No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future | Science | Guardian Unlimited — You need to read this entire piece to get a good face-full of idealism. Note that this comes out of the socialist-leaning Guardian. It seems to me to be a lot of wishful thinking. The way I see things the more likely scenarios are just the opposite. I’d predict more religion and more war.
People’s fascination for religion and superstition will disappear within a few decades as television and the internet make it easier to get information, and scientists get closer to discovering a final theory of everything, leading thinkers argue today.
The web magazine Edge (www.edge.org) asked more than 150 scientists and intellectuals: “What are you optimistic about?” Answers included hope for an extended human life span, a bright future for autistic children, and an end to violent conflicts around the world.
Philosopher Daniel Denett believes that within 25 years religion will command little of the awe it seems to instil today. The spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will “gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance”.
Biologist Richard Dawkins said that physicists would give religion another problem: a theory of everything that would complete Albert Einstein’s dream of unifying the fundamental laws of physics. “This final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions.”
found by JulieB
Just as kooky as those they rail against.
End of history, right?
“Answers included hope for an extended human life span, a bright future for autistic children, and an end to violent conflicts around the world.”
Extended human life span without population control will result in overpopulation and increased poverty; which will generate more violent crimes and war.
I wish their future would come true, but it won’t.
Never happen. There are too many nut job religious fanatics in both Christianity and Islam for this ever to come to be.
I would be careful on quoting anti-religious fanatics (Dawkins) as much as religious fanatics.
Besides, being that the USA already has internet/tv available to the masses and we (USA) still are on the whole more ‘religious’ than our European counterparts… I don’t see an end to religion any time soon.
We humans will just replace God with any number of things to worship… Celebrity, corporations, GWBush…
We just have to believe that there is more than a 9-5 job and then death. It’s human nature, afterall…
3,
Don’t forget Judaism!
It’s obviously more of a wish list than a set of predictions. I’m with all the rest of the cynics, though… never gonna happen. More’s the pity.
South Park had a real funny episode about Richard Dawkins this season.
My wife accuses me of being a bitter old cynic. I’ve read a lot of history, and seen a bit in person also. I wish to the gods I was an optimist.
A theory of everything? I think Kurt Gödel has something to say about that.
I confidently predict that the future will be screwed up in ways we never predicted.
Are the religious nutjobs on the rise or is it that the Internet/TV/Media is giving them more of a spot light. Is it the global economy that is giving them a spot light.
Hmmm…. I commented on the televangelist story because of the Denett mention at the bottom of the entry. Should’ve done it here.
Gist was – physiological basis for religion: http://tinyurl.com/yhp5gk – an MRI showed brain circuits lighting up when Nuns contemplated God.
Denett describes himself as a Darwin fundamentalist. Sounds like he got his physiological rush from Darwin. Same tune, different words.
Wells was spouting this trite back in his day.
Science is not the panacea and neither is ideology or religion.
NONE of these alone are the answer. It has to take a blending of these three things PLUS humanity finally growing up enough to stand up and face their responsibilities and admit to their failures.
Until the human race becomes adults, there is no hope for anything better.
Cursor_
Posts like this are dissapointing. Science is not a god to be worshipped. People like Mr. Denett do not realise that science is a tool. It is not to be worshipped. It will not usher in a new age of understanding and enlightment. Science isn’t a thing. It’s not a powerful entity that will make the world whole. It’s just a tool that’s been here since the beginning of thought, the ability to test something over and over, to get a result, and to learn from that result. That is science.
But then what’s to be expected from dvorak.org. This is just the standard drivel after all. This site gets more predictable by the day.
Humans remain humans, ever as fallible and fragile as before.
I like the idea of armagedeon…
And ask, the end of WHAT…in the religios eye..
And the end of what in the REALISTs eye.
They are not the same.
Since the sign itself is written in english, its that in and of itself an afront to Islam? Off with HIS head!!
