Is science the religion of the future?

Years ago I was searching for a religion to join. I considered joining the church of scientology. I grew up on star trek and star wars,


Thank you for the a2a.

Your question, as informed by your answer, seems to pit one against the other; if one is ‘right', the other must be ‘wrong'. But 70% of Nobel Prize winners have been Christians, so spreading the word of science was to them quite important, as was their understanding of who Jesus is. So the two are not at odds.

In your answer you said you are willing to believe God exists, and would like evidence of this being the case. That is very reasonable, and I would not approach it any other way. Jenny Hawkins has given several comprehensive answers on quora regarding what evidence exists, as has Nathan Ketsdever. I would search their answers for relevant topics. In terms of Christianity, it might interest a rational thinker like you to know that volumes of research exists regarding the assessment of the New Testament documents for historical accuracy. I wont go into all those things here, but feel free to ask if interested. I will provide links, etc.

In the final analyis, however, God is not theory or formula, and no relationship can be established by experimentation. If He exists, he already knows he does, and is not impressed with what any of us believe or don't believe. What he wants is a relationship, and at some point we have to say, "I want that." Most people, frankly, don't. Therefore as one is examining evidence I think he should be asking the God he is looking for, "I am doing this because I want to know you; show me if you are real."

A person who says, "I won't believe until God does what I want him to" will see exactly that, a God who is under no obligation to meet your demands. Is anyone else under obligation to meet your demands? Do any relationships work that way?


Is science the religion of the future?

Your question would had made a little more sense if you had asked Is politics the religion of the future? because, well, religion was the politics of the past. But politics is the religion of the present and of the past two or three centuries so it is not "of the future".

Organized religions appeared to provided a foundation to complex ruling systems like kingdoms, confederation of tribes, empires and such. The belief in supernatural creatures and metaphysical concepts were a frequent and useful but not strictly necessary feature of organized religions to provide the reasons to subject yourself to rulers.
When secular forms of government started to take over at the end of the 18th century organized religions started to become obsolete as they were replaced by politics and political concepts.

I should agree in part that the metaphysical and supernatural beliefs of religions (what we could call "disorganized religion" or "mythological beliefs") are in conflict with science but scientific knowledge are not occupying the same ecological niche of these beliefs, since scientific knowledge is all about facts and evidence and mythological beliefs are all about narrative, imagination and psychology.

Science is not based in beliefs or dogmas. Science is based in a method that allows to find increasingly accurate descriptions of nature based on the evidence gathered in the moment of making the description.
This means that, if new evidence is found, the previous explanation might be modified or discarded.
Quite the contrary of what happens with organized religions and mythical beliefs, that rarely are discarded and the "modifications" overlap one over the other, leading to the famous religious beliefs internal contradictions and sometimes to schisms if the modification is not accepted by all the believers. These modifications are not based on new evidence being found but based on revelation, authority or the inevitability that the social paradigm changed and the religions have to catch up to society or die.

As you can see, science and religion have little in common, except that both are human cultural products. So your question is as ridiculous as to ask if tweeting will replace architecture in the future.


Being treated as religion would be death of science - constant doubt and re-evaluation is at the very heart of science.

Trusting science is not the same as treating it is as religion - it just means trusting experts to know what they are talking about. But, those experts are only humans, not immune from human follies. "Inventor" of fraudulent vaccine-autism link was supposed to be a scientist. "Hard" science world had a good laugh several years ago when Alan Sokal got Social Text to publish his nonsense article "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity". But only this year several similar "pranks" were successfully pulled on "hard science" journals.Scientific publishing is a quite big industry, and "publish or perish" is a motto with lots of truth in it - we are very far from ideal of "knowledge that wants to be free", and greed and need for recognition are strong motives.

So, what is a layman to do? Listen to your science classes in high school, read, think, and view the latest breakthroughs with a grain of salt. But when a theory is accepted by vast majority of scientists in a field, it is probably best to trust it. It is not the same as bling belief.

Footnotes

Sokal affair - Wikipedia

A Neuroscientist Just Tricked 4 Dodgy Journals Into Accepting a Fake Paper on 'Midi-Chlorians'

A Study by Maggie Simpson And Edna Krabappel Has Been Accepted by Two Scientific Journals


No, and anyone who thinks science could ever become religion needs to get a dictionary.

Science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Religion: "the belief in and worship of a higher power, especially a personal God or gods, or a particular system of faith and worship."

In my opinion, science is the way to discover and know truth about the physical and natural world, and religion is the way to discover and know truth about the metaphysical and spiritual world.

Science is not religion, religion is not science, and the two are entirely harmonious. Any conflict is likely to be bad science or bad religion or both.


Science is not a religion.

Comparing science to religion is as useless as comparing fear to a screwdriver.

Religions are belief systems which seek to guide followers trough many different and more than often contradicting spiritual paths of faith. These systems often include and build upon morals, social rules and ways of living. The thing is, these building blocks are mostly brought upon very outdated myths, misinformation, racism, and ultimately old political tactics which linger on to modern times out of custom, fear and indoctrination. All religions falsely claim they have attained the ultimate truth. In the end, religion is an institutionalization of primal fear of death. It ends when humanity ends.

Science on the other hand is a methodical system of interconnected knowledge of many different fields in synergy, which are based on the meticulous observation and registration of natural phenomena. Science does not have a bias. It simply exists, just as our own human curiosity exists. Science is a tool humans use to seek the ultimate truth trough epistemoloical knowledge. The prime matter upon which science constructs reality is and always will be there, wheter humans exist or not.

Science is not, and will never be a religion. Same as tools will never be emotions and vice versa. Comparing or taking both things as intechangeable is a demonstration of how utterly confused theists area about reality.


Should humans use space program to Mars now to avoid Dinosaur's fate?

Let's put it this way:On the very DAY of the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, a host of small mammals and birds and reptiles and amphibians and insects and various other invertebrates survived.And they survived the next day after that.And the next day after that.And the

How will we get light if there is no sun? Can the stars provide enough light?

Think about it. During the night, how bright is it? The sun isn't facing that part of the Earth, so naturally, we can see stars. Are those stars bright enough to provide the amount of light we need to function for a day? Because, if they were, it would be bright