The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
Laureen - historians know a great deal about belief systems in the past. It tends to be one part of a culture which is well preserved - eg buildings made in stone, holy writings, mummification, burials.Yes, science is constantly learning. Theories are tested and knowledge advances. That helps us to knock over common misconceptions such as the idea that the ancients had greater knowledge about their surroundings than we do.
Hang on Will, I wasn't saying that the ancients had greater knowledge about their surroundings than modern man. I said they used their instincts as some of us still do today but we temper them with our scientific knowledge and education. We have actually evolved since that period of history! I don't get your argument that historians know anything about how the ancients thought. Maybe on superficial level regarding buildings made in stone etc as per your list but not enough to know his most personal thoughts and feelings. Holy scripture was only present in small areas of the globe and burials were performed differently from one area of the world to another. Their world was even more diverse in customs than ours today and the ancient Englishman knew nothing about how the American Indians lived nor even that they existed. It is a broad statement to say that historians know how people from such eras thought. We do know something of how they lived from historical discoveries.
Just my thoughts but I am not an historian. I know that historians have given us much to mull over but most of the information, by it's very nature, has to be speculative. I find well researched historical fiction gives me a much better idea of how people might have lived and thought because it dares to give a personal in-depth view of people going about their daily affairs and communicating.
Will wrote: "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 na..."Hey! That's not so - I'm a Pagan and I know all about the power of the Moon. I listened to Pink Floyd when I was a kid.
Fiona wrote: "my thoughts on the religio/science debateIf the two are blended you get Nature
Nature is beautiful, logical yet mysterious.
Ask the question:"what is religion. What does it mean?" Don't answer wit..."
I know what religion is, I have watched Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc., and they make it clear that religion is a way to rip gullible people off and not get sent to prison for it. It is a very profitable commercial venture. I thought about going into it, but then I realised that I would have nowhere to park my jet - so I remained honest.
Laureen - this is what you said just a few days ago..."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."
For me, this is much too close to the "noble savage" cliche:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_sa...
The modern version of this argument seems to go like this ... primitive man was in tune with his environment. Primitive man had gods. Therefore there must be a god because primitive man knew what he was talking about.
There are several fundamental problems with this argument. First, primitive man was demonstrably not in tune with his environment. The inhabitants of Easter Island cheerfully drove themselves extinct through deforestation. Native Americans thought nothing of driving herds of bison over cliffs, killing hundreds in order to get the meat from a handful. Right up until medieval times we would tackle diseases with blood-letting and trepanning.
Let go of this idea of the noble savage. It's a not-so modern myth, a tired cliché.
The second problem with this argument is that early civilizations came up with vastly different gods from each other. Monotheism, polytheism, gods as humans, gods as animals, gods as kings.
The one thing that was constant was the need that religion answered. The need to explain. To guarantee that crops would grow. To reassure about life after death. To give solace.
To tackle those needs, early civilizations invented gods. Lots of gods, all different. Nearly all of which have been superseded by the next wave of invented gods.
We don't know everything about ancient cultures. But we do know more than enough to scotch the myth of the noble savage.
Dear Will, All that you quoted me as saying, I believe is rational thinking. I don't believe anything I said could be called mythical. Why do you scout around the primary point I have been trying to make?You ask me to "let go of this idea of the noble savage" and talk about cliches.
I do not hold any such ideas! I am not talking of the stone ages as well you know. I am talking about human beings both before Christianity and post Christianity. The wheel had been invented long ago but writing as we know it was very primitive if at all so I don't know where Historians got their ideas about how these people thought or their belief systems. Scrolls, of course, were done but how much information one could get from them is questionable. We have trouble getting our ideas clearly explained in 1000 page books!
Early civilizations did have many Gods and we have received some wonderful literature from philosophers of those periods due to those beliefs. We have evolved in both thought and science since then but we can still find valuable meaning in literature from that time that rings true to our inner selves.
Regarding the ancients not having appreciation of the natural world beggars belief. Our own aboriginal people have a culture that highly respects the land and the life forms on it. To say that American Indians slaughtered bison by driving great herds off cliffs is not my experience through reading. Maybe there were occasions where bison stampeded and this happened but my understanding is that the natives worshiped the animals and, in fact, thanked the spirits of these beasts for the giving over of their life for that of the Indian.
The Indians used every part of the slaughtered animal/s so as not to waste any part of that sacred life.
I also appreciate that, as today, not all the people of long ago eras were noble. There was much savagery at least in today's terms. They had their own beliefs about what was noble and what was not but land holdings were very important to their status and they would fight to the death for ownership. We just fight in a different way to own "things".
I do, however, still firmly believe that mostly they possessed great spirituality.
There are two types of people in this world. Some reach conclusions and then look for evidence to support what they already believe.Others keep an open mind and reach conclusions on the basis of the evidence.
You are talking about an idealised group of people at some point in history who had an affinity with nature and possessed great spirituality.
And outside of Hollywood, I am struggling to find these imaginary people. The elves of Lord of the Rings, maybe. The blue guys in Avatar.
You're not talking about the stone ages, but you are including native Americans who had a stone age level of technology.
But just waving your hands and calling them the ancients doesn't really help. You are grasping for something that you want to be true, not something that the evidence tells us ever happened.
As for bison hunting, it's another of those awkward little fact things that gets in the way of wishful thinking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hu...
Possessed of great spirituality? Not really - that's just an idealised and romanticised version of the noble savage myth. More spiritual than us? Almost certainly. But that's not saying much.
Will wrote: "There are two types of people in this world. Some reach conclusions and then look for evidence to support what they already believe.Others keep an open mind and reach conclusions on the basis of ..."
