Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

If machines never 'turned against humanity' and everything did not descend into a feudal mystic age, would there be religion that late in humanity's future? It just occurred to me that there hasn't been a major religion founded in quite a while, and with all the gadgetry around us, I don't see the need for one (also I doubt that people wouldn't jeer at any eager founder). Project this into a distant future with machines. What do you think?

Demerzel wrote:If machines never 'turned against humanity' and everything did not descend into a feudal mystic age, would there be religion that late in humanity's future? It just occurred to me that there hasn't been a major religion founded in quite a while, and with all the gadgetry around us, I don't see the need for one (also I doubt that people wouldn't jeer at any eager founder). Project this into a distant future with machines. What do you think?

I wouldn't be so sure of that, people are still clinging to religion just fine right now, science hasn't deterred most people one bit - and it depends what you mean by "quite some time", if you mean last century then yes.

I don't see religions merging like FH has in Dune (I doubt he did either) but the old religions will be around for plenty of time. HOPEFULLY not 20,000 years from now, but it's hard to say.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Demerzel wrote:If machines never 'turned against humanity' and everything did not descend into a feudal mystic age, would there be religion that late in humanity's future? It just occurred to me that there hasn't been a major religion founded in quite a while, and with all the gadgetry around us, I don't see the need for one (also I doubt that people wouldn't jeer at any eager founder). Project this into a distant future with machines. What do you think?

I wouldn't be so sure of that, people are still clinging to religion just fine right now, science hasn't deterred most people one bit - and it depends what you mean by "quite some time", if you mean last century then yes.

I don't see religions merging like FH has in Dune (I doubt he did either) but the old religions will be around for plenty of time. HOPEFULLY not 20,000 years from now, but it's hard to say.

Religion stays around in different forms. Science itself is a pretty big religion, as is nationalism.

Very doubtful that people will agree with me on those.

A Thing of Eternity wrote: I wouldn't be so sure of that, people are still clinging to religion just fine right now, science hasn't deterred most people one bit - and it depends what you mean by "quite some time", if you mean last century then yes.

I don't see religions merging like FH has in Dune (I doubt he did either) but the old religions will be around for plenty of time. HOPEFULLY not 20,000 years from now, but it's hard to say.

Deterred? No. But religious fervor is pretty much lacking. While I agree that there will always be a sort of recognition of a 'higher power' or a search for a 'greater purpose', I don't think these will play as primary a goal in life as that portrayed in Dune.

SadisticCynic wrote: Religion stays around in different forms. Science itself is a pretty big religion, as is nationalism.

Very doubtful that people will agree with me on those.

I meant religions based on probable myths/exaggerations of course. But I agree with you anyway, cause I like the idea of 'secular humanism', and 'science' sounds even cooler.

Anyway, you're missing part of my point. Would there be an active demand for religion if not for the Butlerian Jihad?

Demerzel wrote:Anyway, you're missing part of my point. Would there be an active demand for religion if not for the Butlerian Jihad?

As long as one group of human beings seeks to enslave and dominate another there will always be a demand for religion. It is a tool of government. Spirituality is something completely different but I believe even that will pervade as long as there are mysteries in the universe.

I don't think we can really say whether or not religion would have remained around or strong without the butlerian jihad, it's just too far in the future - but I do agree that it certainly would have been a boon to religion.

SadCyn... no calling science a religion! We have words that cover the same meanings without the involvement of magic as is implied by the word religion.

Science does not require faith.

The Urantia Book

Simple answer is yes. Humans are bat shit crazy emotional little replicators with wet jelly brains that form opinions over years based on the amount of education given and inhibited by lack of nutrition, disease and genetics.

Unless everything is optimal in these areas across the whole universe we will always have religion and demand for religion in some form. So it's pretty much gauranteed to be with us for the long haul IMO.

Freakzilla wrote:Science does not require faith.

The only faith involved is in the honesty and dedication of the practitioners.

Or in the eventual discovery of erroneous or fraudulent results by other/later researchers.

Sorry, but I call BULLSHIT on the "Science is just another religion" line. It's how "people of faith" try to persuade themselves that everyone else is being just as sloppy in thought and worldview as they are.

Not.

Right, it's not science if the results cannot be replicated?

(I think I know where you're going to go with that, so up yours.)

Not all scientific data is the result of experiments that can be replicated in a laboratory.

SandChigger wrote:(I think I know where you're going to go with that, so up yours.)

Not all scientific data is the result of experiments that can be replicated in a laboratory.

Then it's just a theory which requires faith?

religion doesn't have monopoly on faith ...

Reason begins with faith, since we cannot prove which axioms we begin with.

SandChigger wrote:The only faith involved is in the honesty and dedication of the practitioners.

Firstly, honesty and dedication on the part of the practitioners will not ensure that what they discover is true or not. Secondly, that faith is probably quite badly placed...

