Does science make belief in God obsolete?

[Stryke]

If you mean science requires faith in laws it's set forth, the laws of physics and such, I disagree

I mean not much is truly provable , including science , it all comes down to degrees of accuracy , even mathmatics isnt always pure logic , there are assumptions involved at some stage , the conundrum that a complete set cannot contain itself etc , therefore it cannot be complete .... Kind of like having a style of MA that covers everything

were really talking philosophy with this science vs religion stuff , its all about having something else to beleive in .

The real question should be why do we need beleif in a system or religion .

what makes us tick , does science provide the same as religion , do we no longer need religion because science has fulfilled that area in our lives ?

I`d say in theory we need to neither , but both in some way may be better for us , or at least some of us .

But I`m a fan of Socrates , the only thing we truly know is we know nothing for sure .....

[Bill Glasheen]

Religion promises no verifiability, and that's a huge difference. If there is verifiability, then it's not faith. By definition, faith is a belief not based on proof.

Within a narrow scope of how one defines a religion, then yes.

However there are religions (e.g. Unitarian Universalist) that don't require a belief in a deity. One can operate in a completely verifiable domain within the practice of UU beliefs.

Many needs for and benefits of spiritualism are largely verifiable.

The social importance of The Golden Rule - a fundamental tenet of most modern religions - is verifiable.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

However there are religions (e.g. Unitarian Universalist) that don't require a belief in a deity. One can operate in a completely verifiable domain within the practice of UU beliefs.

Well, my parents are UUs more or less, so I'm pretty familiar with it. UU spans a fairly wide spectrum, from biblical stuff I would call religion to pleasant-but-amorphous stuff I really wouldn't call a religion. There are several UU churches I've attended where there really isn't much that's identifiably spiritual at all. I'm not knocking UU, I think it's a nice way for people to feel togetherness in a community and it has a positive social impact.

[Bill Glasheen]

There are several UU churches I've attended where there really isn't much that's identifiably spiritual at all. I'm not knocking UU, I think it's a nice way for people to feel togetherness in a community and it has a positive social impact.

I can't vouch for your personal experiences. However I was a member of a UU church (for a while) during my last few years in Charlottesville. The minister didn't believe in god. There were multiple practicing religions and beliefs in dogma within the broader community. The goal of the church was fellowship, community service, and education in "the seven great faiths."

To say that there's nothing identifiably spiritual within a particular UU church makes me deeply suspicious, Justin. It makes me think that your definition of spiritualism and religion are way too narrow, or perhaps overly stereotyped. Or maybe you just didn't make a connection with the particular church, which is perfectly fine.

Practicing martial arts, fly fishing, participating in community service, and meditation are examples of activities which - to some - can be deeply spiritual.

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

No, it doesn't..

It all depends on what your belief system is.. If it is very rigid then it may fall apart under the eye of science.. Mike(mhosea) put it very well..

But depending on what you think "God" is, science may well prove God's existence one day--we don't know any different yet...

[IJ]

I'm reading an interesting book my brother got me before going off to fight in Afghanistan-- "The Clash of Civilizations." Basically, this is an influential book asserting that civilizational lines define the post cold world political world. Nation states are aligning where they traditionally belong, culturally, linguistically, and by religion, with other western, islamist, orthodox, confucian, japanese, hindi, african etc states. It's been a very informative read and I recommend it broadly.

Relevant to this discussion, I've learned that from a western perspective, things appear quite differently than they actually are. We tend to believe that since we won the cold war and industrialized first and the most, the rest of the world is going to westernize, and democracy and western values go hand in hand.

Actually, the rest of the world appears ready to modernize and is set against westernizing. We just don't understand how cultural traditions in other civilizations are fundamentally inconsistent with our own, and we tend to think others reach our conclusions--for example, that since science and secular humanism seem logical to us, that religion will fade.

