Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution

didn't say it can't be redefined, but it won't loose God, there needs to be a focus other than self.

ask for evidence not proof.
understand testimonies are evidence..
but i will agree that most theist do not understand what a testimony is..it is not a script.i would join the chorus if a theist logged on and started spouting script.(IE, Did you know that jesus died on the cross for you?..etc..)
its supposed to be personal, not some predefined state of existence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Um, to my simple atheist mind humanity is something other than self. It's, er, others, ya'know.

Do I (at least) not?

Are they? I mean really? Aren't they simply eyewitness reports? (Just to reference that other thread where we're arguing).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just cause you don't understand what i am talking about does not mean i don't..

relentless..

yea and how objectivity comes with a multitude of ppl seeing the same thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I do. Which is why I suggested "humanity" rather than "god" as a possible substitute.

You have no idea. And believe me, it's harder on me than it is you. You only get me here. I have to live with me 24/7.

And actually agreeing on what they see. Down to the last detail. (Besides, of course, providing something to show it's not a mass delusion or even possible collusion).

 

all well and good till we get our humanity into it..

sounds like something i would say..lol

"but i wasn't looking at that part"
the more ppl you ask the better the picture..

where were you in the 60's ?

 

Large groups of Hindus or Muslims or whatever have experienced/seen things together which they equate to proving their religion true. They sincerely believe it and in the case of suicide bombers believe it so much they'll cut short their lives, thinking they'll go onto another place and get a reward. Do you simultaneously believe all of them?

What abou alien abdunctions? Unlike the questionable authorship of the bible you can go, today, to meet people who claim to have had 'encounters'. Many of them will give similar, if not near identical, stories, despite having not talked to one another. They'll be able to go into detail about many things. There are even groups who claim they've all been taken together or in smaller groups by the same set of aliens over a period of time. Their stories all 'corroborate' one another and they truly believe what they say.

By any measure their claims are more viable than the Bible. They are (supposed) eye witnesses you can talk to now about recent events. We cannot talk to the authors of the Bible and we don't even know who they were. Adducties across large geographical areas provide similar detailed stories, without talking to one another. The Bible can't even give a consistent story of Genesis! The existence of aliens is a plausible notion, consistent with science. The existence of a god is entirely outside anything in science.

So based on the evidence alien encounters are much more believable than the Bible. Likewise sightings of Big-foot. Or other crypto-zoological creatures. Do you think we should accept all of those claims? I doubt it. Without corroborating evidence eye witness accounts, even groups, must be taken with a pinch of salt. Particularly when you're dealing with accounts from 2000+ years ago when the account is not an eye witness and no one understood science and was massively superstitious and there's a complete lack of any 3rd party accounts. Why didn't anyone note how zombies supposedly went into Jerusalem when Jesus was killed? You'd have thought it would have made it into someone's records? Yet despite these hundreds, even thousands, of eye witnesses and all these supposed converts no one else made a note of such events?

Why, it almost sounds like the claims are just fabrications...... :shrug:

 

Ideally.

School. In the UK.

 

No, here:
The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In, Buddhism the sole aim is spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara.
Source (Wiki).

To clarify:
Samsara is the “wheel of reincarnations”, or if you don’t believe in reincarnation because science has not yet proven it, you may want to call it: this reality of suffering. This is normally viewed by people not familiar to Buddhism as a negative view of life, but is not.
The suffering of life is bound to three components of the nature of life: disease, old age, and death. These are the key factors that normally motivate a person to become interested in religion, because of the futility of personal goals in this temporary existence.

Because the true teachings I am talking about, are literally true. The main example is this basic fundamental teaching, and the core of almost every religion: meditate (look within yourself), to find the answer of who/what you truly are (not your ego-personality), and not by the answers provided by others, but a true revelation of your reality.

