Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?

[Gilma]

I will prefer to live in a world without religious, that a world without science. We do not need religious to survive.

[M.R.]

Well, I'd rather have the science ... but as human beings are particularly prone to lying to themselves and each other about much of their lives, I imagine that even if we got rid of religion, it wouldn't stay gone for very long. Religion at its earliest in human history was a means of rationalizing events in the minds of primitive humans (I mean rationalize in the original sense Freud meant it: to try to make sense of something when you have no information). What might be a survival tool for a child under certain conditions is absolutely a problem in an adult, because adults *can* get real information about the outside world. Primitive people invented gods because they weren't in control of anything and NOT at the top of the food chain, and they saw appealing to gods as one way of bargaining for some small degree of control over their lives and futures. But of course, fatih doesn't actually provide that. It might support hope, which has been proven to have survival value, but you can have hope without religious faith.

That said, reverence for life in the broadest possible sense, the cosmos and things greater than we are also doesn't require gods (Buddhism would be one example of faith without gods). But personally, I think that even if you rid humans of religion, there will be philosophies that will fill in the empty space left behind, and so people will always create ways to believe and form rules for living and ethics in the absence of gods. Which is okay, because then we can debate those rules without people appealing to gods and hellfire on those who think differently than they do. And isn't bigotry really at the heart of most religions? Namely, the thought that somehow the faithful believers are special and different because they have this faith or particular 'knowledge'? For many people, religion is their first experience of Us versus Them, i.e., of bigotry. So yeah, let's be rid of that -- just beware that the inclination to divide people into Us and Them doesn't die easily in humans.

[M.R.]

MrEkitten wrote: "Do "you" believe it is possible to be moral without religion?"

The question should be: is it possible to have ethics without religion and without morality? And then the answer is obvious: of course you can. The problem with morality is that it's entirely dependent on the religion from which it is derived and on the tenets of belief in that particular faith. So no, morality isn't what we should be aiming for -- it's ethics that we need, which are devoid of religion but not devoid of basic principles, which we can then discuss.

I'd much rather than human beings lived ethically rather than morally, because then we wouldn't have people shooting, firebombing or otherwise murdering each other over matters of faith. Just as we can discuss civil rights without appealing to any gods, we ought to be able to discuss what it means to live a good and just life and coexist fairly with others without appealing to imaginary gods. There may or may not be some entity or entities involved with starting this universe (for which we have absolutely NO information one way or another), but that is quite a separate issue from whether or not we made up all our gods, which we did: all religion, all faiths are human artifacts and they exist quite separately from the question of whether or not there was or were (a) more powerful being(s) involved in the creation of our universe.

Moreover, in the absence of evidence, such a creature or creatures need not have been all powerful (just more so than we are), all knowing, all good, or even remotely interested in our welfare -- we made up an awful lot in attributing caring to such an entity. Our universe may even be an accidental by-product of some event in another universe, a side-effect of which the instigator may not even be aware. So, in the absence of evidence -- and that absence absolutely screams at us -- fat chance of there being any gods who care about our existence or what we do. So: stick to ethics, I say. Less messy and more precise all around.

[CD]

M.R. wrote: "MrEkitten wrote: "Do "you" believe it is possible to be moral without religion?"

The question should be: is it possible to have ethics without religion and without morality? And then the answer i..."

A topic I wish to discuss later, (i.e. weekend not the last day of the week before 5pm!) a quick and basic question arises from your statement;

"How does one separate ethics from morals when ethics is the study of 'moral philosophy'?

Another premise is, if morals are a personal/individual issue how is one ethical in their behavior if they are not individually responsible to a cultural or societal norm?

While firmly being a member of the science camp, there are the troubling questions about the source of ethical principles and the moral examples that are 'applied' in science (or as I like to call it on occasion, Big S science) whose answers too often rely on self congratulatory naivete.

Later!

[Laureen]

CD, I like where you appear to be going with this argument/discussion.

M.R. You write that "religion" in which you seem to include all types of faith, leads to bigotry, I.e. I/we are better and more knowledgable than "them". It seems to me you are making the same assertion, that scientists are the most knowledgable and superior to others.

I truly believe there is a place for both science and a belief in Universal energy which affects our daily lives. Like the tides. It is purely your personal judgement that ancient belief systems were based on ignorance. I think their belief systems were based on observing nature. Of course they didn't have science as we know it to back up their discoveries about how nature affected their lives. However, I think man's innate connection with the universe lead him to question how things work. We needed to progress through the stages of evolution necessary to arrive at the knowledge science now gives.

