But back to the ORIGINAL QUESTION, which I think we've gone off the track of...
can Science "replace" religion?" This is actually a more subtle question than we've talked about here yet, and I confess, I contributed to taking things of track a bit.
can Science "replace" religion?" This is actually a more subtle question than we've talked about here yet, and I confess, I contributed to taking things of track a bit.
I think the diversions were needed because to have a meaningful and thought-provoking discussion the participants need to understand what they are discussing.
Like you stated, the correct 'terms' need to be aligned.
Historically, it can be seen that scientific inquiry and understanding has ALREADY replaced a lot of pieces of various religions. There is no longer a religion of consequence which claims that the Sun is a chariot of flames, driven across the sky each day by a God. No significant number of people believe that murdering farm animals in small quantities will cause the seasons to change. I think that is what leads many people, at some stage of their education, to see that as a pattern, and ask if that means that eventually ALL of religion will be replaced by scientific observation.
I think not, primarily because there are questions and concerns that Science inherently doesn't ask, and really can't ask. Questions about purpose, for example. Scientific method and study can and does gradually explain the predictable mechanics of the universe, but not whether or not there is a purpose or a reason behind those mechanics. And because of that, it is up to other things, such as philosophy and religion, to provide frameworks for how we deal with each other.
I think not, primarily because there are questions and concerns that Science inherently doesn't ask, and really can't ask. Questions about purpose, for example. Scientific method and study can and does gradually explain the predictable mechanics of the universe, but not whether or not there is a purpose or a reason behind those mechanics. And because of that, it is up to other things, such as philosophy and religion, to provide frameworks for how we deal with each other.
I like how you put that^^
Mathematical Science tries to explain the "what" and "how" but we need belief to explain the "why".
It kinda goes with what I was trying so ineptly to explain with my robot words above.
Science is more than mathematics tho.
There are economy, psychology and many other sciences that deal with trying to understand the nature of the Universe beyond the mathematical physical Universe. Any behavioral study is an example.
The intent of the OP is to discuss a division of religion and science. It assumes one or the other. Implies a competition.
My take on it implies the opposite, that science and religion are not doing battle for supremacy. That both can exist because they are both needed (in different ways) to understand nature.
We live in a world much warmer than mathematical reality. Our delusions of reality is what creates us as passionate people. Full-on reality would create a robotic machine planet, stark and cold. Star Trek The Motion Picture gave a glimpse to a full-on reality with the V'ger character. The whole point of the film was to merge science with religion, data with passion.