I know that if you look for the word religion in the dictionary, it includes the belief in deities. But it doesn’t have to be that way. For me, the belief in deities (or god as an entity) is one of the things that science is going to disprove for sure, and it is good for the evolution of a real religion.

For all it’s worth, I can give you my definition of religion: The science of the inner world for getting to know one’s own self, and that includes a communion with the reality of the present moment.

 

Which does nothing to invalidate my point, nor support yours: you claimed buddhism is non-theistic.

Wiki.
My quote, and your own link show that they in fact do have a belief in gods. Supreme or not wasn't the point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll try again. What, specifically, are these "teachings". I.e. List them.

This is "literally true"? Show me how you know. Because your claim that "looking within oneself" is "the core of almost every religion" appears to be false with regard to, for example, mainstream Christianity where a faith in god is primary.

Except that the definition YOU gave (post #169), DID include "god".

Tell me, are you to keep giving definitions (that vary) until you find one I agree with?

Oh dear. What "science of the inner world"?

 

It doesn’t have to include belief.
The spiritual realm you are talking about is nothing but this same reality we are experiencing, looked at from a different angle, but the belief itself is not a premise to starting the path of getting to know one self. The motive does not have to be belief, but a fierce curiosity of getting to know who you truly are, and why are you here. Or it could just as well be a search to the relief of mental anxiety.

Why aren’t you taking in consideration all the scriptures of all religions? To name a few scriptures which don’t require or promote belief: Tao Te Ching, Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, etc.

Yes it is in the sense that science is disproving the beliefs in organized religion f things that are untrue, so people will be more and more familiar with the teachings of religion that are not, or cannot be disproved; therefore leading to a real religion (with the characteristics that are not disproved by science, or even promoted by it).

What claims? That religion will not be discarded or killed by science? I cannot provide evidence to a future prediction of human behavior.
And what about your claims:

You think that just because this has been the pattern in the last 100 years it will remain so, but this is also a claim that cannot be proved; science can in fact make discoveries that destroys old patterns of behavior (like the belief in a chauvinistic and cynic god that gives you rules of action) and therefore change the course of a society. So why can’t it be the case that it takes a turn in favor to a more natural religion than those organized dogmas that exist in the name of religion? It is a possibility; I’m clearly not stating it as a fact.
You say I don’t understand the scientific method because of my predictions based on my understanding of religion and science; it’s what I can do for this specific question. As I understand, this thread is a discussion on the predictions of the future of science and religion. But can you really provide evidence examined by the scientific method that can lead to a definite answer to the OP question?

If I don’t respond is not because of fear, why would I fear an open discussion? I can accept when I’m wrong, but as far as I know this discussion has not yet arrived to any conclusions; and all claims that have been made so far in favor of science, lack the due knowledge of religion. Please state which of my claims are you referring to, and why do you think they are not true so I can gladly respond.

And I’m not against science, on the contrary, I’m all for it. But current science is objective and external, while religion is subjective and internal. So there can be a conciliation of the two in the future, but I don’t think there will be any winner or loser in the battle. In any case there could be a merging of the two, but not a defeat.

 

You wouldn’t be pointing this out if you had studied Buddhism a bit, you would realize that the most basic teaching of Buddhism is not to believe anything (let alone fictional gods), and Buddha was silent about the existence of god or the soul or other things that reason cannot understand. There are many branches of Buddhism, and I hope that someday people will be able to eradicate all phony beliefs with scientific proof leaving just the real parts

That part of Christianity can be disproved by science in the future, and I hope science is up for the challenge. And I really don’t care if science disproves it, because I don’t even think dogmatic Christianity has any validity, science can disprove the whole of it for the better. What I do like are the teachings of Jesus, specifically the ones that are in common in all available Gospels and scriptures.
But also I don’t like those teachings more than those of the Buddha, or other great masters.

"Looking within oneself" is the core of religion, let me back it up:
I can’t even begin to quote the Buddhist and Zen references of this, because it is extensively documented (I would if asked although easily googled), but here are the original Gautama Buddha sample statements:
“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without”.
“Look within, thou art the Buddha.”