[Sycen]

I choose to live in a world without religion. Because no science = no medicine.

[a20]

A religion occurs when a mass of people trust in the values portrayed by something and choose not to critically examine those values over time - i.e 'faith'.

If one day people trust the textbooks and stop questioning the fundamental scientific principles, "Science" can be a religion too, no?

Maybe the question should be "Would you rather live in a world without absolute faith … or a world without logic & critical inquiry?"

[Omran]

I chose world where both exist .I think Atheists hate religions for two reasons :
1. They claim that religion is the number one cause for wars and blood spilling through history.
2. They think that religion forbids the quest for knowledge and free thinking.
In my opinion, wars will always happen and politicians will use religion, race, tribalism, clanism, nationalism or anything that unite certain group of people. This was described by the great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun in his book Al-Mokadima in the times when Muslims used to think :) . Religion scriptures don’t necessarily spur its followers to kill followers of other religions. But the clergymen interpret the scriptures in terms of political interests. Religion has been a hot tool for politicians to ignite wars since its spread among the masses is more than other tools of intolerance such as race or nationalism. Therefore, I think if there was no religion people would still kill each other for other reasons.
For the second point, Atheists mostly refer to the dark age when the church suppressed science. But religion can live with science and the best example is in the Islamic Golden age when great scientists (Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Al-Khawarizmi, ) contributed highly to modern science and civilization and how sarcastic is that the first university was founded by a Muslim woman called Fatima Al Fihri and muslim women are not allowed to drive today. Also look at the Mohammeden theory mentioned by Sir William Draper. However, today’s muslim thinkers are close-minded compared to the scientists of golden age. I’m not saying Christianity doesn’t allow science to prosper and Islam does. I’m just saying the level of ignorance of clergymen is most effective factor whether religion rejects science or accept it.

[Nisa]

world without science,because in religion there are so much sciences..so religion include science but science without religion is imposible

[Laura]

Omran wrote: "I chose world where both exist .I think Atheists hate religions for two reasons :
1. They claim that religion is the number one cause for wars and blood spilling through history.
2. They think tha..."


To claim that Atheists hate religions is to show zero knowledge about the people you're thoroughly criticizing.

This is the reason I, having to choose, would prefer the science (other than because it's my job):

Religion is not only one. There are religious wars and there have been religious wars all over the History of mankind. Faith and belief have been reason to kill people since they exist. Why? Because they are not all the same and they don't claim/believe the same things. What ones believe to be right, others believe to be barbaric.

Science, on the other hand, is based on what you can prove, and one of the basic rules for you to make a scientific claim is that your findings can be replicated. That means, that your findings are the same, regardless of the country, race, belief, etc.

Penicillin kills streptococcus whether you're christian, jewish, islamic, black, white, brown, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, you name it. That is science. But having two wives will drag your sorry-ass soul to hell? Oh, it depends which religion you belong to, doesn't it?

To those who speak of morality and how religion brings morality to our lives... Remember, some religions find it sinful to drink coffee. Some religions find it acceptable to do things that others find immoral or cruel. Who is the "evil" one? Which religion has the moral high ground? Simple, NONE. It depends on which side of the "fence" you are.

Science is objective. Who is right? The one who can prove it. Does it matter what you personally believe for a scientific outcome? No.

[Saidah]

Laura wrote: "Omran wrote: "I chose world where both exist .I think Atheists hate religions for two reasons :
1. They claim that religion is the number one cause for wars and blood spilling through history.
2. ..."

That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The only factual things about people are their physical bodies. Their actions are factual but become like opinions when questioning the reason behind them (like religious wars). A scientific world would be one with machine-like beings.

[Mark]

Hopefully science will one day put an end to religion..

[Holly]

As a pagan, science has an integral role in our faith. Zoology, botany, geology, astronomy, and agronomy all play a big part in our beliefs.

Religion and science have one thing in common; they are only as good or as evil as the people who act in their names.

