It is these major advances in science and humanities that have largely declined our belief in God. However, it is interesting that the majority of men who made these advances or who instigated them held their belief in God.

I had been an atheist. I now confess that I believe in God. But this is not the God described in the Bible. I think that amongst other things the Bible is man's effort to try and explain God. I can't explain God. But this, this is not an effort to preach God, or try and make people believe in God, this is not an argument on God's existence. This is presenting a theory on modern thought.

What is remarkable to me is people is that people fully believe in dark matter which as astronomers say fills 95% of the universe and is around us. You can't see it; you can't detect it, so how do they know it is there? They say they don't know what it is or what it does. And if it is what does it do? How wrong could we be if we said maybe that is God? People believe in dark matter, even though there's no proof.

Evolution is widely believed. I believe in evolution. But no one has ever seen it happen, I mean is evolution just lucky mutations in species that actually prove better and so they can breed and reproduce these mutated genes with others and so on until we have a new species. I mean evolution is a theory, so is creationism. I study anthropology.

My point with the two above statements is that years ago people believed in God and didn't question it half as much as today as it was taught to them; they were made to believe it. It was a very important part of the educational system and people went to church. They grew up with it.

Today we learn more at school about evolution and what is in the universe. We are pretty much taught that science is right, that we can trust in it. Equally with religion we are ending up believing things without adequate proof and believing in them adamantly. I mean we're told a big bang created the universe, not God, but where is this proof? It is still a theory. We believe in evolution but the same proof is missing, it is a theory. We believe in dark matter, we cannot see it, we cannot detect it but we believe it is there.

Ultimately we believe science in the same way we believed in religion - taught to us with facts and then theories and beliefs told to us by people considered more intelligent than us.

                              ***

Once again do not consider this a debate on God's existence but more a statement on modern psychology. How we have advanced and what has happened to our generation and where this is likely to lead and how science is a religion now.


-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

And dark matter isn't a "something" we believe in, it is a theoretical --note, theoretical-- substance that helps fill mathematical gaps. There are also things that support the idea of dark matter and it's nature --the universe's continued, and indeed increasing, rate of expansion, for instance.

I really don't see the correlation here, sorry.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

As I am currently training to become a particle physicist I hope to be able to answer questions of religious importance. I am not a religious person but I do want to answer some questions.

---

I don't really see the correlation...
You are comparing substantiated scientific theories with mythological stories?  

---

To the average person, these scientific theories are about as substantiated as religion.  Believing everything falls at the same rate has to be taken on faith for someone who's observed the way a piece of paper flits to the ground vs. a rock falling straight.  And whenever I am told about . read about experiments done with magnetic fields or extremely low temperatures, they seem fantastical and contrived.

I believe the OP's point was that in the modern era, the average person accepts the word of scientists (who know more through their mystic dealings, have fanciful vocabulary, and can do things they cannot) where they once accepted the word of mystics (same qualities).

@OP:  I agree with your point that folk today believe in science where they once believed in religion.  I personally hold that someday the most enlightened mystics and the most brilliant scientists will arrive at the same answer.

-------
We aren't gonna die. We can't die. You know why?Because
we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die.

---

To the average person, these scientific theories are about as substantiated as religion. Believing everything falls at the same rate has to be taken on faith for someone who's observed the way a piece of paper flits to the ground vs. a rock falling straight. And whenever I am told about . read about experiments done with magnetic fields or extremely low temperatures, they seem fantastical and contrived.

---

Just because a person is uneducated as to the way things work --or at least, the way we currently understand things to work-- does not mean that you can justifiably claim that the correlation between accepting science as valid and accepting religion as valid are the same [really, not even similar].

Science is demonstrable  in all sorts of ways and can be validated --or at least substantiated through direct observation. To say otherwise is intellectual masturbation. Religion relies on mythology and anecdotal claims, none of which can ever be substantiated.

Religion seeks to explain the unknown through stories and mythology. Science seeks to explain the unknown through experimentation and study. There really is no correlating the two as "things that smart people teach us"

Religion was formed because the "smart" people back then had nothing else to explain things with. People accepted the ideas because they seemed valid and were the only explanations available. Science can be objectively tested by anyone, and thus, is not just "something some smart person taught me".
If you wish to leave it as that, that is to no fault of science.

---

I believe the OP's point was that in the modern era, the average person accepts the word of scientists (who know more through their mystic dealings, have fanciful vocabulary, and can do things they cannot) where they once accepted the word of mystics (same qualities).

---

Duh. Why wouldn't you?
"Here we observe the theory of gravitation in action by studying the distances of the planets with respect to the sun over time. We can accurately outline the path of these planets through these laws, thus we feel that the theory is sound enough as to be considered valid"
is quite a bit more persuasive than
"God holds the planets close to the sun so that the creatures have light and warmth and can grow and live."
[generic religious statement]

---

@OP: I agree with your point that folk today believe in science where they once believed in religion. I personally hold that someday the most enlightened mystics and the most brilliant scientists will arrive at the same answer.

---

I have no quarrel with the idea that science has replaced religion in the "we are taught it as fact in place of religion"; my only qualm is that ES has correlated us accepting religious teachings to us accepting scientific teachings as if both require the same amount of faith, and are thus quite similar.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Have you ever seen an atom being seperated?
For the average Joe its the exact same as being told that God created man at the end of the day.