Jesus (Father of Christianity):
“Being asked by the Pharisees(A) when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God(B)is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor(C) will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Mohammad (Father of Islam):
“He who knoweth his own self, knoweth God.”

The whole hindu “Vigyan bhairav tantra” (Attributed to Shiva) is dedicated to techniques to look within one self, and it is also the core of the science of Tantra.

Zarathustra (Father of Zoroastrianism or Persian religion):
“But he has discovered himself who says: This is my good and evil: he has silenced thereby the mole and dwarf who says: "Good fod all, evil for all".

Lao Tzu (Father of Taoism):
~ Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power. ~

(Greek Philosophy such as Socrates or Pythagoras, should be considered in a true religion; as it was actually part of “ancient Greek religion”).
“I sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the state before he looks to the interests of the state; and that this should be the order which he observes in all his actions. (Socrates, as written by Plato in The Apology)”

“Know Thyself” - The Oracle of Delphi

Know thyself, and thou shalt know the Universe and God. - Pythagoras

Albert Einstein (Father of... well you know):
The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.

No, I have just given you 1 definition that is my own understanding, but it can change of course, is not definite (it is only my current understanding). And the first definition was not my own, it was the best definition Ii found from a dictionary, although I don’t agree with it completely.

Meditation, Tantra, Zen, Yoga, religion. Teachings I think will reach the scope of science. Today science can validate the superficial effects of yoga and meditation, but I think that in the future it will also be able to validate the experience that true religion can bring.

* edit: deleted repeated entry.

 

So Wiki is totally wrong? Including the page you linked? Okay. I'm gullible enough to not bother asking you to prove it.
Oh, wait...

This is not addressing the question I asked.

Ah, so you're claiming that a couple of sentences, taken out of context, define the religion? And not, for example, the Commandments (for Christianity at least). See my previous comment on my gullibility.

Just for the record: Tantra is not a science. You have constant difficulty with using the word "science" correctly and in context.

So there's a Pythagorean and an Einsteinian religion too? Wow!

Hmm, better write to all of the dictionaries in the world. If you tell them you don't agree I'm sure they'll change the definition. And then the rest of the world population will follow. Easily solved.

Um, not one single one of those is a science.

 

Wiki is not wrong; Buddha said many things to many different people during his 40 years of teachings and in an ample range of contexts. But if you would really go into Buddhism, you will see that “any belief” is discredited; “belief” is a dirty word for Buddhism. Therefore saying that you should belief in god (or gods) to be a Buddhist is an oxymoron.

Not taken out of context at all, all masters have said that, and in many, many different ways. Jesus systematically argued that the Kingdom of God is within each and every one of us, including the so called sinners. But we do not have “eyes” to see it. I wouldn’t discuss the OT, just the NT, because the OT is so full of lies and corruption; but I would truly include gnostic gospels in the NT, because we should consider all scriptures available to have a better understanding of Jesus teachings.
The whole Buddhist/Zen religion revolves around “looking within”, and so is Tantra and Yoga. Also you are not considering the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, which are 112 meditation techniques.

It is not considered science today. But please tell me, what is science?

Pythagoras was a mystic, with many disciples and profound teachings, in the same height as Jesus. His scriptures and disciples were condemned by the Greek establishment and therefore just a few words remain from his teachings. He was a religious seeker per excellence, he went to esoteric schools of Greece, Egypt and the East; and finally went back to Greece to form his own religious school.
I quoted Einstein because he was kind of a smart man of science, and I thought it was pertinent for this thread.

What I couldn’t find is a definition of religion that does not include belief in god. And I do think this is wrong in many levels.
The belief in god is superstition, and religion should not be about superstition; on the contrary, superstition is a hindrance to religion, and that’s why I say that science will be able to redefine religion when all the phony stuff is removed.

