost their lives because they saw other planets and the Catholic Church had them killed for their beliefs. Such example is that of Giordano Bruno of Italy. He died by burning to death on my birthday Feb 17. However, it was way before my time back in Gallileo's era.