[mona]

ok look dear fellows , from my experience this question is like, what you prefer to live with body or to live with soul. Life is not that easy , it is more complicated ,your question is like classifying everything to two rigid parts ignoring that there is thousands degree between both .For people who choose science only ,this choice is not bad while you are relaxing,sitting in air condition and feeling happy ,but believe me once you meet disaster like death of dear person , your mind will go to some deeper vision , that you need to answer some deep questions , like existence of world ,your self existence , your aim of life , why you are here, what you are doing and what suppose you do. Science cannot cover this by own self .You need your soul to find these answers and when you discover that you are alone without support , you create problem for you .
On the other hand prominent philosopher like Aristotle , Dicart agreed that there is religion and these philosophers depends on science,senses and mind to prove that . Science doesn't exist to deny religion , and religion which is able to be denied by science is not religion . Life need deeper explanation than this shallow question

[Laura]

Sam wrote: "That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The only factual things about people are their physical bodies. Their actions are factual but become like opinions when questioning the reason behind them (like religious wars). A scientific world would be one with machine-like beings."

No, I haven't said that. I didn't say religions are irrelevant. Show me where I said that opinions and religions are irrelevant. What I said is the truth. Several people here claimed that lack of religion leads to amorality, and my post is an answer to that. The fact that science is objective and that is true, doesn't mean I believe all religions should be eliminated. And I didn't write that. You should read with less bias.

[Pedro]

Maybe some of us are discussing different things. One thing is mysticism and the belief in the supernatural, with the acceptance of the fact that science does not explain everything. The other issue is organized religions, with their dogmas, ministers etc. I know that when we hear the word "religion" it is hard to think without connecting it to a specific organization, but we should try, for the discussion´s sake.

[Maria]

Being a spiritual person does not make you religious. I look at the beauty of nature especially this time of year when in my area the leaves are yellow, orange, red, green - absolutely gorgeous - and I feel serene, at peace with myself and with nature - rather spiritual.

Do I go to church and consider myself religious? No.

But I do consider myself a kind, moral person who loves their fellow man and tries to help people when possible. That comes from inside me - not from religion.

[Pedro]

Maria wrote: "Being a spiritual person does not make you religious. I look at the beauty of nature especially this time of year when in my area the leaves are yellow, orange, red, green - absolutely gorgeous - ..."

You see, Maria? We start to understand each other...

[David]

I would rather live in a world without religion science is just facts and figures that can be disputed but who can disputed the existence of God to a beliver

[Saidah]

Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The only factual things about people are their ..."

You're right. I'm sorry. I must have been thinking of something else when I replied to your comment. While I do think a scientific world would mean what I said, I should not have written the comment in reply to yours.

[Scott]

How could it be lonely when we have real friends, not imaginary ones?

[Nisa]

mona wrote: "ok look dear fellows , from my experience this question is like, what you prefer to live with body or to live with soul. Life is not that easy , it is more complicated ,your question is like classi..." 100% agree with you

[David]

it is not a serious question it is a question to encourage people to talk and think about something not very important

[Laureen]

Holly wrote: "As a pagan, science has an integral role in our faith. Zoology, botany, geology, astronomy, and agronomy all play a big part in our beliefs.

Religion and science have one thing in common; they ar..."

I love that last sentence Holly. One day, people will start to ask the same questions about science as they do about organised religion. Is more harm created than is good for the world?

[Laura]

Sam wrote: "Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The only factual things about peo..."

But we DO live in a scientific world. Science happens everywhere. You type in a computer, you use a phone and electricity, you probably have a fridge at home, you probably use shampoo and deo... SCIENCE. Your concept of science is a little sci-fi.

[Pallav]

A world without science has no hope..

[Jaksen]

Kick religion to the curb.

Every time.

[Saidah]

Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The only factual thin..."

All those examples are of technology. Science is a theoretical subject for the most part which is why it is compared with religion. They are both theories that impact hugely on people's life-science in the form of technology and religion in the form of rituals and behaviour.

[Laura]

Sam wrote: "Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "Laura wrote: "Sam wrote: "That sounds like a cold lonely world. It's like you're saying people don't matter because all opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The onl..."

Er... that is science. You cannot develop technology without science. Again, your concept of what science is seems wrong.

[Pedro]

Sam wrote: "Science is a theoretical subject for the most part which is why it is compared with religion. They are both theories that impact hugely on people's life - science in the form of technology and religion in the form of rituals and behaviour."

I agree, Sam. An ethical and moral behavior is possible without religion. And technology is possible without science. The first man who produced a bow and an arrow was not a scientist. Thus, religion and science are different from moral and technology.