 

“Look within, to know yourself” is not a supposition, is it supported by reason. How else are you going to know yourself? You cannot ask somebody: “hey could tell me who I am”, nobody can know you better than you know yourself. At the most you can ask a psychoanalyst to help you understand yourself better, but the psychoanalyst will only help you to look within to find the reasons of your repressions and robot-like behavior. The psychoanalyst is like a crutch, but in the end only you can know yourself.
And the truth of the matter is, very few people truly know themselves. This is also not a supposition; it is a statement from my own observation.

You are right about reincarnation; it is not a fact in the sense that they have not been validated by mainstream science. But I never said it was a fact, I just said that I think it will someday will be validated by science, I know that is a supposition, and I have stated that many times; but saying that reincarnation will be proven wrong by science is an unfounded supposition.
If you really investigate reincarnation, it truly makes sense and most of all in relation with the evolution of species. Also much research has been done about children remembering past lives, this is not unscientific; specially the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson who systematically documented thousands of these cases.

 

Religion has and will continue to move its beliefs into the realm of metaphor, symbolism, analogy. All that will be left once Science has dissected a lot of it will be the belief. Look at the threads that run through here. They are symbolic of the scientific/religious cleansing.

Belief will continue to be available to people so they will choose to use it.

The ONLY thing that can finish belief in god is to prove that god DOESN'T exist. This is something impossible to do because there can always be something bigger.

The pure atheists are in the weaker position because theoretically god COULD be proved to exist. But God can NEVER be proved to not exist.

It is the NATURE of this god which is of interest. Is it a god of ALL (infinity)? Or a god of one predetermined area/universe.

This nature of god possibly determines the possibility of proving its existence. A bigger scale god will take longer (or to the ends of infinity) to find. A smaller scale god could be discovered much sooner.

Maybe a god of ALL/infinity will be impossible to find. But to believe in that god's existence before it IS discovered is insanity (lack of proof).

So for god to not be proved to not exist it must be the creator of infinity. AND, for THIS god to be proved to exist one must do the difficult and find evidence/proof of this god (Very hard if god is ALL and hidden).

What is the answer to this conundrum? The god must show itself. But even IF it did the experience would be purely subjective and not definite. Even if the god proved it existed it could never prove it was the god of ALL/infinity because that would be impossible to prove because the edge of infinity is impossible to reach. And how can we believe it?

Does any of this excuse belief in god or threaten the scientific method?
No. Because it is all philosophical conjecture.

Does anyone have any really workable theories of how god could exist? Something that can't be torn down in 5 minutes by the frequenters of this forum?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2753874

 

Yet Wiki states that Buddhists believe there are gods. :shrug:

Taken out of context in that, AFAIK, those quotes are not representative of the core teaching. Which is what you said.

[ENC]Science[/ENC]. Which does not include metaphysics...
And I note that you haven't answered this question when I asked it of you.

Er, the discussion is about what religions teach (or don't).

See my previous answer. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Get over it.

Um, fail.
Knowing oneself, no matter how hard you look, does not supply answers about the universe or how it works.

It's not a fact at all.

One example of your claims:

If you expect it to be proven don't believe it's real and just waiting to be proven?

Where have I said it will be proven wrong? On the other hand, there is no evidence that supports it is real. therefore it becomes a question of probabilities. Zero evidence despite claims and searching leads one to suppose that there's no substance to those claims.

To some people maybe.

How so?

Claiming (or, in some cases, having claims made on their behalf) to remember past lives.

Ah, yes. The crank. Try reading the opposing views of his "work".

 

Since there is no evidence for the spiritual realm to claim it is part of this reality we are experiencing is to believe it exists without evidence. That's a belief.

Doesn't seem like you can really make the case they are religions then and thus irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

That was precisely my point, you can do this with any religious book. They are all vague, lengthy and generally poorly written in terms of coherence.