There are so many loose ends and stuff we don't know how it works and why...at the end of the day the normal people on the street are accepting this in the same way our fore father's accepted religion as the answer.

Who is to say that in 1000 years there might be something else, something that isn't science or religion to explain the universe? What it might be I have no idea, and whether it is outside our current intelligence could be debated...but I've brought everything to the bones that it is, and I believe that the same way that we believed religion 100 years ago is the same as how we believe in science today.

I dont really want a long drawn out argument saying the same things over and over until one of us gets bored, because we both have valid points, or I'd like to think so, and I believe in what I have written above and would like to have your acknowledgement and respect for that.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

EH, although I respect your opinion and can see your argument. My general view is that the big bang theory is just as viable as creationism.

---

Yea?
Well, first before I begin to address this; Do you mean creationism as in "The earth was created 6000 years ago" or "The universe was --at some point in time billions of years ago-- created by god"

---

Have you ever seen an atom being seperated?
For the average Joe its the exact same as being told that God created man at the end of the day.

---

Except that the average person cannot test the latter idea. He can, however, have the theory explained to him so that he understands what evidence would support the claim that atoms can be split; and could then theoretically go to a collider and see it happen --or at least view the evidence of it happening.

---

There are so many loose ends and stuff we don't know how it works and why...at the end of the day the normal people on the street are accepting this in the same way our fore father's accepted religion as the answer.

---

That is because the normal person accepts that if the entire scientific community accepts something --perhaps not ALL, but certainly those who would be considered experts-- as valid, then it would be silly to disagree with them. Especially since they have done experiments and have support for their claims. Religious answers have no support and were only accepted because: a) there was no other explanation, and the average man did not have the intellect to even begin to think about it on his own, and b) not believing in it was heresy against the big man. so there is that little fear factor there.

---

Who is to say that in 1000 years there might be something else, something that isn't science or religion to explain the universe? What it might be I have no idea, and whether it is outside our current intelligence could be debated...

---

there very well may be, however that does not mean that the scientific theories that we have today will be invalidated. They accurately describe the universe we live in, and can be used to predict the movements and reactions of pretty much anything; what more could be asked for?

---

but I've brought everything to the bones that it is, and I believe that the same way that we believed religion 100 years ago is the same as how we believe in science today.

---

And I wholly disagree. Since the average person is capable of verifying the claims himself; whereas religious claims have no support and must be blindly accepted.

Granted, most people do blindly accept science today. However, the difference is the reason why. Now, when the scientific community agrees that something is valid, it ought to be accepted as truth, since scientists --who have a great regard for their reputation-- typically don't cite something as fact or consider it a solid theory willy-nilly. Scientific "truths" are theories that have been tested and picked apart so that they are as valid as they can be. it makes a lot more sense to believe in today's scientists than it does to believe in the priests of yore.

Like I said, I agree that the concept is similar --the average person 1000 years ago blindly accepted what the smarter people of the time told him too just as today the average person accepts what the scientific community tells him. The difference, however, is that the average joe can, theoretically, test these things himself and be a witness to the natural laws in action [or reaction :)] but he could NEVER test what the priests told him back in the day. That is a major difference.

Most of us don't test these things ourselves because the data is made available and we just aren't interested enough to try them for ourselves. Where the people of yore accepted the teachings out of ignorance, we accept them out of impatience.

---

I dont really want a long drawn out argument saying the same things over and over until one of us gets bored, because we both have valid points, or I'd like to think so, and I believe in what I have written above and would like to have your acknowledgement and respect for that.

---

I agree. like I said, I accept your main point, I simply disagree with the core of it.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Just because a person is uneducated as to the way things work --or at least, the way we currently understand things to work-- does not mean that you can justifiably claim that the correlation between accepting science as valid and accepting religion as valid are the same [really, not even similar].

Science is demonstrable in all sorts of ways and can be validated --or at least substantiated through direct observation. To say otherwise is intellectual masturbation. Religion relies on mythology and anecdotal claims, none of which can ever be substantiated.  

Religion seeks to explain the unknown through stories and mythology. Science seeks to explain the unknown through experimentation and study. There really is no correlating the two as "things that smart people teach us"

Religion was formed because the "smart" people back then had nothing else to explain things with. People accepted the ideas because they seemed valid and were the only explanations available. Science can be objectively tested by anyone, and thus, is not just "something some smart person taught me".
If you wish to leave it as that, that is to no fault of science.

---

True religious truths are also demonstrable; since the passers on acquire them through prayer and meditation, so can the followers acquire them in such a way.  The difference is, most of science can be proven for you, while you need to work your way to religious truths yourself.  For a lot of scientific truths (not necessarily all), you have to put plenty of faith in premises; just as you would for religious truth.

Now, remember, I think they're getting at the same place, so I'm not trying to discount either of these standpoints.  I just find that they're both pretty much founded on a little bit of belief and a lot of input from people who've devoted their life to finding answers, and that a person can either work things out themselves, or accept someone else's worldview, to some degree on faith.  People today seem to think scientists sound better, but there's no real and significant difference between the two.

-------
We aren't gonna die. We can't die. You know why?Because
we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die.