How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?

I'm one of those people who believe in the possible existence of a God, but am opposed to religion. Religion has no concrete basis for any of its claims. Most of it is gibberish, and is tantamout to the rantings of a lunatic. Its dangerous. I need not give examples.

Science gives me substance. I could ponder something so far out as gravity being God. Its a varying omnipresent force. Now there's a God-like quality. Well, maybe gravity isnt a force, but its an example of other avenues of pursuit in finding God other than religion.

Religion will do as it always has done: it will evolve.

When I was a sixth-grader in a Catholic elementary school, one of my classmates asked our teaching sister whether it was "alright" to believe in evolution. She said as long as you believe that at some point, God breathed a soul into an ape. That was in 1959 and we were 11 or 12. I accepted that explanation then and I still think it gives people who believe in God and/or follow a religion, a backdoor.

Anyone who thinks a belief in God and a respect for science are incompatible, needs counseling.

The implausible stories, the ones that the pope was supposed to be infallible on, need to keep being tweaked in order to keep the faithful duped.

I'm just worried about the end of the universe and xmas.

I LOVE the way you post your question.
Specific, LOADED with proofs of what you mean and how your reasoning come from. I thought I was thorough, but I never put up articles to back up my premises. Not many people do this, and when I ask that they do, most people here will get angry at you and just call you stupid so a little note for you JUST in case you are rather new to this forum.

I am an atheist, and but foster many views similar to yours; literalists are harming themselves, and religion IMO, is great in what they do for communities and churches do many and volunteer work that is so amazing for humanity as a whole on a utilitarian notion. It is sad how some extremists can ruin such institution capable of good-natured acts.

Beyond our views, I think I have an analysis I have seem to agreed upon, so let me hear what you think.
Though you did not require, I will talk a bit about science, since you seem to run on the notion that science is somehow more superior to religion on some aspects that are not specified, so to further our general understanding of it I'll explain my view of science and the materialistic world.

I was a biochem major, if it was not biochem engineering, it is the next most empirical scientific field there is i think, so I hope this wins my credential in criticizing or analyzing the field of science.
My conclusion is; science is severely limited in what it is capable of, and religion becomes perverted with people trying to logically prove the validity of the bible.
So what do I mean by science being severely limited: everything is empirical. This might be difficult to understand for those people who are materialists and have not really contemplated on what there is to life other than what they see and feel and rather build their entire life, understanding, explanation, and "reality" about the notion of "what I see, is." It may seem that science is everything (since most societies were built by, and for upholding this view of reality; education systems, social structure, morals and values)... but it really isn't, and I am JUST becoming to realize this notion after becoming a philosophy major AFTER a biochem major, and learning about spiritual aspects of humans. But to me, science is one of the most overrated genre of life, and our current life proves it (money driven, prejudice, conflict, corruption, oppression, exploitation, anti-semantic, etc. all for what? they want someTHING. this thing is not love, not harmony, not understanding, which are all not what science was made not to accomplish)

And with religion, what I have found out, is that people try to LOGICALLY and DEDUCTIVELY prove the validity of the bible... can you imagine people making science theorems with beliefs? Science requires pragmatic, empirical data and the purity of this data is what makes a more valid theorem, law or equation. likewise, the beauty of religion, in my understanding is in the spirituality; belief, hope, feelings, mourning, altruism, moral, beneficence. Science should stay scientific, and religion needs to stay religious.

Though I am an atheist, I am actually against some of the scientific approach to life, particularly in the aspect that everything is governed by this; desire, belief, and values. We, I feel, by submitting ourselves to material (and consequently money) we are losing humanity, and religion of all kinds, is desperately struggling to sustain the humane, spiritual side of us which include but are not limited to beneficence (by all to all), reciprocity (of care and love), hope (for a good future), faith (in others). Unfortunately this is severely exploited by the few that take it beyond this level. Which is why, I am assuming, religion persists, because there is so much good that arise from the notion, but meet so much negativity due to any acts that breach this parameter and capacity...

also i will finally apologize that I did not read nor watch any of your proofs (links) you have provided, but if my notion is clearly explored or rejected in any of these links, i'd appreciate it if you can just post the link so I can just beat myself to death.

regards,
55hikky

The central issue is this : there is no requirement of "a creator" in science.
Theists faced with this "Occam's Razor" argument operate the catch-22 clause that the "rationality" of scientists is "God's gift".
Religion will survive because at the end of the day humans require a psychological buffer against the possibility of the futility of their existence.

What's wrong with 'the possibility of the futility of existence'? I'm not sure that having no inherent meaning or purpose makes it futile anyway - just being can be quite satisfying. Humans are a very self-important species.

Clearly your family isn't as obnoxious as mine.

I agree with all except that gravity is considered by science to be a force.
A force it definitely is.

Regards
DL

By force it seems.

I E.

http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx

Regards
DL

I agree that any that will ignore 2,000 years of scientific discovery for blind faith without facts need help.

Regards
DL

Both these comments are funny, thank you! A little relief from dry matter.

55hikky

We are about on the same page.
I say it this way. man has two natures. A political nature that looks after the physical. The other is our spiritual nature that pushes hopes and dreams and faith.
As a religionist or spiritual man I have no problem with those who hope and pray that there is something unseen or holy but do not take it to faith without facts.
I became a religionist based on facts and not fantasy.
I cannot prove my apotheosis or Godhead, a cosmic consciousness any more than anyone else can for their Gods and this is why I do not push it or have a dogma to sell. I do not honor or love or give supernatural powers to what I found.
It is the literalists and fundamentals that do the harm and I would like to prune them from religionist ranks. If religion is to survive, they will have to do the same with those extremists.

Regards
DL

I agree. We all at some time or other can use a crutch. It is also healthy to have a belief to help ease stress. I just do not like it when otherwise good minds shed logic and reason when the crutch becomes faith instead of hope and their Gods become stagnant pools of old unchanging laws in an evolving world.

Regards
DL

No argument on your last but for some, that is all they have.
We in the comfortable west forget how lucky we are.
It was not always so and we have to gradually learn as these comforts find all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Try to wonder why these kept praying even after finding that God had abandoned them. Futile perhaps but it is the hope of being wrong that kept them waking up every morning.

Regards
DL

Religion, evolve ???

Well said, Mona we don't need a god to appreciate and enjoy life.

At least someone saw that.....