Religion is just an attempt to lessen mankind's fear of death?

[t0night]

"works of science" - most modern theories are built upon the works of Scientists such as Darwin, Vesalius, Galileo, Newton, Lister, Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath + diagnosis) and even Ulugh Beg himself.

 

Whereas most old religions (Roman, Hellenistic, Germanic paganism, Zoroastrianism, Tengrism etc) have been supplanted by organised religions and are no longer relevant - this has also ocassionally happened in certain regions, Orthodoxy was less prevalent in Greece after 1453, and Tengrism died out after the Mongol Hordes converted. In a way, Constantine and Charlemagne were more important to the spread of Christianity than Jesus. Yet today we have logical explanations for the majority of things (e.g comets, earthquakes) that our ancestors feared - they're not acts of God(s).

what do you mean by works? all i'm saying is that a lot scientific works have been discarded in favour of new ones, theories 'rise and crumble into dust' too, and to hold all the works of science as constant eternal truths is patently fallacious. even to argue that any single scientific truth that isn't self fulfilling will still be 100% guaranteed to be accepted as scientific truth in 100 years would be impossible.

[Professional Map Painter]

what do you mean by works? all i'm saying is that a lot scientific works have been discarded in favour of new ones, theories 'rise and crumble into dust' too, and to hold all the works of science as constant eternal truths is patently fallacious. even to argue that any single scientific truth that isn't self fulfilling will still be 100% guaranteed to be accepted as scientific truth in 100 years would be impossible.

The works of Hippocrates are still relevant, whereas the Greek pantheon of Gods that existed in his lifetime is not.

 

"It is thus with regard divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause from the originates like other affections. Men regard its nature and cause as divine from ignorance and wonder..." - whilst over time, our understanding of disease has improved Hippocrates is not entirely wrong.

 

It's the same with the atom - without a previous model (e.g Rutherford's - and his work is still discussed) to compare results to, different conclusions may have been reached by Bohr. Whereas in 100 - 200 years time some religions will have gone extinct and therefore provide only information about the customs of the people who believed in them - some may be looked up fondly, like Roman civilisation is today, others will crumble into obscurity like the Etruscans.

[t0night]

The works of Hippocrates are still relevant, whereas the Greek pantheon of Gods that existed in his lifetime is not.

 

"It is thus with regard divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause from the originates like other affections. Men regard its nature and cause as divine from ignorance and wonder..." - whilst over time, our understanding of disease has improved Hippocrates is not entirely wrong.

 

It's the same with the atom - without a previous model (e.g Rutherford's - and his work is still discussed) to compare results to, different conclusions may have been reached by Bohr. Whereas in 100 - 200 years time some religions will have gone extinct and therefore provide only information about the customs of the people who believed in them - some may be looked up fondly, like Roman civilisation is today, others will crumble into obscurity like the Etruscans.

you know greek civilization and religious mythology came to be an absolutely massive force in western cultural traditions right? do you think religion never ever outlasts its believers in terms of legacy in much the same way that Rutherford's plum pudding model (which may be discussed but is not considered useful) is no longer believed in, per se, but was part of a tradition?

[Professional Map Painter]

you know greek civilization and religious mythology came to be an absolutely massive force in western cultural traditions right? do you think religion never ever outlasts its believers in terms of legacy in much the same way that Rutherford's plum pudding model (which may be discussed but is not considered useful) is no longer believed in, per se, but was part of a tradition?

Byzantium (the heavily Greek remnant of the Roman Empire) was ridiculed by all of Western Europe i.e the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Goths/Iberians and others who would form the various European countries, with their own traditions (although most converted to a religion that emerged in the last years of the Roman Empire, but this too had its own traditions, and these are more closely linked to culture, as different countries administered their religious infrastructure and communities in various ways). Only the Russian principalities (whose rulers were descendants of Vikings and so had given up their old cultural and religious customs complelety) preferred Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire. The Muslims appreciated Greco-Roman technological/scientific advancements, but that was it. It's the same with the Magyars and Turkic tribes like the Avars, both gave up their old religious traditions on conversion and formed kingdoms/sultanates where there were once tribes

Rutherford disproved the plum pudding model, and then Bohr improved upon Rutherford's model - Bohr made use of information previously available as well as data he collected.

[t0night]

Byzantium (the heavily Greek remnant of the Roman Empire) was ridiculed by all of Western Europe i.e the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Goths/Iberians and others who would form the various European countries, with their own traditions (although most converted to a religion that emerged in the last years of the Roman Empire, but this too had its own traditions, and these are more closely linked to culture, as different countries administered their religious infrastructure and communities in various ways). Only the Russian principalities (whose rulers were descendants of Vikings and so had given up their old cultural and religious customs complelety) preferred Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire. The Muslims appreciated Greco-Roman technological/scientific advancements, but that was it. It's the same with the Magyars and Turkic tribes like the Avars, both gave up their old religious traditions on conversion and formed kingdoms/sultanates where there were once tribes

Rutherford disproved the plum pudding model, and then Bohr improved upon Rutherford's model - Bohr made use of information previously available as well as data he collected.