Turns out religious sentiment is on a vigorous upswing (see pages 95-101 especially). With modernization, many people are moving to the city and searching for a new identity and security. Also, there are large youth populations, especially in islamic countries, which are having a population boom. Thirdly, since the collapse of the cold war, states which used to be defined by their political alliances need a new direction. Fourth, there was a huge wave of democritization in the last few decades--far from westernizing nations, this change has allowed the masses to speak, and in huge numbers, these cultures are turning to cultural traditions and revitalizing their religions for a source of identity and kinship. Democracy more often than not leads to increased antiwestern sentiment.

There is of course also the presence of enormous countries like India which show no sign of abandoning their faiths.

[Bill Glasheen]

Democracy more often than not leads to increased antiwestern sentiment.

This view seems - to me - to be way too ethnocentric.

IMO democracy leads to a sense of ownership of the government as well as a stronger sense of national identity. So countries have independent opinions? Fine by me. Those opinions are distinct? Fine by me.

Does this make those opinions "anti western"? IMO that's a bit screwy. It makes them what they are - opinions germane to their culture.

And of all civilizations, our own has the greatest opportunity for some kind of connection due to our tremendous ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity. We no longer are a melting pot with a McDonald's view. We are the salad bowl.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

You have to define westernization I guess. I personally consider South Korea 'westernized', although obviously their culture is extremely different from our own. Maybe call it "modernizing and stabilizing". To tie it back into religion, modernizing and stabilizing leads to education and freedom of thought, and education and freedom of thought lead to the death of god/s. If not for everyone, for some, and as atheism is accepted in culture instead of ostracized, it becomes more visible and widespread. One of my favorite shows, Bones features a main character and her assistant who are both atheists. Not something I would expect to see on Leave it to Beaver.

[IJ]

"Does this make those opinions "anti western"? IMO that's a bit screwy. It makes them what they are - opinions germane to their culture."

Yes, it does... He goes into great detail about how the Islamic Resurgence and all of the countries linked by it involves, very specifically, an adoption of modernization AND an understanding that Islamic culture is superior to, and must not be poisoned by, Western culture, which it sees as sinful, flawed, decadent, seductive, and decaying. In a similar vein, he establishes that Japan, Korea, and now China, shortly behind India and others, all also view the future as involving an embrace of modernization and industrialization and a resurgence of their own cultural qualities and a specific rejection of the West. These civilizations (Japan on its own, the sinic lead by China, Hindi led by India) view their current or coming growth and success as reflective of their distinct culture.

Westerners tend to think that the West entails industrialization. The West was the West long before industry, however. They are separate.

We also tend to think that our ideas spread across the globe because they were good ideas, and that we won the cold war because our ideas were good. There's certainly a case made that capitalism beats communism, no question. But capitalism comes in different forms and doesn't have to be Western. China and North Korea may accept elements of our market but they're vigorously opposed to our cultural influences.

These other peoples believe that Western influence occured only through the use of force provided by earlier industrialization, and that our prominence was temporary and will fade into history. The author predicts increasing rhetoric from China and then India trumpeting their cultural superiority as evidenced by economic success--as we have done.

He also carefully establishes that cultures that try to westernize basically don't succeed. This was most clearly attempted by Turkey, which changed their culture, dress, alphabet, education and so on to match the West. They also participated in NATO and the gulf wars to win favor with Europe--who responded by denying them EU entry because they're ethnically and culturally distinct--and muslim. Right now their still muslim population is experiencing the Islamic Resurgence and in response the government is swinging toward Islam as well. They now view themselves as a "bridge" state between cultures, some kind of partial success in Westernizing despite perhaps the most organized effort in the modern world to change.

[Glenn]

It's not so much that democracy leads to increased anti-western sentiment, but that increased independence of former western colonies combined with the end of the Cold War has allowed long-standing anti-western sentiment to come to the surface and find increased expression.

In 1900 there were 47 independent countries in the world, and these were predominantly western countries located in Europe and the Americas (with a couple of exceptions elsewhere). The rest of the world (largely Africa, Asia, and most islands) was divided up into colonies, territory controlled by some of those 47. The people in those colonies were generally far from pro-western, but had little recourse under the colonial system, short of uprisings which of course did happen and usually were violently put down by the colonizers.

