Would science crack all the unknowns and leave no reason for religion?

Answer 1

There will always be a reason for religion--for those who find truth in the words of the Franciscan William of Ockham. He said there is no theological arguement for, nor scientific proof of, God's existence, and that a belief must be based entirely on faith. Religion is the trappings of faith and everyone with faith has them, if only a whispered prayer in the middle of the night.

Answer 2

If you could provide for your interlocutors a definition of science and religion it would be helpful in answering your question. I would say for science to believe that it could "crack all unknowns" is quite an act of faith-- and science should be doing everything in its power to prevent itself from becoming some kind of materialist religion. Further, to associate religion simply with explanations of what people do not understand or that which remains currently without an explanation is an entirely reductive view of religion.

Answer 3

My short answer would be no.. But science still is corrosive to religion in my opinion.

I cannot presume naively that everything there is to know can be known by natural science. I doubt that it will be able to, because as Godel's incompleteness theorems suggest, we cannot have one system that is foundational to all knowledge. Nevertheless it is still the best bet. I dare anyone to point out to me whether if there is a better method of knowing about nature other than science.

I also like to comment on what Timaeus said.
" ... science should be doing everything in its power to prevent itself from becoming some kind of materialist religion."

I find it interesting that people would label science as religion. Science seeks for naturalistic and eventually all physical explanation of all things. It indeed is materialistic. What's so bad about it? I find genuinely seeking scientists to be far more honest and honourable than new age gurus, religious apologetics, and postmodern critics cherrying-picking what modern science tells us to suit their own pretentious doctrines.

Answer 4

No. Because that presumes that it is possible to know everything, leaving nothing left to discover. In an entropic universe that is ever changing it is unlikely that there would be nothing left to discover.

But one need not have mystery or the unknown as a pretext to religion and faith. And one need not have irrefutable proof to sustain it. And try as they might, no one can prove God does not exist.

Answer 5

No..... explain electricity to me so it makes sense.... not just a flow of electrons over a conductive surface...blah blah blah... how does it come into being.... and why do some electrons behave the way they do and others dont..... Explain that!!!!

Religion says I can accept that there are some things I cant explain/ understand... science says if you cant explain it its hogwash!!!!!.......

Answer 6

Nope! The way it's going now science is already a religion! Now that's the serpent biting it's own tail isn't it?

Answer 7

Science is fact. Religion is faith. Two seperate things altogether.
Besides even if everything about everything was known, there would still be those who would choose not to believe it.

Answer 8

Only in the distant future when all our obsolete genes have been eliminated. For now, they're embedded in our limbic system thanks to our primitive barbarian ancestors.

Answer 9

God willing