There's a reason the study of 'the classics' was preferred to the study of English Literature for half a millenium after literature started to be written in a language that was distinctively English. Ancient Greek mythology alone has massively massively shaped so much culture. The Western tradition, in terms of science, philosophy, and literature, is almost always considered to have begun in Greece, and I don't think that you can disregard the massive part that their religious mythology played in that. I'm not arguing that the same gods have been worshipped or the same customs followed, just as nobody is repeating the experiments of Rutherford and nobody is using the model he came up with to make predictions. I'm arguing it's a part in a tradition.

 

Again, all I have to do to justify my original point is to illustrate that a) not all science is permanently true and stable and that religion too can outlast its age in the same way that outdated scientific discoveries are still part of a tradition. I think both of those are pretty much self evident and I don't really understand what points you're making? That they ceased to be practiced and understood in the same way therefore they have crumbled? No more so than scientific theories of the past, I argue.

[Hyperqube]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/history_1.shtml

 

"Shintoisms were the only religions in Japan until the arrival of Buddhism in the 6th century CE. From then on Shinto faiths and traditions took on Buddhist elements, and later, Confucian ones. Some Shinto shrines became Buddhist temples, existed within Buddhist temples, or had Buddhist priests in charge. Buddhist temples were built, and Buddhist ideas were explored"

 

"As time went on, the Japanese became more and more accustomed to including both the kami and Buddhist ideas in their spiritual lives. Philosophers put forward the idea that the kami were "transformations of the Buddha manifested in Japan to save all sentient beings".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki

 

I know that. But did you know that the term "Shinto" comes from that same time, to differentiate it from the new religion, Buddhism?

 

Saying "Shinto is pretty much Buddhism" is like saying red is pretty much blue. Sure they mix, but they are not the same.

[MC22]

Religion is an attempt to lessen mankind's fear of death.

but not just. 

Religion's a lot of other things. It teaches moral principles. It promotes charities. It houses a fair amount of pedophiles and terrorists for one reason or another. 

Right?

 

Anyway, suppose I constructed a religion in which I'm making mankind fear death more. (Example: once you die there is only eternal torture in hell)

While I might have my freedom of belief, it's not going to turn into a worldwide phenomenon the next day. I doubt many people want to believe things only go downhill.

[.Dusk]

religion was made for power and more importantly, money. "you have to pay the church or god will never forgive your sins"

 

opinions

[NeutralZone2]

Yes, but death is still too unknown to us. Do we just go blank after our last breath of air? It's easy to see that, but it would make you think if it really would be like that since we never have experienced it.

 

Ursine:

 

According to God's inspired word, the Bible, death is the opposite of life.  So, yes, we just go blank after our last breath of air.

 

 

NeutralZone2

[Heated Bread]

Fear of death is certainly one major reason a lot of people cling to religion, but to say that it's just that is oversimplifying things a bit, I think.

 

I doubt many people want to believe things only go downhill.

 

And yet that's pretty much what our current understanding of cosmology points to: a bleak end to the universe as it expands faster and faster towards a higher state of entropy due to dark energy, to the point that everything basically spreads apart and freezes/burns out in isolation, and then beyond that, may rip apart down to the subatomic level so that the only remaining objects which are still bound together are black holes, which themselves may even evaporate eventually due to hawking radiation.  Yet you'll find that the vast majority of physicists accept this because it's where the science is pointing.

[MC22]

Fear of death is certainly one major reason a lot of people cling to religion, but to say that it's just that is oversimplifying things a bit, I think.

 

 

And yet that's pretty much what our current understanding of cosmology points to: a bleak end to the universe as it expands faster and faster towards a higher state of entropy due to dark energy, to the point that everything basically spreads apart and freezes/burns out in isolation, and then beyond that, may rip apart down to the subatomic level so that the only remaining objects which are still bound together are black holes, which themselves may even evaporate eventually due to hawking radiation.  Yet you'll find that the vast majority of physicists accept this because it's where the science is pointing.

That won't happen for an exponential period of time, but you've got a good point. I'm sure the repelling force of gravity will likely continue to work at the edge of the universe and all, but for now, I'm glad the universe and I are not dead.

[ℕ Hilbert-WARing Theorem™]

It is conceivable to model religion as a prototyping of the scientific method, although founded on very different principles. Religion sought to explain the way things were, although it failed to make use of a rational analysis of the observable world around us. Religion was evolutionarily more than simply a means of escape for our fear of death, it was a means for us to retaliate against the dreaded unknown. Religion explained naturally occurring phenomena such as the stars and the sky through fictitious myths which had only a vague resemblance to reality. This resemblance was coincidental, but was nonetheless believable. The heavens and the earth, the religions declared, were the materialistic manifestations of divine beings which transcended space and time. Due to this barrier, humans could not claim to have knowledge of the nature of God or of the gods, simply relying on the principle of good faith to shelter and uphold their system of belief.

