The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
That is not a real choice, there are plenty of scientists who are also people of faith. Ignorance abounds in both camps while many refuse to accept that there has to be a conflict between science and religion.
religion says: I don't wanna go go, I don't wanna go!
Michael, I can't agree with you. Yes, if you are speaking about organised religion, then you may have a point except you may be taking the Bible literally. I believe the Bible is an allegorical work. Remember, it was written by men in a time when humans could not express their "religious" beliefs freely for fear of extreme persecution. However, the Bible, as I understand it, has some wonderful messages in it along with some not so wonderful ones.Science simply would not be what it is today without visionaries. If you could call science an invention, then it was invented by visionaries not people who merely discuss what has already been discovered or invented. Science is only a proven theory up to the point when another visionary comes along and proves yet another theory.
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, one of the best comments I've seen here.
@Laureen: I would say "religion" means any religion, not just the ones that use the Bible. The same applies to your concept of science, which is just a part of what science is.
Oh if only everything was so simple! Like, what is healthy to eat these days? There are so many experts out there including many scientists but I still can't trust the facts as given by one-eyed thinkers.I believe I eat as healthy a diet as the best nutritionists but who knows? Few experts seem to agree with each other. Cancer was believed to have blown out of proportion with the introduction of aluminium saucepans. There was no choice for my family when we were young. Then we had don't char your steak when you cook it, it contains carcinogens. Only eat organic produce - nothing sprayed with chemicals. Don't live near transmitters. Don't lay babies on their belly when you put them to bed. Don't use wooden cutting boards in the kitchen. Don't eat any food dropped on the floor. The list goes on.
We now know that wooden cutting boards are safer than those plastic things. Wood has natural anti bacterial properties. I always kept my wooden chopping board and wouldn't use anything else. Besides the fact that they didn't blunt your knife, I knew the butcher my mum went to when I was a child had a huge round tree slab in his shop and sawdust on the floor. We seldom got sick.
My mum was the daughter of a fisherman. My grandma and my mum would spread the day's catch on a huge timber table every night to sort it. Afterwards, they would spend an hour or so in the middle of the night scrubbing that table until it was almost white. We got on our hands and knees to scrub floors. We didn't have stainless steel (the new hygiene essential). Our immune systems worked well because we were subjected to germs. We didn't live in an unnatural sterile environment and we couldn't afford to throw good food away that might be past the used by date.
So, while science is wonderful and none of us would want yo live without the wonderful advancements that science has made, we still have to use that little thing called common sense. I do have a flu shot every year and so am glad it is available because I work most of the time and need my health. However, science is not perfect.
Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especially for those who choose only one. For them, science embodies their faith or vice versa, their faith embodies science. Either way it begs the question. Where do you turn when there are no more answers? For me, religion picks up where science leaves off.
L. wrote: "Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especially for those who choose only one. For ..."Very well said!
Brooke wrote: "A world without religion sounds good."Totally agree!! :)
I believe that anyone who lives a strong moral life without clinging to the notion that they will be rewarded or punished for their behavior after they die is clearly more praiseworthy.
message 511:
by
Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!]
(last edited Nov 09, 2014 05:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
![Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1712357414p1/6658001.jpg)
L. wrote: "Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especially for those who choose only one. For ..."To have faith, in the context of this discussion, means holding a belief in something, eg, the existence of a god, for which there is no evidence. Most religions posit the existence of a god, or gods, without providing evidence that can prove their existence. This, for me, is the crux of the matter.
I think that the actual, provable existence of unicorns, goblins, zombies, or fairies at the bottom of the garden, is not possible and I'm confident most people would agree with me. Yet, so many willingly accept the existence of beings such as gods, angels, holy spirits, etc, without any testable evidence for proof of their existence.
Scientists look at facts, analyse them, develop a hypothesis, then try to DISPROVE the hypothesis. The more unsuccessful attempts to disprove the hypothesis, the more likely it will be accepted as a scientific theory. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
There is not one, single, proven piece of evidence for the existence of a god or gods that would stand up to rigourous scientific analysis. Science has never required religion to support it's theories, although some, even many, religionists, of whatever persuasion, were involved in, and responsible for, many scientific developments, quite often in defiance of the laws laid down by their respective religions. This does NOT mean, in my opinion, that science and religion can or should be mutually compatible. Science deals in provable facts, religion deals in provable fantasy.
