Information imbalance.

Given that there is a fixed information base for religions, the bible and koran for example, and science continues to provide ever increasing information, is it not inevitable that religions will become increasingly unimportant?

That rather depends on what science discovers. After Newton produced his laws of motion and theory of gravity it was believed that the universe was utterly deterministic. This produced a problem for the notion of libertarian free will. It seems to be in contradiction to the laws of physics. This led Bishop Berkeley to deny the existence of anything other than minds, with God being a mind. In the meantime Quantum Mechanics has come along and, depending on the interpretation, it is non-deterministic. Which opens the door for libertarian free will again. Although I've heard, what was to me, a quite convincing argument that it does not, it's an argument and not a proof.

I find it more likely that what would drive religion to become irrelevant to people is the increasing gulf between the moral codes and how people actually live their lives.

Originally posted by OdBod
Given that there is a fixed information base for religions, the bible and koran for example, and science continues to provide ever increasing information, is it not inevitable that religions will become increasingly unimportant?

No. Science and religion reference two completely different parts of the human experience. This is how they can both be true. Truth isn't unimportant.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Science and religion reference two completely different parts of the human experience. This is how they can both be true. Truth isn't unimportant.

Conflict arises where science and religion (or to be accurately, their proponents) speak differently to the same part of the human experience.

My providing an example here might foolishly lead us down a well-worn path.

Originally posted by OdBod
Given that there is a fixed information base for religions, the bible and koran for example, and science continues to provide ever increasing information, is it not inevitable that religions will become increasingly unimportant?

If importance was a function of information, then the top religion would be Wikipedia based. Certainly the major religions would have disappeared not long after they started as they were always in the minority information wise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If importance was a function of information, then the top religion would be Wikipedia based. Certainly the major religions would have disappeared not long after they started as they were always in the minority information wise.

You could argue the internet is now far more important than any religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If importance was a function of information, then the top religion would be Wikipedia based. Certainly the major religions would have disappeared not long after they started as they were always in the minority information wise.

Oh great Wiki without whom we are nought.

Originally posted by OdBod
You could argue the internet is now far more important than any religion.

Depends on what you merit as important, doesn't it?

Originally posted by OdBod
You could argue the internet is now far more important than any religion.

You could argue that the Holy Bible predicted the internet and Al Gore invented both the internet and global warming. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You could argue that the Holy Bible predicted the internet and Al Gore invented both the internet and global warming. 😏

Probably not successfully, what verse in the Bible predicts the internet?

Originally posted by OdBod
You could argue the internet is now far more important than any religion.

How are you going to measure importance? And how will you show that information content is the reason?

I would argue that the Christian religion has always been more important in the US than the US Library of Congress.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How are you going to measure importance? And how will you show that information content is the reason?

I would argue that the Christian religion has always been more important in the US than the US Library of Congress.

For you to query the importance of the internet is ridiculous. It is perfectly obvious that people use the internet for information and many other things. Your last sentence also conveniently does not list other information sources, I presume this is in order to make the christian religion seem more important than it actually is.

Originally posted by OdBod
For you to query the importance of the internet is ridiculous.

What I am querying is how you measure its importance.

It is perfectly obvious that people use the internet for information and many other things.
And its also perfectly obvious that religion has been the cause of multiple wars, and causes vast numbers of people to attend religious gatherings on a regular basis, should I go on?
For you to query the importance of religion is ridiculous.

Your last sentence also conveniently does not list other information sources,
I don't need to. I only need one counter example to prove the rule false.

I presume this is in order to make the christian religion seem more important than it actually is.
No. I is in order to prove that information is not proportional to importance. I have proved it beyond doubt.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I am querying is how you measure its importance.

[b]It is perfectly obvious that people use the internet for information and many other things.
And its also perfectly obvious that religion has been the cause of multiple wars, and causes vast numbers of people to attend religious gatherings on a regular basis, should I go on?
For you to que ...[text shortened]... rder to prove that information is not proportional to importance. I have proved it beyond doubt.[/b]

Read the opening post again. To state that you have proved something beyond doubt is not only arrogant but brings into question your logic process.

Originally posted by OdBod
Read the opening post again. To state that you have proved something beyond doubt is not only arrogant but brings into question your logic process.

So you're a slow learner, eh?

Apparently.