[JonBon]

How do you think the ongoing technological advancement of human existence has, is, and will effect our need for religion and / or mysticism? Is science replacing religion with a creeping secularisation, or is religious belief just as relevant today as it always has been. What awaits religion in a future which will boast scientific advances that we cannot even imagine today? What need has man for a God even as he strives to take that role for himself?

[I, Brian]

Here's a saying:

Relgion explains why God created, science explains how God did it.

Advances in science simply cause the same issues to be readdressed with a greater vocabulary - and until otherwise happens, both fields remains immutable. In simple terms, science cannot directly address the issue of God, and religion cannot directly address the theories of science.

[Pantalimon]

Originally posted by I, Brian
Here's a saying:

Relgion explains why God created, science explains how God did it.

Advances in science simply cause the same issues to be readdressed with a greater vocabulary - and until otherwise happens, both fields remains immutable. In simple terms, science cannot directly address the issue of God, and religion cannot directly address the theories of science.
After the breaking of religons strangle hold on "truth" about our nature in the universe mainly at the turn of the century (19th/20th) science has refused to persue the big questions about existance of God and the afterlife etc. Science it seems has prefered to work in a linear way from Newton through Einstien and beyond.

With the turn of the 21st century its getting more likely that the linear way science has been working is getting close to explaining those questions as a by-product of its continuing research. The parallels between the earths ancient and modern religions and the new science now being uncovered has never been closer, its a very eciting time for us folks that follow such things. :)

[kater]

I agree with I,Brian. I view science and religion as two opposing sides, the further scientific and technological progress man makes the more insular and entrenched religion will become. You simply have to look at how the church has defined Heaven over the last one to two hundred years to understand that religion is subversive in the extreme about giving a clear definition or intrepretation of anything. Thus whatever science uncovers will be muted in religious significance because the church will simply change its definition and or meaning of certain segments of their belief system, the creation myth is one that springs readily to mind. The more we expose of ourselves from a biological position the more people will seek the 'soul' and so religion will always have a place on an emotional level by those who cannot deal with the changes on a rational level.

[Hereford Eye]

Kater: dismissing religion as pap for the masses has a fine historical tradition. It merely dismisses x-thousand years of recorded data. We have always wondered "why we're here; why is there evil (make it sickness, or death, or any other variation); and what happens when it's over." Logical questions. Sane questions. Not yet susceptible to a universally accepted rational explanation.
But, those respectable physicists we're all so proud of are having a very difficult time reconciling events at the quantuum level with their understanding of how things work, why they work that way, and what could have caused a such a state of affairs to happen.
From my side of the keyboard, the questions look awful similar.

[Legolas]

Originally posted by kater
The more we expose of ourselves from a biological position the more people will seek the 'soul' and so religion will always have a place on an emotional level by those who cannot deal with the changes on a rational level.

And what "changes on the rational level" are you talking about? Are you saying that only irrational people are clinging to religion? I can't even address the irrationality/ignorance of such a statement.

[Pantalimon]

The domanant dogmas attached to the major faiths of the world might speak for most of the religious people of the world but it doesn't make them the only or right voice for spirituality.

Science is just "one" way of exploring/explaining the world and the universe, there are many others because as humans we have many different ways of experincing what we see, feel and think about our surroundings. I'd say that a good Rothko painting can be as illuminating as a paper on simultanious dimentions by Stephen Hawkings.

[Hereford Eye]

Originally posted by Pantalimon
I'd say that a good Rothko painting can be as illuminating as a paper on simultanious dimentions by Stephen Hawkings.
Is this the artist you meant?
http://www.abacus-gallery.com/artists/Mark-Rothko.shtml Hadn't heard the name before so I went looking.
Back to topic. The question before the house is How do you think the ongoing technological advancement of human existence has, is, and will effect our need for religion and / or mysticism?
My earlier post responding to kater only partially addressed my answer. I think as long as we ask questions such as "why are we here? what happens next? science cannot make religion obsolete. Because I think that's what religion is all about, answering this kind of question.
However, if you were to insert the word "organized" into the question, I have a strong afinity for Welsh thinking.

[Pantalimon]

Yes that is Rothko but thats a motley collection of his work and you need to see them in real life to appreciate them, they are very big.

[Eldanuumea]

The fact that we are able to pose such questions is, to me, an indication that there is much at work beyond the random coupling of amino acids.