quote:
Is it only now with the establishment of science that religion is seen as a tail no longer needed or used? Or am I way off course?
I have seen two factors impacting here.
1. Science has culminated in the same brick walls it accuses others of. What does anyone know of the origins of anything? This question is the deciding factor between science and belief systems, and we find both have the same result. Non-conclusive.
2. A belief in a Creator is very easily exploitable - which has resulted in many belief stsyetms, all contradictory to each other.
The correct view is to distinguish before throwing it all in one green bag. We find here that the contradictions between religions is on two premises: one between the three middle-east religions, and breaking down this further, we find that the two groups which assumed themselves the continuation of the first, namely the OT which predated both by 2000 years, are the cause and possessor of these contradictions. If we remove both those groups from the picture for a moment, we will see that the OT is infact one premise about creation. The other, independent religious group can be that of a nature type deity/ties, which is polytheism. When we further examine this, it will be seen that here too it is monotheistically based, and all the dieties are transitory agents or bridges. So all religions subscribe to a monotheist Creator.
The other side of the coin is science, which incorporates atheism.
Both those two faculties have no answers of the fulcrum issues. When it is further examined, we find all the basic, plaform paradigms of science is taken from the OT, science emerging from genesis very clearly, including the premises of finity [v1], entropy [v2], light as a primodial force [v3], critical seperations of elements as an anticipation for life, dual-gendered origins for life, evolution [chronological emergence of species], resting [ceasing] of creation.
The standout factor in all of this is not the validity of science or religion, as both these cannot answer beyond basic, simple workings of items. One must not be fooled that we can make a PC today and fly to the moon - and this was impossible 3000 years ago; we equally could not do what was done and thought of 3000 years ago - thus the relativity factor rules here.
The true mysterious factor is that both these faculties, religion and science, are equally in balance from the pov of answerring fulcrum questions of origins: neigher can. And to maintain this critical balance, has to be a purposeful and intentional construct, as opposed a fluke. Both faculties are only privy to the B to Z, with the A factor being ever elusive. Strangely, this prevailing situation was first declared in Genesis. The A factor is barred, and it does not signify a lacking in human mind power.
Science can only be said to prevail, if it can show and prove origins, as opposed making a car go faster or telling us why we are sick and what will cure us - these are automatically accumulated knowledge conclusions which emerge only in its due time - we cannot stop this knowledge accumulation if we tried very hard to do so; but these answer nothing of fulcrum issues - thus the finger pointing at religion or creationism and monotheism cannot be dented by science.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2