My answer to the question proposed is obvious: I would rather live in a world without religion.
Terence wrote: "L. wrote: "Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especially for those who choose onl..."Terence, had you not referenced my comment I would not be writing this reply. The reason that I wouldn’t reply has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with you. It’s more basic than that. It’s called prerogative. You and I both live in countries where personal choice matters. You have the prerogative to thank science. I have the same prerogative to thank God . . . all things being equal, I would’ve left it at that.
However, you did reference my comment and in it, I posed a question, which unless I missed something, is still unanswered. I try not to be redundant so let me approach it from a different angle. I think you would agree that for every hypothesis proven or disproven, there is always one more waiting in the wings. For a curious species such as mankind (keeping in mind prerogative), this is either a very remarkable twist of fate, or it’s a simple never-ending gift of purpose and meaning.
Exploring the subject further, I think you would also agree that no matter one’s education level, everyone knows certain truths, e.g., gravity works, light travels at 186,000 miles/second, e=mc2. For the professional athlete, gravity is as obvious as the speed of light is for the astrophysicist, or the energy mass conversion is for the nuclear physicist. I could go on but I’m sure you get my point—there’s something for everybody.
With that in mind, I was wondering if you would please be gracious and indulge me one, dare I say, insipid question. Why are these things true? Not how . . . just why?
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 ..."
That is why I have faith not religion as a catholic it is easy to do. I guess, maybe not so easy for others...I am not sure?
L. wrote: "Why are these things true? Not how . . . just why?"Plain physics, nothing deeper to it.
There's no "why" to it - at least not in the sense of them fulfilling any kind of directed purpose.
Me thinks, that when you say that "religion picks up where science leaves off" what you should be looking at is Philosophy for answers. For you won't find anything beyond philosophical meaning, which is why I feel Religion should be the least place (if at all) to go to for "answers".
Jackie wrote: "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 tea..."
All you need is a mustard seed....and everything comes after God that is where many cause turmoil in there lives by putting everything before God. I love science study it in great length and have a degree in anthropology and history science has its value but it is limited to worldly matter having nothing to do with the spirit or essence of being what ever you wish to call it. That is why for me there is no conflict I see and know there are lines where everything starts and ends all but God who is in all things so yes God is in science....seek and you shall find. Is it not the hand of God when a brilliant mind solves a major issue such as when pox vaccine was created. We in our own right are only capable of so much and that is where God takes over....not the other way around.
L. wrote: "Terence wrote: "L. wrote: "Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especially for thos..."As I review your post that I referenced, your 'unanswered question' is: "Where do you turn when there are no more answers?"
Why would you think that there will ever be "no more answers"? When has this ever been the case? It certainly hasn't been for me. There are questions to which I and millions of other people don't know the answers, but I think that to the rational mind nothing is inexplicable, only as yet unexplained.
If a time arises when "there are no more answers" for YOU, maybe you should reconsider what your questions are. Maybe you are considering questions to which there are NO answers. Questions like "Does God exist?"
It IS your prerogative to say "yes, God exists for me", just as mine is to say he/she/it does not exist for me. You cannot prove your God's existence, you rely on faith, as referenced in my post. Equally I cannot prove your God does not exist, but I am not the one making the claim for God's existence, therefore the burden of proof is with you.
Thank you for your polite and considered response to my post.
Terence
Terence wrote: "L. wrote: "Terence wrote: "L. wrote: "Some say life without religion, some say life without science, some say that religion and science go hand in hand. But I think it goes a step further, especial..."I understand your point, primarily because of the excellent way in which you present it. Thank you.
So the brass tacks of it all is this. If there is no physical proof, no provable equation, no logical progression, then for you (and others), the question is the problem, e.g., carrying Pi out to its final decimal place. The question has no answer so it shouldn’t even be contemplated.
Further, you stress the premise that as someone with faith in God, the responsibility to prove God's existence falls to me. My problem is (and it’s my problem), I’m a writer. Words have meaning and when I think of definitions, especially one for the word faith (ref. Merriam-Webster), proof of God’s existence simply isn’t required. I don’t claim God’s existence; I claim faith in God’s existence.
