venstresida.net

I don't really understand how you come to your conclusions. OK, I understand it, but I think it's a little bit superficial.

Religion has many manifistations, and some would say that is the genious of them. Allmost all religion has both exoteric and esoteric components. The exoteric components are the components that is believed to be external and independant of individual experience. Related to external reality. These components of the world religions are of course often on collision course with science, as they operate in the same domain. A modern religion would have to modify these things to survive, as i.e the catholic church har modified it's doctrine over the years(allthough they are not quite in a rush to do it)

On the other hand, the esoteric part of religion has to do with the inner parts, the practices, the self-enquiring, the contemplation, the meditation and the prayer. These does not conflict with science the same way as the exoteric part. They are also much more cross-culturally similar that the exoteric counterpart. So my guess is that these will be a major part of the future's universal religion.

So, to your argument that religion should be diminishes because it does not bring any new knowledge of the world. Then I claim that mathematics doesn't either. It is a purely internal exercice. So it should be diminished in our society.

Of course not. The reason is that mathematics help us live better lives as a tool for the sciences. But in itself it gives no new information of the material world. To my mind, modern religion is a great internal tool of the mind. Remember: The goal of religion is salvation. What is that? Happiness. It has the internal tools via the esoteric traditions to achieve more peace and happiness. It preaches that these things does NOT come from without, but from within. And on top of all it has had thousands of years to embedd in our culture to make the ideas more graspable to us. It would be madness to diminish such a tool. However, it would be very rational to embrace it and to use our rationality to peal away that wich does indeed collide with modern science. To just dismiss it on basis of superficial arguments wuold be very irrasional indeed.

I think modern scientists would benefit from being humble, because almost no human beings are free of theistic/dogmatic notions and thoughts, even rational physisists(you actually said it yourself), and scientism is quite widespread(Dawkins certainly has been accused of it. Rightly or wrongly I'm not sure.). Religion tells us this, and warns us about this!

So, while I agree that religion in its _present_ form should be evolved, I strongly dissagree that it should be diminished, especially on the basis of superficial arguments that has noww dived very verydeep into the topic.