Since World War II the western colonizers have been divesting themselves of large numbers of colonies, plus there have been break-ups of countries such as Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and Czechoslovakia, giving us over 200 independent countries today. During the Cold War both the West and the USSR tried playing up on sentiment against each other to influence these newly independent former colonies, with varying success. But with the end of the Cold War and Communism largely dropping out as a player, the global tension and focus has shifted wholly to pro-western versus anti-western.

Which leads to a question: Is our perception of increased anti-western sentiment merely a manifestation of the media not having anything else like the Cold War to report on?

[cxt]

Glenn

And how much is really anti-western and how much is nationalism?

And how much is "anti" much of anything and more a need to keep the people focused on an "external enemy" so they won't focus on the very real problems at "home?"

IJ makes a good point above, Attaturk ramed a secular Turkey down the mullahs throats at quite litteral gun and cannon point---although to be fair--his reading of the Koran rather strngly indicated that he was in charge as the legit ruler--not the mullahs.

Its argueable that Turkey would not have been able to modernize at all had it still been the nation it was prior to Attaturk......but IJ's point is essentially that situations are not static and what is "X" today might well be "Y" in a decade is apt....the once secular Turkey seems to be choosing a much more theocratic form of self rule.

Of course the EU giving them the thumbs down has more to do with the "first among equals" thing the French have going with the EU...throwing the weight around of the EU in general than it does with Turkeys relgion and ethnic base...IMO.

[IJ]

"It's not so much that democracy leads to increased anti-western sentiment, but that increased independence of former western colonies combined with the end of the Cold War has allowed long-standing anti-western sentiment to come to the surface and find increased expression."

There is a component of that. Under strict government control such sentiments may not have found expression. But not always, it's not as if Saddam would suppress anti western protests, right? Also, once a movement gets underway, politicians need to go with the flow to remain in power (hence, the islamization of Turkish politics). They then may associate themselves with anti-west groups and hype up their anti westerness and fuel the process. I don't think its just reporting. People need to define themselves and when the USSR aligned vs USA aligned distinction stopped being the dominant paradigm people had to come up with new ones, and they're being chosen on civilizational lines.

The book makes a fairly convincing case that religion, culture, and ethnicity are major factors in the hesitancy to include Turkey in the EU. Apparently this is the sentiment on both sides of the issue. This has come up with other EU members such as Greece which has been behaving more like an orthodox ally then an EU member in several issues recently, with civilization driving the process along with affiliation.

"And how much is really anti-western and how much is nationalism?"

Most of it? It's not as if these cultures are specifically trashing other civilizations and hyping up their state's qualities... they're trashing western values and hyping up their own civilization's qualities. Nationalism doesn't require you to write tirades about the west in particular.

I don't know why Turkey would have had trouble modernizing without Attaturk's efforts. The Islamic Resurgence and China's pride and the Japanese economic miracle and the likely soon-to-be Indian economic boom haven't required westernization. I used to think that westernization and modernization went hand in hand and have realized now that they're not connected.

[cxt]

IJ

"Nationalism doesn't require you to write tirades about the west in partiuclar."

Maybe, maybe not, but most nationalist movements tend to write tirades about "somebody"--nationalism generally needs an "other" to compare to and usually to run down in some regard........even if they have to go back many 100's or years to do it....the west is certainly a target...but somebody almost has to be.

Its kinda of a "chicken or the egg" question...IMO.

"I don't know why Turkey would have truoble moderizing without Attaturks efforts. The Islamic Resurgence and China pride and Japanese economic miricle and the likely soon to be Indian economic boom haven't required westernization."

Well, it kinda depends on exactly how ones defines "westernization" and the like.

Attaturk--according to him essentially got rid of a crippling stranglehold of the mullahs and archaic traditions that were holding his nation back....they were the most "modern" nation in the ME...again depending on how one defiens things.

Japan is even more clear--The Meji Reforms were all about re-making segments of japanese society in as "western" a mode as possible--esp the military.
Post WW2 the reforms forced upon the Japanese led directly to the "economic miracle" you refer too--as did not having to spend vast amount of their budget on defense.