Someone following the scientific method and using rational scepticism cannot be lead to a religion if that religion in any way involves believing things which cannot be demonstrated.

If something cannot be proven or tested then the rational view is to say "I do not believe it". This is not the same as saying it is false. You reject a claim until it is justified. If a religion requires you to have 'faith' then you have, by definition, no evidence or rational reason to believe that religion and thus the default position is to say "I do not believe what you are claiming". This is why I'm an atheist, I do not believe the claims religions make about gods. This is distinct from the position "I believe no gods exist".

Yes, science can strip away the 'false religions', in that it can disprove certain claims they make like the Earth being 6000 years old or Man having been created in his current form. Any religion putting such claims forth are wrong on those areas. But religions are more than just lists of facts about the universe, they involve other things.
Suppose a particular religion makes a bunch of statements about the universe and another bunch of statements which cannot be proven true or false. Science can evaluate the statements about the universe but even if all those statements turn out to be true science doesn't lead you to that religion, it doesn't say its 'true'. The facts about the universe are believed not because the religion says it but because evidence says it. The statements which cannot be assessed are necessarily rejected as "I do not believe them" and thus there is always a part of the religion which science says "You shouldn't be accepting this".

Thus unless you think a religion can be nothing more than a list of statements about the universe which can be assessed by science science cannot lead you to religion, it can only tell you which religions are certainly false.

You said things like quantum mechanics have been stuck for a considerable length of time and is leading people to religion. I wanted you to justify that claim. That is nothing to do with the future, you've made a claim about the present and the past.

Except that, as I just explained, the scientific method cannot lead you to a religion which has anything to say about anything other than the demonstrably real. If some positive claim (like "X is true") cannot, even hypothetically, be tested then the scientific method demands you say "I do not accept this positive claim on the grounds of it having no evidence at all".

Science has knocked over much of the superstitious nonsense of religions because in the past religions made claims about how the universe worked, like how the Earth formed and Man came about. These are testable things and religion almost invariably gets it wrong. Such evaluation cannot prove a religion, only disprove it. Science 'measures' facts, it can prove a fact like "Mice can't breath underwater" or "Time passes slower near strong gravitational fields". It cannot prove the model of gravity (say general relativity) we have developed to explain that fact about gravity. It can, however, disprove it by showing one of the models other predictions are incorrect. Religions are just another 'model' of the universe but unlike viable scientific models they explicitly violate Occam's Razor and throw in unprovable, untestable, unjustifiable claims. Science cannot lead you to such things precisely because of such things as Occam's Razor.

Given your comments I don't see any evidence you understand the scientific method. Not only that you've provided evidence you don't understand the scientific method.

Do you understand the subtle difference between those two conclusions?

Increased understanding of science has two effects relevant to the OP. Firstly it serves to disprove some of the specific claims religions make about the nature of the universe. It demonstrates that things like storms aren't dragons fighting in the sky but the outcome of large complex dynamical systems which are behaving in a manner which we can understand.

Secondly it leads to an increased standard of living and with that the use of religion as a crutch for society and an 'opiate of the masses' falls away. In those countries in Europe with the highest standards of living, best health care, best education systems, there are lower rates of crime, sexual diseases, etc. Basically there's a correlation between reduced religious belief and increase societal health. In places like Denmark most people are irreligious, often because they simply haven't even thought about the question much, it's just not in their culture any more. When you don't need to keep praying to god to put food on your table, a doctor in your local hospital and a book in your classroom religion seems to drop away. The US is pretty much the only 1st world industrialised nation with significant religious belief (but then if the UK had the health care system of the US I'd probably be praying too!).

With improved standards of living issues like high birth rates, infant mortality, disease etc all go get partly resolved. And when people have no reason to fear god's going to be a vindictive dick and kill their next child during labour he seems to slip from people's minds a little more easily.

And which 'due knowledge of religion' isn't being taken into account?