That’s my point.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
Sam wrote: "I doubt that a world without religion is possible. Without belief in the unknown, why would we bother to solve mysteries? Science and religion developed side by side."I completely agree.
Thanks, Sam & Tanya, for putting that so succinctly. That's what I've been trying yo say in my long-winded way.
World can exist without religion, but can't without science. Like it or not.
Definitely a world without religion… at least we would have a chance at peace.
without religion, of course !
Why must it be one or the other? Why can't they work together? I am a man of deep faith as well as a person that believes in science. The more I try to use science to disprove my faith the more I realize I can't. Of course people have done bad things in the name of religion but when did science become infallible? Drug companies don't make errors? The Atom bomb was made by God? There are so many things that can't be proven by science that leave many of us to rely on our faith for answers. But it is that very faith in the unknown, the wonder of something bigger than ourselves that pushes us with science to seek out and discover. Science is merely the procedure to find facts it is not fact itself. Faith is a belief that there are unknowns, that no matter how hard we try, we can never prove. But it is the attempt, the journey, the search for that promised land that will advance our society with scientific study. I believe the two need each other to exist. God created man in his own likeness, to use reason and logic in scientific questions in order to advance our species. Scientific thought is the evolution of man not bone structure. We may have descended from apes (still to be proven) but why have we evolved passed all other species at such a pace? It is this combination of Faith and Science that will transcend us. Besides, most Scientific research hospitals are named Saint...something. Just my two cents.
A world without religion would be great, but a world without spirituality might be cold and soul-less.
A world without science is a soul without body... A world without religion is a body without soul. to be alive, we need both body and the soul. SO both religion and Science should go hand in hand!
Belli wrote: "A world without science is a soul without body... A world without religion is a body without soul. to be alive, we need both body and the soul. SO both religion and Science should go hand in hand!""Religion" of anything is a mob blindly following some creed or leader. I'm against that. Mobs are stupid and easily manipulated. I don't want to be part of a sheep herd.
"Sprituality" is an individual thing. It's important for humans to have and experience sprituality. That's the soul I was talking about.
"Science" is logic. We must critically examine and rexamine our world and our "truths". I'm all for that.
However, if we just blindly follow science with all our "faith" in our "scientists", it's the same as following the "priests" with all our "faiths" and then it just becomes the "religion of science". I'm against that.
We must always and constantly examine "the truths". Religions hate it when you try to critically examine them - whether Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc. For them their 5000 year old books are the "one and only truth". Yet they cannot tell us and won't let us discuss how come there are so many "one true god" and "one true holy book".
Without religion :) Science does so much for us, both medically and environmentally. I can't think of anything religion has done that is on the same scale as inventing penicillin!
Tamara wrote: "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 tea..."
Tamara wrote: "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 tea..."
Unless a religion ignores all Biblical "guidelines" it will damage society. There are many very good and decent people who follow a religion, usually following some flavour of the Abrahamic God. The problem with this is that the God of the Bible is a psychopath who would be arrested and executed or imprisoned under most modern law. He commits mass murder, incites hatred, is homophobic, and misogynistic. He bullies and threatens, and offers bribes. How can following his morality, his examples, be anything but harmful to society? In every part of the world throughout modern history all systemic, organised, ongoing violence involves followers of the God of Abraham. If you need proof that religion is bad for society - look to any recent headlines.
James wrote: "Tamara wrote: "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. In every part of the world throughout modern history all systemic, organised, ongoing violence involves followers of the God of Abraham...."
Hmmm, what about the atheists who ran Russia/Soviet Union?
There of course were the atheists, or certainly anti-Christian members of NSDAP in Germany from about 1930-1945. These two groups did a pretty good job of organised systemic violence that was the opposite of the religious model of blame. They touted their 'scientific' principles. An argument can be proposed that the later group were a'political religion' but that isn't the same by any means. The later in fact was specifically opposed to the very Abrahamic religions that are 'blamed' repeatedly for all that is wrong with anything they can be blamed for . . .
We haven't even touched on the later half of twentieth century for examples of non-religious violence.
A final quick note; the 'great scientists of history' from Archimedes and Da Vinci to the very founder of the Nobel Prizes (and several after) were/are remembered because of their contributions to warfare. We don't honor them specifically for that and now honor them for other achievements. But if they had not been so successful at advancing war, there would be more that likely no memory of them.