Science presupposes many things, such as logic/mathematics, the objectivity of the scientific method (unless this can be proved - I've never heard of it being proved, but that doesn't mean is can't be or hasn't been) and the results of philosophy on the such things as the interpretation of experiment and interpretations of theories. This things are not proved or experimentally demonstrated within science (science has no bearing on whether 1+1 = 2 for example). Science, as a conceptual object/paradigm/I-can't-think-of-the-right-word, must take these things for granted, and thus takes them as a matter of faith.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:SadCyn... no calling science a religion! We have words that cover the same meanings without the involvement of magic as is implied by the word religion.

What words are you thinking of? (Perhaps for me, myth would have been a better choice than religion.)

Also, what is magic? For example, the notion of 'action at a distance' is disallowed in science nowadays, does that mean that Newton wasn't doing science when gravity (apparently acting at a distance) was proposed? (Does older science become magic when we cease to consider it true?) Usually Christians (the only religion I'm intimately familiar with) would not consider their God to be magical, rather it is simply the way the world is.

Sandchigger wrote:Sorry, but I call BULLSHIT on the "Science is just another religion" line. It's how "people of faith" try to persuade themselves that everyone else is being just as sloppy in thought and worldview as they are.

I've also found people not-of-faith who use 'Science is truth' to bash religion. They may be right in their criticisms of whichever religion they've targeted, but 'Science is truth' smacks of religous fervor to me.

To end my incoherent waffling, I would prefer not to say that science is just another religion; it's certainly better than the others I've tried.

(I rather hope that my thoughts on this are taken as friendly debate, rather than an attack. )

Science isn't religion. Nationalism can be a type of religion. You can't equate the two. A Nazi scientist under Hitler was using the same exact science as a researcher in the States. The theory of evolution is as definite as 1 + 1 is 2. If one chooses not to believe in reality it isn't my problem.

Science is self correcting. In some areas we don't know everything. Doesn't make Santa real just because we may not know the real reason.

Hail Cesar!

Haha, are you harrumphing my post again, freak?

Of course.

Crysknife wrote:The theory of evolution is as definite as 1 + 1 is 2.

Evolution is certainly not as definite as 1+1=2!!! Mathematics is strictly deductive, whereas science, as an empirical endeavor can never be strictly deductive. (Mathematical physics approximates an axiomatic structure, but it doesn't quite reach it.)

Crysknife wrote:If one chooses not to believe in reality it isn't my problem.

Sorry, did you really say "if one chooses not to believe in reality?

I should probably add, how do you know science = reality?

SadisticCynic wrote: Mathematics is strictly deductive, whereas science, as an empirical endeavor can never be strictly deductive.

In other words: Mathematics is not a science ... sorry.

I am not quite following your reasoning here. This doesn't mean I don't agree with you, I just don't understand the discussion and I am eager to learn.

SadisticCynic wrote:

Crysknife wrote:The theory of evolution is as definite as 1 + 1 is 2.

Evolution is certainly not as definite as 1+1=2!!! Mathematics is strictly deductive, whereas science, as an empirical endeavor can never be strictly deductive. (Mathematical physics approximates an axiomatic structure, but it doesn't quite reach it.)

Crysknife wrote:If one chooses not to believe in reality it isn't my problem.

Sorry, did you really say "if one chooses not to believe in reality?

I should probably add, how do you know science = reality?

Oh ok, but does anything really approach 1? Can we deduce anything to "1"?

So the earth being round isn't the result of "strictly" deductive reasoning so therefore it is ok to think of it as flat? Sure dude.

Serkanner wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote: Mathematics is strictly deductive, whereas science, as an empirical endeavor can never be strictly deductive.

In other words: Mathematics is not a science ... sorry.

I am not quite following your reasoning here. This doesn't mean I don't agree with you, I just don't understand the discussion and I am eager to learn.

Right, I don't take mathematics as science. Mathematics is essentially an extension of logic. Any boundary between the two is arbitrary. I don't need to refer to anything physical to do maths. With evolution, I need to make observations, and this is always restricted by induction.

For example, in maths, without checking all the whole numbers, I can claim that any number of the form 2n is an even number. If I try to do a similar thing with physical (empirical) reasoning I run into trouble. An example would be the claim that all swans are white. Really I should say, all the swans I have seen so far are white. (Indeed it turns out that black swans exist <- That was quite a surprise to me at the time )

Crysknife wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:

Crysknife wrote:The theory of evolution is as definite as 1 + 1 is 2.

Evolution is certainly not as definite as 1+1=2!!! Mathematics is strictly deductive, whereas science, as an empirical endeavor can never be strictly deductive. (Mathematical physics approximates an axiomatic structure, but it doesn't quite reach it.)

Crysknife wrote:If one chooses not to believe in reality it isn't my problem.

Sorry, did you really say "if one chooses not to believe in reality?

I should probably add, how do you know science = reality?

So the earth being round isn't the result of "strictly" deductive reasoning so therefore it is ok to think of it as flat? Sure dude.

I didn't say that. What I'm pointing out is the difference in reasoning used in maths and science. In maths, given certain axioms, I can provide proofs of statements such as 1 + 1 = 2. In science I can only accumulate evidence that an hypothesis is true. I don't prove it.

Oh ok, but does anything really approach 1? Can we deduce anything to "1"?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that.