• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

WIll growing religiosity in the world by 2050 hurt science and space development?

C

CmdrShep2183

Ensign
Red Shirt
Interesting articles.
http://www.startribune.com/while-west-grows-secular-the-world-gets-religion/375906371/

https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-is-s...n-america-by-2050-a-response-to-laurie-derose

But I don't want to knock on anyone's faith but I hope fascination in space isn't considered "worldly".

I am hoping Western sci fi would be popular with the immigrant populations of America 2050 as well as the developing world which should be modern nations by 2050.

I am hoping by 2100 Humanity has survived climate change and moved towards a global government reminiscent of the great sci fi Earth governments.
 
Here's something to keep in mind:

Most people who subscribe to a particular religion don't take it too seriously. They may "believe" in a God or gods but, don't necessarily let that belief get in the way of reality. It's a common misconception that all religious people are zealots - most aren't. That goes for Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism ... and Hinduism and on and on...
 
Religion, like anything else, can be compartmentalised. If it gets in the way of life and living, it's going to be boxed off into a corner and used in narrow traditional contexts and practices. For most people anyway.
 
Don't equate religion with fundamentalism. There is a relation, but it is not a given.
If we define religion as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or less loosely even as "a series of practices and/or organization related to faith" this does not imply an impediment to science. It is only when we allow practices and beliefs to take the place and hinder our search for truth.In this, one of the biggest impediments to science has been religion, specifically religious leadership, that has historically tended to do best when its adherents were uneducated and dependent upon their offices. That WILL continue to be a problem. Likewise a tendency for scientific leadership to become entrenched and immobile to new ideas, which has happened before, will continue to occur.

Treating religious persons as a threat to learning is not helpful, to either them or to what i would hope would be the uniform goals of increased knowledge and a better world(s) for future generations.
 
I still love the fact that early Islamic and Irish Catholic scholars spent enormous effort and time trying to preserve past knowledge from before their religions were even created (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Assyrian - all "pagan" cultures).
 
Religion doesn't interfere with science and technology. In fact, many Christians hold jobs in that capacity. For example, Francis Collins was a Christian who researched genes.

Johannes Kepler studied the laws of planetary motion.

Isaac Newton was a Christian.
 
I consider myself a devout Catholic. I have a strong faith in God and the tenets my Church teaches. I also have a strong belief in science. I accept evolution as fact for instance. In fact, frankly, I don't see a conflict between evolution and creation. God created the universe. Evolution is merely the method that He used here and probably elsewhere in the universe. The first chapter of Genesis is basically a very basic description of evolution. First were the fish of the seas, then plants and animals, then mankind. That's basically the steps of evolution. Adam and Eve may simply represent the first humans who achieved intelligence and self awareness (and a soul).

As far as life in the universe, I absolutely believe there's life out there. I also don't believe God created the entire universe and Earth is the only place where life could exist. Simply put, I don't think God is wasteful. It's a big universe out there. Of course there's life out there. And I don't find it a threat to my faith. While I believe there is life out there, humanity is also unique. We evolved here on Earth and I believe God sent Jesus to save humanity. Finding life on other planets does nothing to change that.

God also gave us the ability to adapt and learn. Science is how we do that. I see no conflict with faith and science. In fact, science in many ways helps with my faith. For one, science teaches us something can't be made from nothing. Something had to create the universe. It couldn't have come from nothing, so that enforces my belief in God. Now certainly other aspects of my faith require just that, faith. I can't prove my faith that Jesus rose from the dead. But again, I don't find science a threat to that and see no need to restrain science.

At the same time, I think there is some value in considering the consequences of scientific development. For instance, we learned to crack the atom and then create atomic weapons. Probably not the best use of science. That's not science's fault. But that's our fault for not considering the ethical consequences of what we do. I also have concerns about genetic engineering; though not to cure illness, diseases or even genetic defects. I think most reasonable people would believe those are good uses. But in what we would call 'perfecting the species'. But that's more because I can see it being abused, not necessarily because of my Christian faith in that case.

And Tenacity is right. Some of the greatest leaps of science have come from people of faith. Science is no threat to religion, and religion should not be a threat to science (though I acknowledge there are factions that see science as a threat, which is a shame because it is not).
 
Well, lets look at history..
America in the 60's when we done the moon landing was more religious than it is now, even having biblical verses quoted by Apollo 8 flight etc. So faith doesn't equate a non belief in science in general.. now..
Now in the middle east currently, ISIS were intenetinaly destroying holly sites, relics, and destroying schools because there particular relgious belief belives that knowledge is with the creator and shouldnt be taught.. Now that type of fundementalism, yes.. that would be counter to scientific growth.
Now in past history.. the church did find Galeo a heritic.. simply because it went against the church at the time.
Now adays, 20, 21st centery, the church doesn't have the power it did back in the Bad Ole Days, so it won't stop scienetific advancement..
and in the future.. unless theres a holly war or something.. scientific progress won't stop.
 
