God is dead, and why we are responsible for it (Part 2)

Thanks to critics of the last article, I am following up with this second part.

According to me, we humans still need some form of religion.

Human mind is very uncomfortable, rather disturbed of the unknown. Science unfolded the truth to many unknown questions, but also we realized there are more unknown than we previously thought of. For instance, as we learn the origin of the Universe, we try to backtrack till Big-bang (according to the widely accepted theory in Science). After that the circle repeats again, the distinction between science and religion start to blur.

One thing is for sure, scientific community is bold enough to say we don't know. But humanity is more than science. General population won't be happy with this answer, for the reason mentioned above. Few consequences we can see are the rising cases of depression and anxiety, nihilism etc. (Though other factors are also responsible.)

We are in a crossroad of traditional religion and science. Both has its advantages and disadvantages. Post-enlightenment society needs a road that can strike a balance between the two.

If we have to have an element of faith, then some degree of submission to the faith is necessary, in the sense we shouldn't doubt it (ref. skepticism). Else, we risk losing the faith. Freedom always goes hand in hand with responsibility. If we want complete freedom, we need complete responsibility. But the truth is we humans still have so much unknown which science accepts as a fact. That means science can't equip us full responsibility of knowledge as of now. Hence prove the need for undoubted faith to what I refer as the concept of post-enlightenment God. The responsibility lies with the post-enlightenment religion to convince the scientifically inclined population of this generation

One thing every critic pointed out is discontent towards today's religions, and I totally agree to it. This is a risky statement to make which most modern educated youth feels, but don't dare to dive into a dialogue. So much so to feel that they are mostly archaic and not able to catch up with the truth that science unfolded. It is as if science says 'I have proven you wrong many of what your book states', and religion replied ‘whatever (rolls eyes)', without able to convince its propositions to the scientific mass. So, without an alternative, maintaining full faith becomes difficult. This is what we referred in the previous article as "God is dead".

It may have been in the past, but the post-enlightenment thinking need not to base on the conflict of the two ideas. It must reconcile the two for the best of humanity. Just like wave-particle duality of light, we need faith-science duality of religion.

Note:

1. For simplicity, let us narrow down the 18th century enlightenment concepts to scientific temper.

2. The question of what is the post-enlightenment concept of God or Religion will be dealt in a future article.