All the evidence shows that over the last 400 years, since the Enlightenment, religious belief has declined. It has done so particularly in the last century, in line with the ever increasing pace of scientific development. We're now seeing countries become irreligious not because it's been dictated by the ruling government (as say in China) but because people stop being constantly afraid of the invisible jackass in the sky and then they realise there's no reason to believe any of it.

How many people remain religious due to a fear of hell they've had drilled into them since birth? A fair few, they feel it is an actual danger, even if its only at a semi-subconscious level. For those of us who've never believed it holds no power at all, we can rationally evaluate the claims without this "OMG, what if I'm wrong?!" issue hanging over us. When a society becomes free of some of the problems which drive people to religion then they can evaluate religion more rationally and see it for a farce it is.

And since science can never be subjective and internal by its very definition it can never lead people to religion.

They are diametrically opposite. They cannot merge without throwing out the values which define them. If you are doing science which isn't objective and external then you're simply not doing science.

 

Some forms of Buddhism acknowledge the “devas”, but these “beings” can hardly be called gods, Buddha says they are living is some sort of “parallel universes” or different “realms of existence”; and that they are not “higher” in any way than human beings. It is pointless to debate on whether these realms are real or just elaborated metaphors, as they are just ways to explain how our actions accumulate as karma and how is this karma fulfilled. And not meant to worship or try to contact these beings in any way. It is important to notice that none of the realms explained by the Buddha were eternal or timeless, but all temporary just as this reality we are living in.
Buddha explicitly denies the belief in any god or gods is necessary, and explicitly denies the belief in a soul, and declares again and again statements like:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own commonsense”.
Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god.
Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nirvana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now.
Source.

“Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!” – Gautam Buddha

Similar to Jesus statement huh? If not exactly the same, and neither of those taken “out of context”. Here is another example of the last one I posted, but this time from what I understand to be a better source (Thomas Gospel)”
“...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.”

Yes it is representative of the core teaching, and if someone would study philosophies such as Buddhism/Zen or Tantra and then re-reads Christian scriptures with this understanding of religion it can easily understand many parables and statements of Jesus that declare this very point. That otherwise have no sense whatsoever and orthodox Christians try to defend this parables and teachings in an ugly, memorized way, instead of explaining these things through their own insight.

Science: “A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”
Well that is what the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is, and no tantra method has been disproved by science, in fact many studies have been made of meditation giving measurable results . It is absolutely testable and supported with evidence.
Still much to be discovered though, this is just the beginning.

Also if science will ever validate religious teachings, I would think Einstein is a valid scientist to quote, even more if his statements are in harmony with the teachings of many religions.

I don’t think I’m alone, even skeptics have a problem with defining religion as something to do with the belief in god; cause this definition discredit non-theistic religions, religion as a subjective way of life or contradictory religions. There have been many arguments of the complexity on defining religion for legal purposes , and others argue the same as me ( that religion doesn’t necessarily include the belief in the supernatural ).
Many times definitions of the dictionary have been redefined, and religion is a very likely word to be redefined in the future.

How do you know that? Do you truly know yourself?

I don’t “believe” in reincarnation, I just think it is the most likely “afterlife” outcome; and it also explains many things.
Also, you can’t tell a person who has experienced past lives that reincarnation is not a fact; I think someday science will be able to read people’s thoughts accurately, and true scientific evidence will come up.

You are claiming that science will kill religion, no?
‘Cause before religion disappears, important religious teachings such as reincarnation must be discarded by science; because if science proves reincarnation, it will validate the experiences of the sages who have described the process accurately, gaining much credibility from scientist.

The gradual changes we see from one species to another, both among current living beings and in fossils, can be explained by reincarnation: a gradual subtle change of the consciousness (evolving through the experiences of each life) of individual beings, reflected in the form of their bodies.
It is like saying “the memory remains”, I’m not including a soul in this equation, just something that remains that has the accumulated memory of our experiences.