All in all, I'm still on the side of science in this either or debate. My decision is based on what is predictable, reliable and repeatable.
Or as a wise obsever has noted:
"There is no problem so great, that it cannot be solved through the suitable application of high explosives"
Thank you Alfred Nobel . . .
At no point did I intimate that ONLY religious people were violent, but it is foolish to try to deny that religious violence is not for commercial, political, or personal gain - it is based on taught hatred for those who are not like you. The sick little Islamic head hunters plastered all over news and social media hate & kill because they want everyone to worship God - or Allah as they refer to him. That sort of pointless violence is different to thuggery for some form of gain. Religion is hateful, it has done more damage over the last few Millenia than other despots who are motivated by conquest or political gain. If you could push a button and remove all religious influence there would still be violence, bat far less and with understandable motives.
James wrote: "At no point did I intimate that ONLY religious people were violent, but it is foolish to try to deny that religious violence is not for commercial, political, or personal gain - it is based on taug..."But you did lay violence in the world at the feet of only religious people, and I quote "
In every part of the world throughout modern history all systemic, organised, ongoing violence involves followers of the God of Abraham . . ." from post 533. Underling mine.
The factional fighting in India that doesn't involve Pakistan in India is intra-religious. These are not people of the Torah nor have they ever been. It is also fairly obvious that much of their strife has been taught by cultural issues in the modern age and isn't from 'hateful religious instruction' alone.
The Khmer in Cambodia also has a similar cultural collapse that came about from the lack of religion moderating disparate elements. That one only killed about 4 million people.
I could go on and on about variation on a theme in the 20th Century alone. Sure their have been horrid religious inspired conflicts and atrocities. Look no further than Austrailia's continued treatment of their First Peoples. The Armenian genocide is another example. Bosnia/Serbia and the whole Balkan mess was a mini-religios war whose origins are rooted in centuries past.
There is blame enough to go around and to single out a particular religious creed is simplistic and to use your word, foolish.
Violence is violence. It doesn't have a degree of good or explainable value. Pointless violence is a repetitive term. We have modern and current 'headhunters' (a bigoted prejudicial term if there ever were one and for someone from the Southern regions one I'd think would be avoided like the plague) in the Americas. And 'they ain't' religious folk by any means!
Sweeping generalities are not necessary nor is bigoted speech to make the case in this discussion.
How is this considered a literary discussion. This is simply a continuation of the eternal argument between those who believe there is an all powerful God and those who believe there is not. Both BELIEVE in a position but 99% have not researched the issue sufficiently to merit an opinion.
You are joking. "A lack of religion moderating..."? Religion has no morals, the God of Abraham (followed by Jews, Christians & Muslims) Makes Saddam Hussein look like the Angel of Peace. The Roman Church has a long & violent history, only ending or at least reducing when Church & State were separated. Currently we have the slaughter being carried out by Islamic radicals in the name of the same God, which also will not end until no Islamic religious leader has political power. I stand by what I say - religion is the only CONSISTENT factor in systemic violence & persecution.
Philip wrote: "How is this considered a literary discussion. This is simply a continuation of the eternal argument between those who believe there is an all powerful God and those who believe there is not. Both B..."I have no idea. I sure didn't start it, but if asked I will express opinion. I don't care one way or the other about religion in itself, but when it is used as a weapon to harm others I care very much.
Philip wrote: "How is this considered a literary discussion. This is simply a continuation of the eternal argument between those who believe there is an all powerful God and those who believe there is not. Both B..."When you think about it carefully, discussing the Bible (not religion) can be on topic. It is a horror story worse than anything Stephen King can dream up. It has murder, rape, torture, magic, Dragons, Unicorns, Supernatural beings, survival, political manipulation, betrayal, genocide. It's all in there - the Bible has the lot,
Philip wrote: "How is this considered a literary discussion. This is simply a continuation of the eternal argument between those who believe there is an all powerful God and those who believe there is not. Both B..."Who cares? There are lots of discussion boards on this site that have nothing to do with literature. If you don't want to participate that's fine.
I'm ok until you get to unicorns. Where are they in the Bible?
