The search for answers to eternal questions has always been an integral element of human reasoning. The picture of the world cannot be perceived as an understandable phenomenon, and both religious teachings and philosophical discourses have largely developed precisely due to the desire for knowledge. As a result of societal shifts and the progress of civilization, individual ideas about the world order have gradually been transformed, giving way to innovative thoughts. One can say that religious values, promoted for centuries as key ones, have given way to scientific substantiations of the picture of the world. Despite the fact that religion has not ceased to exist, today, spirituality can be considered rather an auxiliary means of understanding the world but not the main one. Scientific discourse has become dominant, and technological progress, complemented by socio-political, cultural, and other changes, has turned into a catalyst for this shift in mass consciousness.
Religious discourse, which has dominated many cultures for centuries, is no longer relevant in a society characterized by rational thought and the prevailing scientific discourse. As technological advances, discoveries in different disciplines, and the expansion of human participation in nature, a shift in favor of practical thinking has occurred. In today’s world, people tend to study, analyze, and compare by utilizing data and facts as the basis of their reasoning. Regardless of the type of activity, whether they are doctors, entrepreneurs, or social workers, operating with evidence-based information is usually the main method of planning. In such a situation, religious discourse cannot be considered dominant because today, humans tend to perceive reality differently than in the past. By focusing on proof and appealing to facts strengthened by credible methodologies, people form a unique experience of interacting with the world, according to Beaudoin (p. 99). There is no place for spiritual thought because its idea lies in the dominance of spirituality over rational thinking, which is irrelevant today. Divinity, as an absolute value, cannot be considered a concept that shapes shared beliefs or controls how people live and think.
When speaking of religion as a mechanism for interpreting the universe and human nature, one should understand the essence of the invention of religion. As Métayer argues, originally, the theological discourse was a tool to allow people to answer their questions and address their basic needs (p. 67). However, over time, humanity has received new ways of knowing the world, and updated forms of interaction between people have appeared. The market economy has accelerated the adaptation of various forms of interaction, and although religion has survived, it gradually acquired the character of a set of moral rules dictating the principles of social cohesion. Regardless of the interpretation of theological ideas, whether from a functionalist or epistemic perspective, religious ideas today act as auxiliary rather than basic principles that affect people’s lives. Scientific ideas, conversely, are perceived as tested and objective thoughts that can be challenged, proved, and changed. While discussing the existence of scientific discourse, one may notice that the ability to determine the nature of the world order independently is more common today. A specific justified background is accepted more widely than a methodology based solely on spiritual knowledge.
The dominance of rational thinking is also a consequence of a shift in the socio-political forms of people’s lives. The transition to a democratic system and the formation of political institutions, such as authority bodies, make people move away from belief in higher powers as the only instrument of control over human destiny. The philosophical doctrine of consciousness and accepting the physical rather than the spiritual constitution of the body, which Lenoir mentions, better describes the understanding of scientific discourse (p. 32). Starting solely from the significance of the soul as a key coordinator of behavioral and thought processes, a person neglects the available ways of knowing the world. Internet communications, big data, biometric innovations, and other developments make it possible to reveal the world in a more understandable and unambiguous way. This suggests that the religious discourse, although not completely eliminated, is subordinated to a scientific idea that opens up greater opportunities than spiritual practices. Having unlimited access to information, a person forms individual and free views of the surrounding world, including its origin. Therefore, one cannot say that religious discourse is on the same level as scientific discourse.
In summary, scientific discourse can be considered dominant over religion, which is largely due to social, economic, cultural, and other changes that have occurred as human civilization has developed. Divinity is not perceived as an absolute value, and people tend to form their ideas about the world based on rational thinking reinforced by scientific findings. Spiritual discourse is an auxiliary set of moral rules but not a system that explains the development of humanity and the mandatory nature of interpersonal relationships. The ability to prove, refute, and supplement findings and theses about the surrounding world is a factor explaining the reason for the rejection of theological discourse as the only methodology.
References
Beaudoin, S. Questioning the meaning of life.
Lenoir, F. Happiness: A philosophical journey.
Métayer, M. Atheism & evolutionism.