America experienced a interest in science in the 1950ies and 1960ies due to the Cold War. 'Technology' was just another political tool of the politicians - IE Once the U.S.S.R. was 'more technologically advanced' -- them was fighting words, so the U.S. had to prove "No 'Free World' technology is higher/better than Commie technology...' so yes, suddenly Americans (including 'Evangelicals') loved 'Science and wanted to show those 'Godless Commies'...

But, by the 1970ies the U.S. had 'won' the space race; and Russia pretty much gave up going further (IE trying to get to Mars). the U.S. getting a man on the Moon first pretty much sealed the deal.

Also, those is religious circles saw that many intellectuals did begin to more objectively question some aspects of religion an didn't; just accept what some preacher was quoting from the Bible - and they saw that as 'dangerous' to their way of life; so they started to vilify intellectuals more and more as 'elitists out of touch with God's word...etc.' and that's where we are in the U.S. today.

So yeah, until the politicians see a need to fully demonstrate some concept of technical/intellectual superiority to an 'enemy' that doesn't already concede the U.S. is technologically superior -- no you won't see a return to the time of the 1950ies/1960ies and an emphasis on actual science and learning because Preachers and Politicians know knowledge is real power, so they want the average citizen's critical thinking skills dulled to the point they'll believe whatever the people in power want them to, and won't question things too much.
 
Science can explain a "how" (until something is found to be inexplicably contradicting the laws of physics as light has properties of matter and energy, though I do believe someone figured out why water is unique in expanding in cold and contracting in heat, unlike everything else) but science never discusses the "why". Because it's an intangible variable. It's an interesting mixture of mystery and other things. But neither impedes the other, since the underlying questions are vastly different.
 
CmdrShep2183 said:
Interesting articles.
http://www.startribune.com/while-west-grows-secular-the-world-gets-religion/375906371/

https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-is-s...n-america-by-2050-a-response-to-laurie-derose

But I don't want to knock on anyone's faith but I hope fascination in space isn't considered "worldly".

I am hoping Western sci fi would be popular with the immigrant populations of America 2050 as well as the developing world which should be modern nations by 2050.

I am hoping by 2100 Humanity has survived climate change and moved towards a global government reminiscent of the great sci fi Earth governments.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be considered UNwordly?

Out of this world?
 
Spock . said:
Religion doesn't interfere with science and technology.
Click to expand...
Until you get Young Earth Creationists going into politics, getting elected, and completely screwing up a country's efforts to deal with fossil fuels, the environment, climate change, and trying to find a balance that harms as few people as possible while keeping the country afloat economically.
 
Timewalker said:
Until you get Young Earth Creationists going into politics, getting elected, and completely screwing up a country's efforts to deal with fossil fuels, the environment, climate change, and trying to find a balance that harms as few people as possible while keeping the country afloat economically.
Click to expand...
Yep. Not to mention that, generally speaking, nothing good comes from religious interference with science education.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
Yep. Not to mention that, generally speaking, nothing good comes from religious interference with science education.
Click to expand...

Nothing? That isn't true.

Dr. Collins, head of the American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said. Just because they believe in God does not automatically make them useless in the field of science.

Albert Einstein was a Christian, and he is revered today as one of the smartest people on Earth. In fact, Einstein said that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

And in the medical field, Dr. Carson was the first to successfully separate conjoined twins, and he was a Christian. Science explains what is already there, while religion gives it meaning.

As for space development, John Glenn, the famous astronaut was a Christian. In fact, when Glenn’s spacecraft, Friendship 7, was near launch, Tom O’Malley in Mission Control said a short prayer: “May the good Lord ride all the way.” Another person, Scott Carpenter, said “Godspeed, John Glenn.” It is not necessary to compromise religious beliefs for scientific ones.

It wasn't just Christians that debated the ethics of Stem Cell research. There have been many people that have argued that Stem Cell Research is unethical. Not only that, but not all Christians rejected Stem Cell research.

The process of obtaining stem cells leads to the destruction of the embryo from which the cells are taken. Because human life begins at conception, embryo destruction is immoral since it is the destruction of a human being. Even some people who do not believe that human embryos are deserving of full moral status worry about what the effects of normalizing such practices may have on society.

There are more than 70 conditions currently being treated with adult stem cells, and zero with embryonic stem cells. Despite the media hype of the early 2000s, embryonic stem cell research has proven to be useless at treating medical conditions. When tested on animals, embryonic stem cells turned into tumors. As biological engineer James Sherley once explained, “Figuring out how to use human embryonic stem cells directly by transplantation into patients is tantamount to solving the cancer problem.

I am Christian, and I am currently on track to get a bachelors in Cyber Security before I graduate from highschool. There are no rules stating that you must turn your back on science and technology to be religious.

Besides, it's the opposite. Religion is not growing, it's shrinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top