TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

A world without religion, how will it really look?

The voices against religious belief are growing stronger in recent years as is to be expected in this age of information, but would there really be an idyllic world waiting in the end of this war?

Would the people susceptible to the religious doctrines really abandon illogical thinking, or will we see the various "New Age" movements get stronger with new pseudo scientific lies that might seem like an easier path to take than the proof demanding science, as we see today from many secular people around the world?

How far are we from completely embracing knowledge and research? How do you envision such a world?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 17 2011: I don't think Religion has the same purpose as it did 200+ years ago. Some of the early roles of religion were the same as science. Eventually they took different approaches and in my opinion the scientific method was deemed superior in describing our world. Science to me will last longer than any one Religion. At one point people believed that the fiery thing moving across the sky was a God, the tides were the workings of Gods, I could go on. I really don't understand how this is sustainable in the long term. Eventually people will understand that Religion really was created by ancient people that had a best guess at what is going on around them. Granted most Religions have a good message but people without Religion have morals too. My real concern in the future is that scientific theories will become the new religions. Dogmatic, unquestioning beliefs that one particular theory is better than another for no other reason than who associates themselves with each particular theory.
    • thumb
      Feb 20 2011: Dan
      "My real concern in the future is that scientific theories will become the new religions."

      Isn't Mr Dawkin's disdain for anyone; scientist or not; who doesn't accept his worldview, a sure sign that the process is well underway. :-)
      • thumb
        Feb 20 2011: I think you are right. While I do not believe in god in the same way as others might I also do not condemn them for their beliefs. It's little like the education system in that I am afraid that people will discover that the arts and creativity are equally as important as academic learning and then they try to quantify the arts by setting up a set of testing goals, this leads to that option being the new system which does not work either. Possible a world without religion really means a world without judgment.
        • Feb 21 2011: @Lee Wilkinson: You are mistaken. As far as I know Richard Dawkins does not condemn people for their beliefs. He attacks people when they try and impose their belief system on others which is a direct violation of the principle of freedom of religion. For example, one of his key issues is the way that people impose religion on children that are not old enough to make their own minds up. I know of a good deal of his work as a 'militant atheist' and know of no example where your claim can be justified. As a challenge: prove me wrong.
      • Mar 12 2011: He made fun of Ken Hovand by calling him "that banana man." Though I think everyone does that, or at least should if they understood the story.
    • Feb 20 2011: @Dan England: Religion has the same purpose as it ever did. The effect that it has on society is different. It never had the same purpose as science - science’s goal is to understand the nature of things whereas religion dictates it. Nobody deemed science to be superior, it simply does the job it was designed to do - no more, no less. In contrast, religion is bankrupt as a source for knowledge or fact.

      Science has all the checks and balances in place in the process so that scientific theory does not become dogma. Even something so well accepted and apparent as Newton’s laws were unseated by Einstein. Scientists live to overturn other scientists' work. When they are not creating one thing, they are trying to destroy another.

      @Peter Law: Like Richard Dawkins or not, I don’t think you are justified in saying he shows disdain for all that don’t accept his worldview. Dawkins’ conversation with the Bishop of Oxford is a good example - have you a counter example?
      • Feb 22 2011: Well done Keith. Many people seem to be ignorant or misinformed about how science works, its rigorous methodology and objectivity...
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2011: while, most unfortunately, others are ignorant of their ignorance.
      • Mar 14 2011: perhaps Einstein may have unseated Newtons law... but surely that proves a valuable point to our argument, that altough one idea might have sounded exactly right at the time, that if somthing better comes along later on, and is found to be correct, that we now accept that as holding more rellavance. surely things such as the bible and quran may have been valuble tools of explanation, good ways of teaching morals and a kind of cushion to lifes nasty blows- especially in times where life expectancy was low, plague and famine commonplace. But we have moved on at least 1000 years since then- do all the old ideas still sit, and do we still really NEED them, as opposed to WANT them. And as brillaiant as Dawkins may be, and as well versed as Sam Harris may be in argument, unfortunately somtimes they do rub people up the wrong way, and give a rather millitant tone to athiesm. But thats still no real reason to throw the baby 9of their arguments) out with the bath water.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.