14 Answers

  1. Historically, when science tries to “replace religion”, it gradually ceases to be a science and turns into a religion itself. Auguste Comte's religion of humanity is an excellent example of this, and Soviet Marxism can also be a good example of this kind, although other examples can be mentioned in addition to these two.

  2. If only as a way of describing and learning about the world around us and the processes taking place in it. And it is unlikely to replace it completely, because there will always be a lot of people for whom a simple and linear picture of the world will be simpler and more attractive than complex, albeit insanely interesting physical connections and patterns.

  3. No, science will not replace religion, because religion as an ideology satisfies completely different social needs. Science can only “abolish” religion as the dominant ideology through criticism. That is, in my opinion, the question does not make sense. Correct formulation of the question: can the idea of rational cognition become the basis of the prevailing mass ideology, replacing other ideologies?
    Yes, if there are the necessary social conditions for this.
    I will not write a long essay here, but will mention only one necessary condition, namely: 70-80% of people must be engaged in complex intellectual work. This means that labor productivity, automation, and so on should increase many times over. This can be imagined, but such a situation will destroy the market economy in its modern form. Suffice it to say that the population, consisting of four-fifths of advanced intellectuals, will not be able to sell unnecessary goods through advertising.
    Is it possible? Yes. Anyone who says that we do not have 80% of people capable of complex intellectual work, let him remember that in the 19th century, some boastful intellectuals claimed that two-thirds of humanity is mentally incapable of getting a secondary education. Yes, our great-grandchildren can live in such a society. If we try our best in the field of intellectual work:)

  4. Replace in the full sense of the word will never replace. Even in my wildest fantasies, I can't imagine a person worshipping an 11th-grade physics textbook, or making an iconostasis out of formulas of higher mathematics, or reading another Hawking theory before going to bed.

    However, there is an example of how a scientific project has become a religion. This is Scientology (from the English “Sience” – “science” or Latin “scientia” — “knowledge”). Initially, their course was purely scientific, but then, perhaps, Hubbard fancied himself a prophet, although everything began with him” decently”, with dialectic: a mixture of philosophy, psychology, and biology.

    If we fantasize a little, we can assume that after the first direct and open contacts between humanity and a foreign civilization, a religion based on physics or mathematics will arise (for scientists plan to make contact with new civilizations through these two sciences, up to the establishment of verbal communication, which means that most ordinary people who are not familiar with such methods will perceive this as a “miracle”, and “miracle” is the first step to religion).

  5. So, for 500 years now, it has been gradually replacing it successfully. We believe in the “theory of natural selection”, scientific Marxism, the benefit of technological progress and the first explosion. Yes, well, these obvious fakes, we believe in everything that popularizers bring down on our heads. We are not experts, we can only believe in all this.

  6. No this is not possible because science for someone is the same religion as let's say Buddhism for Buddhists … there are some scientists who have no alternative to believe in the possibilities of science, although no one has managed to explain the miracle…. But this is different ….

  7. Science studies matter, Religion studies spirit or soul (not material). If science studies the Spirit, it will be called religion. In general, these concepts often clash foreheads, although in principle they are not comparable.

  8. Many good answers have already been given here. I'll just add it.

    Science will not replace music, nor will it replace poetry, nor will it replace religion.

    Religion, like music and poetry, satisfies a person's spiritual needs.

    Friends, how do you want to replace this with science, for example:

    • For my daily bread, for every drop of water

    • I'll say thank you,

    • For the fact that I repeat Adam's works,

    • I'll say thank you.

    • For this prophetic, meaningless gift,

    • For what you can't do

    • Not a word, not a bird's spell to escape from trouble,

    • I'll say thank you.

    • For the fact that in my native stuffy land I will descend,

    • I'll pour into the grass,

    • For the fact that my path is from the earth to a high star,

    • I'll say thank you.
      Arseny Tarkovsky 1945

    Performed by Olga Bratchina

    It's not just science that can inspire beauty. Not only do people need truths about the physical structure of the world.

    How will you replace:


    After visiting this cathedral our ancestors said: “We don't know if we were in heaven or on earth”


    And science isn't going anywhere, I'm also interested in it.

