It's easy to focus on how religion conflicts with science beause of how it (specifically Christianity) currently impedes science education in America. That said, I think there's a complexity to the role of religion in people's lives that most rationalists don't seem to address. Consciousness is a mysterious thing, and while deep questions of the soul may not have fairy tale answers, or any answers at all, I think it's important that they're acknowledged, because they are very heartfelt. It's the intensity of the emotions involved that keep a dogmatic religionist from considering new evidence.

The need for religion has been supplanted by science. We no longer need to construct reasons for why thunder booms and where babies come from. Human evolution did not stop with the emergence of Homo Sapiens. Isn't it time that we stop making up stories of bearded daddy figures bouncing about on fluffy clouds to explain why puppies are cute and mosquitos are not?

Speaking as an atheist, I disagree.

Your argument fails on it's assumption - that the primary purpose of religion is to explain what science cannot. That has never been the purpose of religion.

Man never clung to religion because it explained the mysteries of the physical world. Rather, religion has always attempted to explain the mysteries of the physical world by framing them as supernatural, in order to build up the power of the deity, for the purposes of controlling man.

Regardless as to how religion attempts/attempted to describe the physical world, it attempted to describe the physical world. You admit that in your own post. So fundamentally, I think I disagree with your disagreement.

But its not quite correct to refer to religion so generally, as each religion approaches it's main or "primary" purpose a little differently. Religion is composed of people, and different people have different goals and reasons for doing what they do.

However, I'm inclined to agree with jaredsotherbrother that religion is not necessary, but that won't stop people from being religious. I think one of the primary purposes for religion is spirituality. Religion is often an easy target for obtaining this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 06:58PM by greekgod.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's part of the human condition to wonder, for example, what it means to die, or how consciousness arises, and with much more emotional attachment than wondering, say, how old the earth is, or how volcanoes work.

Religion carries with it the baggage of the pre-scientific age when it comes to reasoning about the world, but people aren't
actually attached to how it reasons about the world, they're attached to a community that acknowledges their deepest, most heartfelt questions. So we can extol the merits of science til we're blue in the face and kind of miss the point for people.

Science and religion, when they are properly practiced, address different types of questions.

Basically, science attempts to answer questions about how matter and energy behave. In contrast, religion addresses questions of meaning and metaphysics: What does it mean -- at the deepest level -- to be good, evil, beautiful, fulfilled, noble, suffering, human, loving, loved, and alive?

Science and religion can inform one another, but they cannot substitute for one another. For example, an MRI can show activity in a particular area of the brain when someone is thinking about a loved one, but science cannot explain the fundamental nature of love. Science may explain some of the associated neurological processes, but hardly anyone who has experienced love will accept such an explanation as being all there is to it.

I am always skeptical when I hear atheists dismiss metaphysics. In practice, I find that they are usually just as concerned about foundational meanings as any religious believer, but face more difficulty in finding ways to address those meetings.

Good point, Kolobian. Maybe a better description of a scientific question would be one that can be addressed by methodical, shared observation rather than subjective experience.

By the way, I should have added that I do not mean to imply that atheists have no spirituality. Almost everybody has some type of experience or perception that they would describe as spiritual. But atheists often seem to be less interested than religious believers in trying to understand the origin or essential nature of their spirituality.

Well said, oddcouplet.