[mmmpie]

(Original post by 3ary)
I think believing in something originates in the heart not in the mind.

Embolism?

[Perseveranze]

Not according to the Qur'an;

We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. . Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? [Q41:53]

And we indeed have a lot to discover in our Universe

[Evangelica]

(Original post by mmmpie)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a growth of deism.

:
Mmm, neither would I. Sorry my response isn't much more interesting than that

It's a belief I already know a few friends hold.

[cyfer]

You may want to use another word to replace evolution. Humans are evolving far, far too slowly due to advanced medical care.

Perhaps social change?

[3ary]

no the abstract concept of the heart, soul if you will. I can and I want to believe. Sometimes your mind can not understand the dealing of you heart. I love science and math and respect the consistency and reliability. Evolution has no doubt occurred but I do not believe the "big bang" Just simple happen and the amazingness (made up word) of the planet just evolved. Everything and everywhere you look has proof of a creator. I am a romantic I suppose.

[BACTSR2]

Well it's a good tool for manipulating people. I suppose people could see some horrible event that was relgiously motivated and be driven against religion because of it. People are more stupid that that, generally, though. They would see a crusade and convert to Islam or see 9/11 and become a evagelical. A lot of people might even do the opposite. "Religion is good, racism is wrong, so I must find a way of reading the koran that finds the beauty in it, then I can feel better than all those stupid, poor, ignorant people". Or you could just see religion for what it is.

[Spicey]

I tend to view it as such;

Every 'age' (for lack of a better word) has its own Gods; egyptians had their gods, greeks had theirs and so on until now when we have christianity. So I believe that mankind will continue to change their ideas on religious issues every so often and just keep substituting in new gods. Only science may affect this, but who knows.

Anyway that's just just what I think

[Astronomical]

(Original post by Hylean)
Well, that's interesting, you automatically assume that science and belief in a deity are incompatible. I'd love to know why that is.

Beyond that, until the last sentence, you appeared to be talking about the ritual aspects of religion, as opposed to the simple belief in a deity, and I think that adherence to ritual will always fluctuate and we will simply substitute one ritual for another.

Evolution, however, will not do anything to a belief in a deity and unless science can actually disprove one, the belief will survive.

I don't think it is that science and religion are inherently incompatible, after all the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, was devoutly religious; I feel it is more the fact that there are fewer phenomena that require one to "invoke a deity" to explain them, due to our expanding knowledge of science. One can then extrapolate to a point where we can in theory explain everything through science alone, rendering the need for belief in a deity obsolete.

The argument about needing to disprove the existence of a deity is a futile one. If I tell you there is an invisible, magical unicorn hovering atop your head, then you cannot disprove it, yet we both know it to be false.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Astronomical)
I don't think it is that science and religion are inherently incompatible, after all the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, was devoutly religious; I feel it is more the fact that there are fewer phenomena that require one to "invoke a deity" to explain them, due to our expanding knowledge of science. One can then extrapolate to a point where we can in theory explain everything through science alone, rendering the need for belief in a deity obsolete.

Which shows you don't fully understand the psychological drives behind religion.

(Original post by Astronomical)
The argument about needing to disprove the existence of a deity is a futile one. If I tell you there is an invisible, magical unicorn hovering atop your head, then you cannot disprove it, yet we both know it to be false.

(Original post by Politricks)
You're right, evolution certainly will not do anything disprove the Abrahamic God, or any other God/s, much like it cannot disprove Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the flying spaghetti monster.

And you both misunderstood the point. Until the belief is actively shown to be false, it will remain. That this is technically impossible is neither here nor there. Unless people can be shown 100% that what they believe is wrong, they will continue to believe it.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Hylean)
Unless people can be shown 100% that what they believe is wrong, they will continue to believe it.

Never mind the factual, scientific, historic and contradictory errors in the Bible..."because they're all metaphors".

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Not according to the Qur'an;

We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. . Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? [Q41:53]

And we indeed have a lot to discover in our Universe

Quoting the QU'ran to support the Qu'ran. Do you not see the inherent logical fallacy here?

(Original post by 3ary)
no the abstract concept of the heart, soul if you will. I can and I want to believe. Sometimes your mind can not understand the dealing of you heart. I love science and math and respect the consistency and reliability. Evolution has no doubt occurred but I do not believe the "big bang" Just simple happen and the amazingness (made up word) of the planet just evolved. Everything and everywhere you look has proof of a creator. I am a romantic I suppose.

This may be a nice position to hold, but one should never pick and choose what they believe based on aesthetics, or what 'feels nice'. To say that 'everything and everywhere you look has proof of a creator' requires a huge amount of inference, not to mention ignorance of evidence to the contrary, and, as such, is not to be used to support a belief.

For myself, the huge level of religious belief that still pervades society implies that we won't be seeing the negation of religion for a huge length of time. As has been pointed out, the human brain has the propensity to see causality where none exists, and, as such, the psychological need for not just answers, but comforting answers, coupled with the undeniable stigma that still exists against the irreligious in many nations, will result in the persistent place for relgion in our society.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Not according to the Qur'an;

We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. . Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? [Q41:53]

And we indeed have a lot to discover in our Universe

Do you believe that Islam and evolution are in agreement with each other?