  9. It is not entirely clear in what sense “will replace”. You can replace it with something like this. Many people write that religion and science are different things and cannot replace each other. But I don't quite agree on that. These are not different things, because both are essentially a person's way of thinking, or, in other words, their inner philosophy. But in one case, thinking is based on faith – a religious picture of the world, in the other case on skepticism – a scientific worldview. It must be remembered that initially religion (any religion) tried to explain everything, and only science began to push it away. Science and religion are two mutually exclusive philosophical systems, and one must supplant the other. The success and development of science cannot be denied, so people began to share these concepts, coming up with how to cross a bulldog with a rhinoceros. Hence all the speculation that religion is for the spirit, etc. Science has long supplanted religion, explaining everything previously incomprehensible, and at this stage we can safely say that for modern man now there is no need for any religion and their strange rituals.
    �However, not everything is so simple. It turns out that science and religion can get along quite well in the same brain, and at the same time a person does not notice their incompatibility. This is probably due not only to a lack of education or critical (logical-conceptual) thinking, but also to certain genetic prerequisites. Many researchers believe that religion initially increased the survival rate of individuals and is even an evolutionary necessity. But so far it is impossible to say with absolute accuracy. For example, to test it, it is necessary to conduct a rather inhumane experiment: newborns should be placed and raised in a closed society and see if a semblance of religion will arise among them. It is clear that no one will go to such an experiment, unless a group of people who separated from civilization in childhood is accidentally found.
    “But I think that the existence in the world of various supposedly scientific ideologized societies, primarily socialist ones, which, for all their ostentatious scientific nature, include a lot of rituals that resemble religious ones,” shows how difficult religion is to get out of life. And the authorities in such societies quickly realize that it is very convenient to use the tendency to religion of a large part of the population to fool their brains and maintain their privileged position. Even the rituals are left the same.
    In this regard, we have to admit that, despite all scientific achievements, a complete rejection of religion is not expected in the near future: science is unlikely to explain everything in the foreseeable future, and this loophole will be used by people inclined to religious thinking to preserve their faith.
    �But the rapid decline of believers in some countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, allows us to hope that this can still happen.

  10. Science and religion are dedicated to exploring the world around us, but they do it in completely different ways. Science is looking for answers to the questions “How does it all work?”, ” How does it all work?”. Religion finds out something else: “Why all this?”, ” What should I do?”. Science tries to understand the mechanics of how our world works, the forces and laws by which it functions, and helps us solve applied problems with this knowledge. Religion tries to figure out how a small and fragile person can perceive this vast and eternal world, how to build relationships with it, what to do with himself and with his life, how to act in different situations.

    Clearly, these areas do not intersect directly. And any attempt of one area to get into another looks, as a rule, ridiculous. It is silly if the religion seriously discusses how many days God created the earth and how exactly. And it is just as silly to conclude from the theory of evolution that there is no God.

    Technical progress is impossible without science. And without religion, it is impossible to find the meaning of existence. Therefore, science cannot replace religion. However, what can happen is the formation of a new materialistic-hedonistic religion based on science. Whether this religion will be better than the existing ones is a big question.

  11. Sure. Someday the Antichrist with his false, abominable science will break out of hell and make people disbelieve in God! And only true believers can go to heaven, only those who have never studied science in their life!

  12. WHY oppose one to the other? Science and religion were one, and then at a certain stage in the development of science and mystical teachings, religions, they will again become one. These are just different ways of predicting the future, and whichever way of predicting the future gives a more accurate result survives.

  13. No, because science naturally sets some limits. For example, from the point of view of physics, it is incorrect to ask “what happened before the Big Bang”, because the Big Bang created time (along with space), but curiosity does not go away from this. Or the law of conservation of energy.

  14. No. Because I have often heard from religious people the opinion or statement that science (like the human mind) was sent by God (I pass on other people's words, I will not comment). That is, in the opinion of believers, everything that exists, has existed and will continue to exist, and is gifts or a consequence of God's idea. In short, this is a cycle.

Leave a Reply