[Annette]

Religion, hands down.

[John]

I'd love to live in a world without religion.

[Gameboyet]

Without religion

[Laura]

Pedro wrote: "Sam wrote: "Science is a theoretical subject for the most part which is why it is compared with religion. They are both theories that impact hugely on people's life - science in the form of technol..."

A bow and arrow may not sound like science to you, but it took scientific thinking to develop something (most likely through trial and error, as in experimentation) that worked more and more effectively to hunt animals. Ergo... SCIENCE.

[Laura]

In fact... calculating how arched the bow must be, how tense, how the arrow has to fly... PHYSICS! They didn't call it physics and they didn't teach it at schools, but they USED it!

[Kristof]

No Idea.... But a world without this book would be nice...

[Laura]

Kristof wrote: "No Idea.... But a world without this book would be nice..."

Fully agreed!

[Bill]

A world without religion would be a godsend. Put all that money into science.

[Pedro]

Laura wrote: "In fact... calculating how arched the bow must be, how tense, how the arrow has to fly... PHYSICS! They didn't call it physics and they didn't teach it at schools, but they USED it!"

And what about the first pre-historical ax?

[Laura]

Pedro wrote: "Laura wrote: "In fact... calculating how arched the bow must be, how tense, how the arrow has to fly... PHYSICS! They didn't call it physics and they didn't teach it at schools, but they USED it!"
..."

Dude, if need someone to explain to you how any instrument is developed (and how that takes scientific thinking), you need some science yourself. Even things that are discovered by accident, end up being used because of scientific thinking. Without science there is no technology. That is a fact, not an opinion.

[Laureen]

There is no scientific thinking without imagination.

[Tamara]

Gerd wrote: "Yeah, I would say the development of morals, either good or bad, is a natural part of a society's evolution occurring independent of religion.

As for the development of “good morality”, as they sa..."

I agree !00%! a society without morals will eventually implode. wasn't that how religion even originated? out of the bedlam of sinners, some sought accountability? and meaning?. Too bad alot of people forgot the point of it all and made religion into another way to try to control people.

That's why science and religion need each other. science is a fact that you can't deny but religion is supposed to be your guide post and a soothing balm for your soul.

[Tamara]

Sheila wrote: "Yeah, I would say the development of morals, either good or bad, is a natural part of a society's evolution occurring independent of religion.


When, and in what part of the world, has morality de..."

Exactly! Religion and science go hand in hand. one is for your soul, the other is for the advancement of the world.

[Laureen]

I don't want to live in a world without science or "religion".

[Tamara]

Laureen wrote: "I don't want to live in a world without science or "religion"."

Right?? both groups when they become fanatics are obnoxious, so I'd rather have the balance of having both in the world.

[Scott]

Tamara wrote: "Too bad alot of people forgot the point of it all and made religion into another way to try to control people."

Er, that was the point of it all. Religion doesn't teach morals; it merely makes rules.

[Tamara]

Scott wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Too bad alot of people forgot the point of it all and made religion into another way to try to control people."

Er, that was the point of it all. Religion doesn't teach morals; it ..."

Real religion isn't about rules, its more like guidelines. "Do good, be kind, help your fellow man, do unto others what you'd have done to yourself etc..." that too me is how religion was intended to be atleast at first.

when some people feel at their lowest or overwhelmed they seek out something to give them purpose or hope that too is what religion was supposed to be for. Refuge from the harshness of reality, not give more money to the clergy and disregard evolution.

[Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink*]

This is sort of a silly question because it alienates people. It is like saying that people who are religious are inherently unscientific and the other way around as well.

Religion is a way of interpreting the universe and making it make sense. Science is the same idea. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Humans, in general, need something to believe in. So a world without organized religion would turn into a world where people held to specific scientific theories (beliefs) which could quickly turn, once again, into religion. A world without science does not mean a world without progress but people seem to take it that way very quickly.

[Jackie]

Wow now that is the best question I have herd in a long time! For me personally Being a woman of God I have faith not religion and there is no conflict between science and God for me either everything in its place after God. So I would Say skip Religion keep science and embrace faith.

[Tamara]

Jackie wrote: "Wow now that is the best question I have herd in a long time! For me personally Being a woman of God I have faith not religion and there is no conflict between science and God for me either everyth..."

Jackie, I think I love you! LOL