Janice asked:

As to the question...a world without religion or without science...I would live without religion

To answer questions about The Da Vinci Code, please sign up.
Lucas Drake You have to ask yourself what do you mean by science and what do you mean by religion. The definition for religion (from the dictionary app) is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world, and the definition for science is observing the world around you and coming to conclusions based off of observations, experiments, and evidence. Now, I can't see how these two are opposites, can you? Why would one have to live with one and without the other? It seems to me that you cannot have one, without the other. How can someone observe the world around them and not come to hold any worldview (science with religion).
If you are using the common meaning of the word religion, theism (the belief that there is a god), then what makes theism and science opposites? You would be suggesting that people who do not have atheism (anti-theism) as their worldview are narrow-minded and, therefore; their worldview is illegitimate and not considered "science". The real question should be a world without theism, or a world without atheism (not "science" as you call it), or the question could be a world with science, or without it (obvious answer).
On another note, to the atheists reading who think that their belief is the only "science", you certainly have small grounds to stand upon. Based off of observation, experiments, and evidence, evolution and other atheist beliefs hold no ground. Specifically for evolution, there is no way to observe macroevolution (an animal evolving from one kind to another kind), as it would take too long. Your experiments that you use have failed through the centuries (experimenting with life from non-life, finding fossil evidence, etc.), so now atheists have created their own "experiments" which are rigged to give them what they want. For an example, what makes carbon dating so useful? Why have scientists suddenly used carbon dating? The method is highly unreliable and often dates things such as volcanic rock and recently dead plant material to be millions, or billions of years old.
Now to evidence. You would think that of all of the intermediate species, there would be at least a couple remaining fossils of a fish-human, or a frog-cat, but there isn't. Not even one! You can invent more evidence (conveniently weak, dissolving fossils theories for all of the intermediate links) for all of the inconsistencies, or you can throw away your bias and look at the real question: a world without atheism or without theism; a world without science or without non-science.
Coraline21 Why do the two needed to be divided? A person can rely on religion and at the same time on science. The key is balance. It is hard to balance between two things so different, but if examined carefully, one can find many parallels. It really depends on your own moral code and how you balance your reliance between both. Which is of course hard but something that needs to be done. Both science and religion are equally important and instead of dismissing one theory completely for the sake of the other, you should make both of them corporate together for the sake of true advancement.
Cthonus I have to say that if you wanted to live without science you wouldn't live long: no medicine, no electrical appliances, no insulated dwellings, no mass agriculture, no transport faster than a horse...

A more nuanced question would be: would you like to live in a society governed by a theocracy or a scientocracy? Neither of them appeal much to me as both are bound to be rigorously dogmatic in their undertakings. Under the scientocracy those with a logical, analytical mindset would flourish. Under a theocracy it would be those who learn by rote...

I expect in neither of these worlds would Mr Brown be received with honours...
Christopher Nilsson Science involves thinking for yourself and drawing your own conclusions based on evidence, so science is infinitely more valuable. Who would or could rationally argue with that? SCIENCE FOR THE WIN!!!!
Ruth There is no real situation where that choice would ever be offered. Those are two completely different things, not different sides of the same coin. Science explains our existence, how we exist, when we exist, what might one day exist. Religion is what people choose to believe in order to give meaning to that existence.

Religion, in other words, exists in our minds, and it needs us humans in order to exist on this planet in the first place (whether you believe in God or not, whether He exists or not). Science, on the other hand, (the objective reality of our universe and the way it operates) would exist whether or not we were here and whether or not we were religious. So how can one even comprehend a world in which one can choose between the two?
Hugh Dunnett Unfortunately, the question posed is a false dichotomy and so leads to various 'non sequiturs' in place of the possibility of a logical conclusion.
However, a better question to which a logical answer is possible may be: "...a world with Dan Brown books or a world without Dan Brown books?" or "why do I keep reading Dan Brown books?"
Dennis Raffaelli For me I do not see a conflict, My relationship with God is important to me. At the same time, I take advantage of the discoveries of Science. Maybe we could ask a world without institutional religion, although for me my house of worship works for me. I would not force it on anyone else.
Elizabeth In a world without science, there would be no order to the world, but in a world without religion there would be no world, and therefore nothing to give order to. If you are asking about the human races knowledge of one or the other, I would prefer to keep my knowledge of religion, because morality springs from religion.
With science you know how to stay alive, but religion teaches you how to make that life matter.
What use is science to people living pointless lives?
Would you rather live with a purpose, or live to stay alive?
Kiran Habibullah They say "necessity is the mother of invention", so without subjects like religion science would not have existed to begin with. I'm certainly no genius but Einstein labeled himself as a "deeply religious man" for the want of pursuing knowledge of unknown. Despite the man of science gave us the bombs as epitome of scientific peak. So we cannot really blame one or the other for destruction of humanity eventually. I guess there are pros and cons involved with both sides of the coin I.e. religion and science. Mostly we are just very very badly hopelessly unqualified to pass a final judgement at this stage. Love and peace.
Nataliya Nechukhayeva It's not about religion. I was so fond of the detalis described by Dan that specially spent a half -day to get to Rossplin Chapel nearby Ediburgh, better I'd stay more time in the capital. It sounds the Da Vinci Code made a great profit to the ordinary chapel which is now as famous as Stonehenge, in Wiltshire, England. Now both places are to be paid and not a "democratic" price. And yes, you've to stay in line. I guess if the Louvre museum or Vatican also need to be bordred by a fence? And you can make photos through the cells of iron-wire hedge?
Nathan Lin Science gives us our world today, but without religion we would not have the right moral values to use the technology correctly
Rida My personal values are religion above science, but I do not see science as irrelevant.
Jordan McCartney Would largely depend on the religious beliefs of an individual. Being an atheist I would obviously rather a world without religion. A difficult one to contemplate when it comes to a religious scientist though.
Image for The Da Vinci Code
by Dan Brown (Goodreads Author)
Rate this book
Clear rating

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more