A historical trend that appears obvious.

[JMP300z]

Im probably stating this poorly but...

As human knowledge or scientific observation increases, the aspects of our existence attributed to god by thiests decreases.

-JP

[DougShrapnel]

In the recent past yes, but for a long period of time human knowledge was increasing as well as aspects of existance were being increasingly atributed to gods. It may be that the advancements in neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and cosmology are fundemtaly different than previous studies. Another possibilty is that xtianity is so ridiculous that people are more willing to examine the belief with skepticism.

[BluffTHIS!]

A more complicated and theologically more likely scenario is that God uses natural forces to accomplish supernatural ends. In fact, the Higgs-Bosun particle and the Higgs Field in which is operates, shows the distinct possibility that God does control everything on a subatomic level.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
A more complicated and theologically more likely scenario is that God uses natural forces to accomplish supernatural ends. In fact, the Higgs-Bosun particle and the Higgs Field in which is operates, shows the distinct possibility that God does control everything on a subatomic level.

[/ QUOTE ]

l o l

[bunny]

I dont know if this is true. One of the problems you face if you are a theist who subscribes to a particular church is you are lumbered with a whole host of interpretations and doctrine. If you adopt the view that all of these are gospel you have no problem - any perceived inconsistency with science is a problem with the science. If you adopt the view that no teaching of your church is gospel you also have no problem (not that i've ever met a theist with this position, although I think it is close to my view). The problem most theists face is disentangling what is "revealed truth" and what is "possibly flawed interpretation".

The reason I dont find your claim obvious is that I think the majority of theists are in the first camp and I dont think revelations of science have much impact on their world view.

[bisonbison]

[ QUOTE ]
l o l

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there something about omniscience and omnipotence that you're not grasping?

God could finetune the universe so that the only difference between sentient life on earth and a barren wasteland is a 10% decrease in the freezing point of pure water.

[AJFenix]

I'm just laughing at the constant ridiculous Christian attempts to stick their beliefs into science. I find using a hypothetical particle as an arguement for God to be ironic/humorous.

I think the concept of omniscience/omnipotence (and all of the paradoxes that tie into that) is truly an arguement against the existence of the benevolent "god" with those capabilities that many Christians believe in, but thats another arguement altogether and not for the scope of this thread, so lets not hijack.

As far as the OP, yes, this is obvious. As science answered questions, many religions of the past were not needed to fill in certain blanks anymore and they became obsolete.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Im probably stating this poorly but...

As human knowledge or scientific observation increases, the aspects of our existence attributed to god by thiests decreases.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear so. When theists cling to tenets of their faith that are pretty easy to invalidate (like instant creation of all the species of the earth), they do seem dumber and dumber.

I think what scientific progress is doing is more like throwing into sharp relief the unknown. however, even if you understood ALL scientific knowledge, that wouldn't invalidate a deity. It may show one MUST exist maybe, but it can't show one doesn't, cos the point is a deity would be outside natural law.

This is all IMHO, by the way.

[hmkpoker]

I think I know what you're saying, but some people seem to be misinterpreting it.

"As human knowledge or scientific observation increases, secularism increases" is how I'd put it.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I know what you're saying, but some people seem to be misinterpreting it.

"As human knowledge or scientific observation increases, secularism increases" is how I'd put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats close to how Id put it. "As human knowledge or scientific knowledge increases theology decreases" But I think spiritualism is probably never going away.

[spanshcastlemagc]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think spiritualism is probably never going away.

[/ QUOTE ]

If somehow in the future a totalitarian goverment nuked the rest of the world, killed all who opposed it, and left the world with nothing but people who supported their views of atheism. Do you think this could rid the world of spiritualism. I don't even think then.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats close to how Id put it. "As human knowledge or scientific knowledge increases theology decreases" But I think spiritualism is probably never going away.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is "spiritualism"?

[MidGe]

If somehow in the future a totalitarian goverment nuked the rest of the world, killed all who opposed it, and left the world with nothing but people who supported their views of theism. Do you think this could rid the world of atheism. I don't even think then. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What is "spiritualism"?

[/ QUOTE ]

A belief in ghosts I think. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edited: On second reading I think the poster meant spirituality rather than spiritualism. However spirituality need not be theistic, neither does spiritualism.

[cambraceres]

Can you link or explain the correlation between the Higgs boson and intelligent creation?

[moorobot]

Well, since historically gods have, in part. been invoked to explain phenomnena that are otherwise 'unexplainable', as the ammount of unexplained 'things' in the world decreases, the ammount of things subject to this religous doctrine decrease and the ammount of credibility, importance and subscription to theism has decreases.

Also, and correct me if this is just ex-marxist nonsense, religion exists in part because people 'inhabitit a vale of woe'. Science makes our lives better, hence we don't have as much of a 'need' to dream of an afterlife or a perfect being.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
But I think spiritualism is probably never going away.



If somehow in the future a totalitarian goverment nuked the rest of the world, killed all who opposed it, and left the world with nothing but people who supported their views of atheism. Do you think this could rid the world of spiritualism. I don't even think then.

[/ QUOTE ] I have almost no idea what spirtualism means. But as long as there is ignorance and/or injustice and/or unexplained by human methods things in the world, whatever you mean by spiritualism will exist.

We need to make this world a better place before people stop relying on a wished for/imagined afterlife in order to get through the day.

[moorobot]

Oh yes, religion, the heart of a heartless world, the child of ignorance that does not long outlast her mother; I haven't thought about this for a long time. Thank you 2+2!