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Quoting the QU'ran to support the Qu'ran. Do you not see the inherent logical fallacy here?

We don't need to use something other than the Qur'an to support the Qur'an, it speaks for itself. In fact, it's better to support something using the Qur'an

(Original post by Politricks)
Do you believe that Islam and evolution are in agreement with each other?

It's not whether "I believe", it doesn't. Common ancestry (in reference to humans comming from ape-like creatures) is rejected by Islamic theology.

You can believe in every single aspect of evolution if you like; except for the ape-like -> humans, part.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
It's not whether "I believe", it doesn't. Common ancestry (in reference to humans comming from ape-like creatures) is rejected by Islamic theology.

You can believe in every single aspect of evolution if you like; except for the ape-like -> humans, part.

Then Islamic theology is flawed if it rejects millions of years of man's evolutionary history, evolution is just as much as a fact as the theory that the earth orbits the sun is a fact, by the way. Rejecting evolution is like holocaust denial, except the people who deny evolution aren't as bad as holocaust deniers.

[Big-Daddy]

(Original post by Tycho)
Will the human race evolve beyond religious beliefs?

Religion is declining as the years go by, with fewer and fewer attending church; and even fewer following the rules and regulations of their chosen faith. It appears that as people become more educated in science, they are accepting it to be the most likely basis on which to imagine the existence of the universe and themselves.

Hypothetically, if we were to encounter a highly advanced civilization (more so than our own), would there be any likelihood of them having something that resembles human religion? I doubt it very much. It's more likely that they'd be highly scientific with their belief system, simply because their greater understanding of science has left no room for religion or God.

Evolution? Not unless you can demonstrate that believing in God is a weakness. And even if you can, the religious will still not be doomed to be rooted out - humankind protects the weak. It is rather difficult to die due to outcompetition in our world.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Politricks)
Then Islamic theology is flawed if it rejects millions of years of man's evolutionary history, evolution is just as much as a fact as the theory that the earth orbits the sun is a fact, by the way.

No it's not, you can actually see the Earth moving around the sun, you cannot actually see this when it comes to human evolution. That's why it's still regarded as a theory (and yes, I know what theory is in science, doesn't make a difference to what I'm saying).

It's like the Earth analogy. Greeks made many advancements to prove the Earth was round, same with the Muslims, but it still remained a theory, or the more accurate word "consensual fact". It wasn't until humans went into space, actually saw it, took images, were able to falsify it etc. Did it end up becomming an established fact (established reality). I am gonna elaborate in an upcomming post to another TSR user who wanted me to define "established reality".

(Original post by Politricks)
Rejecting evolution is like holocaust denial, except the people who deny evolution aren't as bad as holocaust deniers.

Yeah there was a holocaust, people of all races and religions died in this holocaust.

[Big-Daddy]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
We don't need to use something other than the Qur'an to support the Qur'an, it speaks for itself. In fact, it's better to support something using the Qur'an

If I write a book about how great some fairies are, does that mean that fairies are true, as my book "speaks for itself"? No. If we're judging the validity of a source, we have to do so with external sources as a reference. No matter what the source is.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
It's not whether "I believe", it doesn't. Common ancestry (in reference to humans comming from ape-like creatures) is rejected by Islamic theology.

You can believe in every single aspect of evolution if you like; except for the ape-like -> humans, part

And you buy instantly into Islamic theology?

It is not that difficult to see why Islam is perceived as so violent a religion in Western countries. Whilst other religions at least are willing to adapt their thinking to the people around, Islam seems rigidly unwilling to offer the tiniest shred of freedom to think realistically to its believers.

[Xotol]

Perhaps organised religion (although I have my doubts), but not the belief in a supernatural creator. I believe deism and pantheism will always be around even if science progresses tremendously.

[Big-Daddy]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
No it's not, you can actually see the Earth moving around the sun, you cannot actually see this when it comes to human evolution. That's why it's still regarded as a theory (and yes, I know what theory is in science, doesn't make a difference to what I'm saying).

It's like the Earth analogy. Greeks made many advancements to prove the Earth was round, same with the Muslims, but it still remained a theory, or the more accurate word "consensual fact". It wasn't until humans went into space, actually saw it, took images, were able to falsify it etc. Did it end up becomming an established fact (established reality). I am gonna elaborate in an upcomming post to another TSR user who wanted me to define "established reality".

Let's say that your analogy is well placed, which I don't assent to anyway. Why should you think it reasonable to reject "consensual fact"? Something which evidence makes obvious, even if it cannot be proved, is still the most likely path to take and therefore the right one, given a set of choices?

[Big-Daddy]

(Original post by Hylean)
And you both misunderstood the point. Until the belief is actively shown to be false, it will remain. That this is technically impossible is neither here nor there. Unless people can be shown 100% that what they believe is wrong, they will continue to believe it.

Theoretically, there is another way for these people to be rooted out - active evolution. In other words, if belief in God becomes (in an increasingly secular world, which is the one we inhabit) a selective disadvantage, it will be rooted out regardless of whether or not the believers accept their fault.