Durka, Durka, Jihad!
This worked so well for the USSR didn’t it.
The vast majority of what is on the internet is not information of any use, certainly not to get rid of religion. Religion is just another cultural differences and that is mainly what war is over in addition to land, resources etc. Sounds like pronouncements about TV 50 years ago. They never saw the Jerry Springer Show coming either
#4 J
You are an imposter!
Dawkins is not an anti-religious fanatic.
Christianity won’t last forever. Religions have come and gone and become less dogmatic over time. If the human race can avoid destroying itself it will one day grow beyond religion. The problem is that we have bigger weapons and bigger societies. If secularism does not gain the upper hand the human race will perish at the hands of religion.
It’s too late for us. But won’t somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! lol
Holding any belief Dogmatically holds back human progress, but religion seems to do this much more than science. Science has the capacity to throw out previous views under the weight of evidence to contrary. Religion has no such mechanism; only the “leaders” of a given faith are allowed the authority to alter doctrine. Science is at its worst when the scientist starts to act in this same way. Claiming a “theory of everything” is silly and as #10 said, it is not even not possible. But positive progress for a better, healthier life for all people is only found through science. Religion has hindered this progress at every turn, only changing when it has no choice. But I do not think we will ever rid ourselves of religion so long as humans continue to derive pleasure and comfort from religion. And of science becomes a replacement for religion rather than a tool for bettering the global human experience then our progress will be small indeed. As a few people have said already, Science is a tool, not a belief.
Damn, I am a typo monkey today, sorry about that.
I don’t think science and religion are an either / or proposition. Einstein didn’t think so either, as a sign hanging on the wall of his office at Princeton said, “I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
Organized Religion and Organized Science are very incompatible. Most religions originally try to be the answer to everything, they jump on the science of when they began. All “scripture” is based on the understanding of the world in which they were written.
Eventually the science changes, and the religion no longer has all the answers. Do they deny the new knowledge and lose credibility of the world or accept the new knowledge and lose credibility of their followers? Religions do change but it takes generations of reform.
What I do believe is compatible is spirituality and rational thought. Ultimately they can combine into personal growth. I see the learning and understanding the world around me to be a spiritual journey, with each new understanding and revelation to be a new spiritual experience.
#25
Because we had not the means. How can man destroy the earth’s ability to sustain human life before we had technology. Technology is relatively new and religion is much more reasonable in our modern world.
I feel safe in saying that if ancient people who practiced one of those old school violent religions had nuclear bombs then the world would not exist today.
Seriously, I would love to hear anyone’s response to that.
Are American’s really that dumb about history; recall George Santayana’s dictum: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I sugest people pick up a copy of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. It includes 5,000 essential facts every American Needs to Know to know.
This beef against religion was announced by Marx as “the opiate of the masses,” condemned by Freud as a toxic “neurosis”. The validity of Freud scientific and Marx social contributions are largely discredited today, along with GWBush and Co.
I does appear beliefs of GWBush and many if not most muslims are irrational; but many, if not most great thinkers whose contribution to society at large we still highly value in history were religious: Faraday, Euler, our founding fathers ….
There is just not a “purity of good” from either camp, religious or non-religious.
This whole debate is another easily manufactured morass people love to unthinkingly dive into.
If it hasnt been figured out YET…
religion is for the individual.
Government is for the gathering of MORE then 1 persons interactions.
IF religion does its job, then the person incharge ISNT such a bad person.
@28 & 29
HAHA! You guys crack me up. You must be hippies. “Bla bla bla, can you feel it it, man? We can just love ourselves to peace! Cool! bla bla bla.”
Well tell me one thing before you drop that hit of acid. Who gets to make the rules? The secular or the religious?
If we don’t “dive into the morass” non religious people will be further oppressed. Morass. lol
You can’t win a debate by acting like you’re above it.
Could always use Morass.
31. Julie. Kid, you got spunk.
I HATE spunk!!