As some Indian writers will tell you, Indian society benefited tremendously from British educational models and for lack of a better word British "values"---and sadly suffered under such values as well......seldom is anything an unalloyed boon or bane.
But its current growth....as painful as it was in other ways can be tied directly back to the Brits.

China's "pride" largely lays in western style industrilaztion-with its attendent enviromental damage...not exactly an unalloyed good thing.
Its real economic powerhouse are the former areas that have recently reverted to Chinas control, which they have been smart enough to leave largely alone is a western style operation.

Islamic Resurgence---ironic, since at base, its the wests need for oil that bankrolled it---without the oil and the wests need for it--would not most nations like Saudi be little more than the other ME nations that currently have little oil?
Turkey is a nation in the modern sense without all oil and argueably without Attaturks reforms would be another Yemen or Ethopia.......hardly powerhouses.

Again, all comes down to how one defines things and where one looks.

[IJ]

Sorta. Sure, nationalism and "we are great" often means you have to pick someone to be better than. That doesn't mean the west. Why do China, Russia, and Iran agree on many issues, coming from different civilizations? A lot of them pertain to a general feeling they're tired of the West pushing its agenda as if we ran the globe.

As for what defines the West, and how that's separate from industrialization, I'll reply again later with details from the book. He gives a thorough treatment of the subject. However, one of the things that stands out for me is the concept of individualism. That's fundamental to us, and we value self determination and praise individuals for success and usually hold them responsible for their failures. We believe God gave all our unique citizens special freedom to be themselves. That's not something other cultures necessarily believe. Elsewhere, the society and the government and authority come first. I have a lot of sympathy for this concept in general. I myself am fairly disgusted by the amount of trash in our streets, our voting apathy, our wasteful habits, reckless mortgages and credit purchases instead of investments, relative tolerance of bad self care, and general lack of concern with how one's city, region, and country and civilization is doing. On the other hand, individual rights are fundamental to my thinking. They're like windows on a PC for me. However, reading this book has helped me figure out that enormous numbers of other peoples don't run windows like I do, am outreproducing me, and will soon outproduce me economically as well and exceed the west in influence: economic, military, and cultural.

As for the west bankrolling the islamic Resurgence, it is not a monetary resurgence. It is driven by enormous population growth, for one, with very high numbers of potential converts to zealous islam among the youth. There is an interesting section in the book tying major social upheavals to when the youth population peaked, both with large shifts in western thought and individual upheavals in muslim nations. The Islamic Resurgence is huge in impoverished nations and those not seeing any oil cash. Ask a Palestinian.

[cxt]

IJ

Have not read the book--sounds really interesting though....seriously.

I don't think that China, Russia, Iran do "agree" on many issues--its in their national interest to be anti-western at the momment, but its IMO not a case of them all being on the same page.
Its poltics, not some deeply anti-western sentiment on the part of the all three nations right down to the citizens.

As an example much of what I read from Iran is that its citizens are pretty pro-west and opposed at fundemental levels the theocratic rulers.....they just don't have the power.

Its a sad reflection on humans---the Mullahs of Iran came to power by promising the people a better more fair regime than the Shah--yet once there they become arguably far worse---Komani reportedly killed and torutred more people in the first years of his reign than the Shah killed in the whole of his.
The French Revolution founded on Liberty, Fratentity etc ushered in the Terror..and paved the way for Bonaparte.

In terms of popullation growth---it certainly plays a big roll--but in the poorest areas such growth is sustained by the West--food, money, meds, eradication of disease, without the wests direct involvment populations might not be nearly what they are.

I don't think that much moderinzation can be seperated from the cultural that spawned it.

Look at China, at one point, the had gunpowder cannon, magnetic compasses and ships 10xs the size of the anybody else even many 100's of years later.
But they didn't spread their culture worldwide---the world came to them.

For good and ill, its the west that grew and spread.......but as you quite rightly pointed out above--its really just a question of when you look at it.