I have nothing really has been proven or disproven scientifically, but you are right from a scientific standpoint it is not yet a fact. My point is that in the future there can be, and I really think that will be the case (merely based on logic).

 

Er,

As quoted from Wiki on the previous page.

Can't you see the problem YOU are having here? When you read Christianity and apply a Buddhist perspective don't you think it's likely to accord with with the pre-existing perspective to an extent?

If you don't use the entire definition then you might as well not bother.
If, as Wiki states, Tantra "deals primarily with spiritual practices" then how does one apply science?

If you cherry pick...

Then we need to agree exactly what a religion is.

Ah right. So there's no point conducting science because all the answers are right here inside me. What's 11[sup]4.5[/sup]? No need to work it out, just examine my inner nature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why and what?

Don't be ridiculous.

Another wild supposition.

It is doing so. As has been noted previously.

Do you actually read any science books?

How do you know they've described it accurately if reincarnation hasn't been shown to actually exist? Get a grip.

What is the mechanism for this change? How does a form alter because of a "change in consciousness"?

What's the difference between a "soul" and this disembodied consciousness?

Nothing has been disproven from a scientific standpoint? Then you haven't actually read the contrary views have you?

Faulty logic, possibly.

 

What makes you think that the spiritual realm is something you don’t already know in firsthand? Everybody and every living being experiences reality in his own way.

Meditation (Tantra) and Yoga are religious in the sense that the whole art was documented by Fathers of religions, who knew about them from their own experience. It is the core practice of true religion, and they don’t require you to believe in anything for you to practice.
This may seem a contradiction of what I previously stated, about the “core essence” of all religions, I previously said the essence was “look within”, but I’m saying the same thing. Looking within is meditation, and yoga are the physical and mental exercises that prepare you for meditation.

No man, not all religious books; if you look at the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, the Dhammapada and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (to name a few) you will notice they are not at all incoherent.

I don’t believe the claim that some religions make about god either; that is why I think Buddhism/Zen and Tantra are so important, as they don’t actually describe any god.

Exactly my point, by destroying false beliefs science will help people who are stuck on those beliefs to set free from them; this will gradually lead to the general acceptance of the religions that cannot be discredited (if not proven) by science.

For example:
“What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result
In this scheme, no observation can be made without first perturbing the system. The observation is never one of the system "at rest," but of the system perturbed (by the mere observation).:
Source.

According to Buddhism (interdependence), all the properties that we attribute to the phenomenal world are not necessarily intrinsic to the object itself, but are conceived by our mind and filtered through our perceptions. Thus the same reality may appear differently to different minds.
So the “inner world” and the “outer world” are interdependent, since the outer world is conditioned by the conditionings of the inner world of the observer.
So the objective quality of science, is limited by the subjective quality of the perception of the scientist, science is supposed to be objective, but the human mind cannot observe reality in an objective manner. Off course science relies on the agreement of what has been perceived by several individuals, and therefore generally accepted; but this only means that the people who were in agreement have similar perception of reality.

But what is your evidence?

You are right, the lower the quality of life of a culture, the higher the religious they become; and science does tend to improve the quality of life. But science will never conquer disease, old age and death; only the denial of these inevitable outcomes of life can lead you to a comfort zone in your state of mind.
Take a look at the people with the greatest “quality of life” in the world; those are the ones with the biggest personal issues, since they have everything the world has to offer, and yet they are not in peace.

The lack of knowledge of religion that I’m pointing at is that you guys seem to be discrediting only the “Abrahamic religions”; that by the way, are the easiest to discredit by mere logic.

I understand that science can never be subjective and internal; but science can objectively validate an inner subjective experience, such as high levels of meditation and concentration. And therefore there can be a merge in the future.
Since science can validate the positive effects of the practice of meditation for example, it can lead to scientist practicing themselves. This would surely be a turn of events.