Hmmm. Clearly you have not read your Bible in depth. In one instance the descriptive phrase "as it were the strength of a Unicorn" is used. Num 23:22 & 24:8Then we have Job 39:9 "Will the Unicorn be willing to serve the, or abide by thy crib?"
Psa 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young Unicorn.
Psa 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Unicorns are pretty clearly a part of the Bible. It is a great work of fiction, and one of the most ubiquitous. ;)
BTW, Dragons are mentioned nineteen times. More popular than Unicorns it would seem.
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence (Wiki). So social culture is religion, how can you guys think a world without these systems, ya may be it is a continuous changing process. But i shall rather stay for religion as more open religion (i mean social system) will encourage a society to have more practice of Sciences.Science without religion and vice versa can not bring any good.
Would you rather live in a world without air, or a world without water?
I would have to choose religion because I could not even read this question without science because I need glasses to read!
Philip wrote: "How is this considered a literary discussion. This is simply a continuation of the eternal argument between those who believe there is an all powerful God and those who believe there is not. Both B..."Not believing in a god is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel.
Despite the ironic desire of many religious people to label atheism a belief system, it is instead a LACK of belief in one concept only, and that being a deity or deities.
The world would be extremely favored by the loss of religion.
Kenny wrote: "I suppose if we want to answer this in simple terms:Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
Science is based on evidence. It explains the world as it really is."
Yes, but science would not be able to prove anything if the question was not asked first. A true scientist would want to know why many people believe in a higher power because they have experienced "contact" whether in the form of a vision one some other esoteric experience (without the use of drugs).
Why, for instance, did the pagans believe in a higher power or powers before the Bible was ever written? To pre-empt you, it wasn't just their seemingly naive belief regarding the growing of crops and earthly experiences like pestilence, storms, exploding volcanos etc. They had a connection to the Earth and nature which many people of today have lost but are now
genuinely seeking.
They knew the power of the moon and tides and the mesmerism of the elements particularly fire but also water, air and earth. They had not the education to ask the question and science was yet to be discovered. People lived by their instincts. The Middle Eastern countries like Egypt did begin to ask the questions and much new information came about but those of that time never denied a lack of belief in a higher power. Now scientists need to ask the question, why has religion been around since time immemorial? I want science to try and prove that it is purely a product of man's imagination or feelings of insecurity in the face of the elements.
The Lady Inquisitor wrote: "The world would be extremely favored by the loss of religion."Well, that's a strange thing for an inquisitor to say.
Kenny wrote: "I suppose if we want to answer this in simple terms:Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
Science is based on evidence. It explains the world as it really is."
Mark Twain got it right. "Faith is believing what we know ain't so".
Laureen - sorry to burst your bubble, but the pagans most certainly did not know the power of the moon and tides. Their understanding was at best rudimentary. The idea of the savage in tune with nature is a romanticised modern myth. They didn't live in harmony with nature - they were quite capable of deforesting their environments and destroying their food sources.
What early man did was to observe his environment and to draw conclusions from the evidence. Those conclusions necessarily involved the invention of gods because they had a limited understanding of the actual nature of the forces which shaped the world.
Why has religion been around since time immemorial? That simple - because man is a tool-using animal who tries to explain why things work. In the absence of a scientific explanation we will come up with an anthropomorphic explanation - a person more powerful than me did it.
And why did every civilization invent different and incompatible gods? That simple too - because there is nothing there except what we invent.
Thanks for the alternative view Will. You certainly didn't "burst my bubble". I just don't know how you can be so sure of what the Pagans did or believed unless you are referring to some "historical" account. I don't believe Historians can prove anything about the belief systems of the past. Archeologists can semi-prove or raise interesting theories about how man lived but not what he thought. There are many thing that science hasn't been able to answer yet, one being understanding the human mind & emotions. Before you make any claims about how progressive science is about these things, a true scientist will tell you how exciting a job they have of tapping into these unsolved mysteries and discovering new things.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler; and English Summer: A Gothic Romance (other topics)
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (other topics)
The Two Chambers (other topics)
The Da Vinci Code (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Eleven Commandments ? from a naked unshackled mind (other topics)The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler; and English Summer: A Gothic Romance (other topics)
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (other topics)
The Two Chambers (other topics)
The Da Vinci Code (other topics)
hugs and love back!glad you get my point