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, since historically gods have, in part. been invoked to explain phenomnena that are otherwise 'unexplainable', as the ammount of unexplained 'things' in the world decreases, the ammount of things subject to this religous doctrine decrease and the ammount of credibility, importance and subscription to theism has decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I am getting at. Back in the day, anything that could not be explained was attributed to a god, rainbows, floods, volcanos, natural things. More recently, the existance of man was always explained by a god, then evolution came a long, observing changes over time that provide a reasoned path to how we got where we are. At first, evolution was discounted as false, then accepted in a sense but controlled by a god, then a fine tuning role, and now even some of my friends argue that god just got the ball rolling. It seems that inch by inch, thiests are willing to give ground WRT the role of god as more and more of the observed universe becomes explained (within context).

Where is it going? Will the thiests eventually be left defending an effectively useless god?

-JP

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, since historically gods have, in part. been invoked to explain phenomnena that are otherwise 'unexplainable', as the ammount of unexplained 'things' in the world decreases, the ammount of things subject to this religous doctrine decrease and the ammount of credibility, importance and subscription to theism has decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I am getting at. Back in the day, anything that could not be explained was attributed to a god, rainbows, floods, volcanos, natural things. More recently, the existance of man was always explained by a god, then evolution came a long, observing changes over time that provide a reasoned path to how we got where we are. At first, evolution was discounted as false, then accepted in a sense but controlled by a god, then a fine tuning role, and now even some of my friends argue that god just got the ball rolling. It seems that inch by inch, thiests are willing to give ground WRT the role of god as more and more of the observed universe becomes explained (within context).

Where is it going? Will the thiests eventually be left defending an effectively useless god?

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]
The why? question will always be untouched by science.
Conscious experience may never be explained by science.
A god that operates through human will rather than miraculous events is probably beyond science.

There will always be plenty for theists to cling to and the only religions that need to give any ground are those that make up stories about how things happen.

chez

[cambraceres]

The religious feign scientific credibility. Theists will always try to explain things as a matter of course. The only danger they face is, as Heidegger put it, "The cheap acid of mere logical acumen". Theists will always have something to cling to because science is showing itself to be incompatible with exhaustive explanation. The fact that the religious will try to play scientist is immutable.

Cambraceres

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Theists will always try to explain things as a matter of course

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont thinks that true of all theists. Many are perfectly happy with the idea that god created the world and science is a method of dicovering how it works.

That still leaves the domain of will/experience/after-life completely free.

I suspect that the current problem religons have with science is that it made the understandable error of making claims that seemed uncheckable. Now they have a credibility problem and the attack on science is a power struggle. Over time religon will evolve and incorporate the scientific world.


chez

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theists will always try to explain things as a matter of course

[/ QUOTE ]


Over time religion will evolve and incorporate the scientific world.




[/ QUOTE ]

This fits a reasonable pattern, I believe religion will attempt to subsume science, but then it will be, as I said, an attempt to explain the world in a religious edifice.

Cambraceres

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theists will always try to explain things as a matter of course

[/ QUOTE ]


Over time religion will evolve and incorporate the scientific world.




[/ QUOTE ]

This fits a reasonable pattern, I believe religion will attempt to subsume science, but then it will be, as I said, an attempt to explain the world in a religious edifice.

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]Can't diagree with that, though it may be that they just ignore the scientific bit and worry about the rest.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
A more complicated and theologically more likely scenario is that God uses natural forces to accomplish supernatural ends. In fact, the Higgs-Bosun particle and the Higgs Field in which is operates, shows the distinct possibility that God does control everything on a subatomic level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, how many experts in quantum mechanics do you think would agree with your statement?

[bisonbison]

Bluff, how many experts in quantum mechanics do you think would agree with your statement?

How many experts in quantum mechanics do you think have good taste in movies?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
This fits a reasonable pattern, I believe religion will attempt to subsume science, but then it will be, as I said, an attempt to explain the world in a religious edifice.


[/ QUOTE ] This has already happened to some degree, when science gets too obviously right to ignore/deny, they will incorporate some of it. I think as long as people's lives on earth are not subjectively considered that great people will still turn to religion as an anti-depressant though, our lives are not that great now but when we die, we have something to look forward to.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]


Bluff, how many experts in quantum mechanics do you think would agree with your statement?

How many experts in quantum mechanics do you think have good taste in movies?


[/ QUOTE ] How many BisonBisons does it take to change his shirt?

[cambraceres]

The intrinsic uncertainty of a fallable, rational entity's life will produce many individuals who will appeal to religion in order to give themselves an absolute. By absolute, I mean a rule which is absolutely true. Christianity holds as a fundamental tenent that if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord then you will be saved. If one can summon the requisite faith, then this rule becomes an absolute, something that will stand through any and all of life's storms. This takes the uncertainty of existence and puts it in the backseat, trust in God and what he has said, and all these trivial considerations, money, life, safety, family, death, and any other grand themes are applicable will be made as harmless as a pup.

When science attempts to place absolutes into the realm of human knowledge, when science tells you what you can believe based on rational thought, and not on blind faith, there is a schism between it and religion. Religion as an institution, will concede those things which are deemed evident by society, but still harmless to the church. The church still does not accept the basis of this knowledge. Science takes what is provable by the scientific method to be true, religion can accept nothing if not by faith.

Say there is an issue up for debate, such as the shape of earth. Scientists will say the earth is round, and give a rational basis for this conclusion. The church, when such evidence becomes irrefutable by realistic means, will say that God built the heavens and earth the way he chose, and that he chose a round shape. The primary element in a theocratic argument is that what facts are accepted are accepted because God caused that fact to be true. It has, from the religious perspective, nothing to do with the fact that there is or is not evidentiary support.