How Have/Are Social and Scientific Theories Affecting Views and Adherence To Religions?

[Scott]

I am a year 12 society and culture student doing my PIP on Religious Matters.

My question is as follows (forgive me if it is a bit wordy):

As scientific and social developments have occured in our time, each new discovery or theory put out has impacted society. How have these (mainly Darwin's Theory and Marx's) impacted the general community of people and how they view reilgion and what their opinions of it are after being exposed to such an idea?

Thanks so much for all your help!

[Amazinglight888]

You couldn't have asked any more vague and broad question.

[Kurumu]

Darwinian evolution gave rise to the idea of social Darwinism which have caused individuals to reject evolution on a moral basis.

[melodicGenius993]

Contrast Genesis 1 with On the Origin of Species and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism with Das Kapital.

[Yongky K]

The more informed people get from scientific and social theories the less they see religion's relevance in today's culture. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

Take Jeremy's answer for example,
"if religion wasn't around, probably slavery, theft, and prostitution would have probably been legal"
Those three things are endorsed in the Bible.

"also, if religion is misunderstood, it can be very dangerous as you think the answer would be right is actually wrong (Like for instance, the quote "Love your neighbor" were understood in a inappropriate matter, If you know what i mean)"
"Love thy neighbour" should be taught to Noah because he didn't even save even one. Not saying that the Ark story happened.

[Jeremy]

Well as you can see on every article in the religions section in Yahoo Answers

It creates debates and Social Wars (No Not The Facebook Game)

People are fighting orally for what they believe is right or true

Religion is a very important part of our culture,history and Ethics
if religion wasn't around, probably slavery, theft, and prostitution would have probably been legal

also, if religion is misunderstood, it can be very dangerous as you think the answer would be right is actually wrong (Like for instance, the quote "Love your neighbor" were understood in a inappropriate matter, If you know what i mean)

but most of all religion is probably the key to everything that surrounds us, to things we don't know or understand, to things we don't know exist and to things that don't exist but can probably in the future.

I, a theist (Christian), am saying is that this is how i see religion.

[festoo]

Marx didn't have much to say that was original about religion, other than describe it as the Opiate of the people and a tool for social manipulation. Much of the frenzied efforts that people attribute to Marx are actually the work of the lunatic Lenin and his followers. As for the results of education and science, Darwin to be simplistic about it, look to the empty churches around you in Australia, where religion is struggling to exist at all, regardless of how much money they pour into indoctrinating children.

[Fractal]

hello scott, if this is for homework, you might like to explore some of these articles:

http://www.cis.org.uk/ireland/walton/doc...review.pdf

http://stanfordreview.org/article/impact-darwinism/

currently, i think one of the more interesting debates around is the one which is taking place between science and religion in respect of morality. there's sam harris' book, 'the moral landscape', which is very interesting but, if this assignment of yours is due in soon, you might not have time for that, you can get an idea from this talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_scie...right.html

the gist of it is harris presents a robust challenge to the commonly accepted notion that science tells us how things work but has nothing to say about meaning and purpose, about how things ought to be (this being the domain of religion).

harris is good because he does spell out how advances in the neurosciences can illuminate the social aspect of our lives.

[Don]

You've got two moving targets here -the sciences and the religions - which can be subdivided almost endlessly. It's certainly not the case that science is mutable and it differentially affects an unchanging religious landscape; religions change as well.

And most people on the planet are not Christian (who seem particularly worried about communism and evolution) and few are well educated about modern science, so there seems to be an inordinate amount of obfuscation here - perhaps too much unravel without drastically narrowing your aim.