 

Man's faculties understood these systems of belief and greeted them amiably, for they gave a way into understanding the nature of the human condition in relationship to the animate and inanimate realms, from those of the earth to far, far away, beyond the furthest reach of our primitive ancestors. Religion was consistent with the way of life and provided a haven for enlightened comprehension of a mysterious cosmos. Man, driven by this consistency, was largely indifferent to questioning the tenets of his religion. However, there was still man's innate curiosity, bound to the need for inquiry and skepticism. Given time and technological advancement, man was ultimately in a privileged position to study the world around us, through the methodology of trial and error, hypothesis and experiment. This was at once heretical and revolutionary.

 

Once these tools became sufficiently developed, science began its infantile cries for attention and the world slowly, but surely turned its head to take a look at what was going on. With more experimentation, science grew and grew, while religion shrunk, losing its hold on explanation. Religious doctrines were put to the test and failed, time after time again. Science, on the other hand, proved itself with every dying breath of its predecessor, religion. Science inherited many of the properties and conventions of religion in society, dictating the behaviors of civilization. It breathed life into deserted or barren fields, such as medicine, computation and genetics, which were hidden in the darkness of a misleading religion. Such matters as life and death were obscured and conflated. Science has been correcting the misconceptions of religion for aeons.

[the only one]

no I don't think its to lessen your fear of death. Its to pray to the same god as other brothers and sisters

[Get Layd]

[A-money]

All religions are stupid imo.

[CourtneyWendysCommercials]

I've always viewed religion as simply a coping mechanism

[Sakamoto]

Stay respectful. This is not the place to shit on each other's religion

[Mr. Dr. Professor Hamster]

I mean, I feel religion partially is an attempt to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time, but also an attempt to create a following. 

 

But then again, you should definitely take into account the stories of people being resurrected, reborn [as in reincarnation, which is something I believe in being a Hindu], and seeing Heaven/Hell or other religions' equivalents of that. 

[Mr. Dr. Professor Hamster]

Fear of death is certainly one major reason a lot of people cling to religion, but to say that it's just that is oversimplifying things a bit, I think.

 

 

And yet that's pretty much what our current understanding of cosmology points to: a bleak end to the universe as it expands faster and faster towards a higher state of entropy due to dark energy, to the point that everything basically spreads apart and freezes/burns out in isolation, and then beyond that, may rip apart down to the subatomic level so that the only remaining objects which are still bound together are black holes, which themselves may even evaporate eventually due to hawking radiation.  Yet you'll find that the vast majority of physicists accept this because it's where the science is pointing.

That is pretty depressing. I hate thinking that, at least based on current theories, the universe will be a bleak wasteland with only sub-atomic particles traveling at miles at second.

[ℕ Hilbert-WARing Theorem™]

That is pretty depressing. I hate thinking that, at least based on current theories, the universe will be a bleak wasteland with only sub-atomic particles traveling at miles at second.

 

That is an interesting theory based on an understanding of entropy. As a closed system evolves, it will tend to become more disorderly over time, eventually attaining a state of maximum disorderliness which is known as equilibrium. Taking the concept of entropy to its logical conclusion, we can model the universe itself as a closed system. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the mathematical laws which describe entropy, the universe will become more and more disorderly over time, eventually reaching a point where it is almost completely uniform and the only events outside of that uniformity would be chance fluctuations.

 

In regards to the inevitability of death, it may be instructive or at least intriguing to hear about Pascal's Wager, a theological argument which claims that a belief in a higher power is always better than non-belief since, if there is even the remotest possibility of a religion being true, the skepticism will not have been worth the eternal damnation. Of course, there are so many religions in the world and so many different interpretations of those respective religions that the probability of any given religion being correct is, only in terms of mathematical abstraction, slim to none.

[Mr. Dr. Professor Hamster]

That is an interesting theory based on an understanding of entropy. As a closed system evolves, it will tend to become more disorderly over time, eventually attaining a state of maximum disorderliness which is known as equilibrium. Taking the concept of entropy to its logical conclusion, we can model the universe itself as a closed system. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the mathematical laws which describe entropy, the universe will become more and more disorderly over time, eventually reaching a point where it is almost completely uniform and the only events outside of that uniformity would be chance fluctuations.

 

In regards to the inevitability of death, it may be instructive or at least intriguing to hear about Pascal's Wager, a theological argument which claims that a belief in a higher power is always better than non-belief since, if there is even the remotest possibility of a religion being true, the skepticism will not have been worth the eternal damnation. Of course, there are so many religions in the world and so many different interpretations of those respective religions that the probability of any given religion being correct is, only in terms of mathematical abstraction, slim to none.

Yea, I understand the physics behind it. x.x 

 

Best not to think of the universe in purely scientific terms. Too bleak and barren. Better to understand what it is and use it in life.