Who has the open mind here! I didn't have time to read the full expose on the bison from the Wikipedia site but I read half of it and got the gist. We can all find articles to support our argument and that is why I have been reading all that I can from both spiritual evolution, historical findings and science. Too many in today's age think they know everything and love to write in places like Wikipedia which support their own beliefs.
Just because I hold an opposing point of view about the original inhabitants of this earth doesn't make me close minded. In fact it points to the fact that some science experts merely state "facts" that have already been explored by other scientists & historians and they have stopped asking questions. That is why I talk about true scientists - those who have a truly open mind and are still asking questions and seeking answers.
It seems to me that article about the bison is talking mainly about recent times, I.e. the 19th century. Europeans had settled in America and of course the American Indians were in fight mode to keep their culture alive. I can fully imagine they would have wanted to deny the European settlers access to their food source especially as the settlers were killing their food for profit.
Curt wrote: "Not believing in a god is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel."Well, seeing how neither the existence nor obviously the non-existence can be proven, to say there's no god is in fact just as much a mere belief as is to say there is... only the former seems to have more merit to it. :)
A world without religion does preclude a world without faith. With that said, I could gladly do without religion.
Scott wrote: " ~*~Princess Nhya~*~ wrote: "Neither.. because religion & science in many respects are connected. You can't really have one without the other."That makes no sense. We certainly had religion with..."
This comment makes no sense. You said yourself that science is the critical observation of the world around us. In order to grow, evolve, and create we clearly needed those critical observations. Examples of adaptation and survival of the fittest happen through observation of your environment. Religion, if anything, came after science if this is the definition you are following.
Laureen - the Wikipedia article was simply the first one that I found. Google the terms "buffalo jump" and see for yourself.And, no, it wasn't a recent invention to stop the nasty Europeans from getting at the bison. There is archaeological evidence that it has been happening for more than 6,000 years:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/158
Can you find a similar number of credible sources to support your arguments? Can you find a single credible source of facts and evidence?
Early civilizations didn't make much of an impact on the earth because their numbers were so small. But the idea of the noble savage who is in tune with nature is a myth. They were just as capable of indiscriminate slaughter as we are.
Early civilizations usually used most of an animal carcase because that was the most efficient way of keeping themselves alive. That's not being in touch with nature - it's being in touch with your belly.
I'm fascinated by your talk of "true scientists". Would you care to name some of them so that we can look at their published research?
James wrote: "Fiona wrote: "my thoughts on the religio/science debateIf the two are blended you get Nature
Nature is beautiful, logical yet mysterious.
Ask the question:"what is religion. What does it mean?" Do..."
James wrote: "Fiona wrote: "my thoughts on the religio/science debate
If the two are blended you get Nature
Nature is beautiful, logical yet mysterious.
Ask the question:"what is religion. What does it mean?" Do..."
Laureen wrote: "Will wrote: "There are two types of people in this world. Some reach conclusions and then look for evidence to support what they already believe.
Others keep an open mind and reach conclusions on ..."
I'm not into religion - just wanted to see if anyone had any thing new to say about it - convinced it's all been said. Thanks for your reply.
A true scientist must be one who can pass a lie detector test without cracking a smile. Either that or one who is "on the level".
A true scientist is one saying things that you personally want to hear. Apparently.
Will wrote: "A true scientist is one saying things that you personally want to hear. Apparently."
Oh Will, and you are not guilty of wanting to hear what you believe? In the eye of the beholder and all that! I explained what I believed a "true" scientist to be so why this question even got asked, I don't know. But to repeat what I said is that a true scientist is one who questions everything even things that have been "proven" to be true in the past. We are now finding that some
of Einstein's theories are questionable. That wonderful man was a true scientist in my mind. He broke NEW ground but science evolves just as does all things.
We don't need "know-it-alls" in our science fields. We need innovators who have the imagination to ask pertinent questions. Pseudo scientists read about what real scientists have already discovered and hang off their coat tails feeling very knowledgeable and seemingly being able to state a case on past efforts of the true heroes. Please don't think I am knocking education which is, of course, extremely valuable. I just want students of science to be open to new discoveries, outside their comfort zone.
And as far as science is concerned, its depends on us on how we use it, and how we use it depends on how we think. How we think depends on what morals we have imbibed.Religion is of course not necessary to be moral or inculcate them. This can be done by plenty of examples of daily life. So religion is not at all necessary.
I think that I have made my point quite clear and hence in my opinion,I would definitely wish to live in a world of science because it was developed and is necessary for the betterment of the people and that's want we want at the end, right ?
Laureen wrote: "But to repeat what I said is that a true scientist is one who questions everything even things that have been "proven" to be true in the past. We are now finding that some of Einstein's theories are questionable."Laureen: Can you specify which of Einstein's theories are now considered "questionable"?
Even his "cosmological constant"--which he later considered his biggest blunder--turns out to be right & helps explain so-called dark energy.
Uhmmm, "relativity". Michael, I am not a scientist so you can boggle my mind about scientific things but I had heard on a science show (radio or TV) that some Einsteins's theories were under review.If you Google "which of Einstein's theories are questionable or under review"
you will find some interesting reading, however I understand that you may already have read these books/articles. Einstein's Time Travel Paradox, Proof of the Falsity of the Special Theory of Relativity-Physics www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity... A World Without Time:The Forgotten Legacy of Godel & Einstein, plus many more that may interest you.
I have to rush off to work, but hope this answers your question.
Nice try, Laureen, but you can find anything you want with Google, but that doesn't make it true. You'll notice that the author of that post does not have a degree in physics, nor does he allow anyone to reply to his thoughts.The theory of relativity has stood for a century, and if someone came up with evidence disproving it that would be big news indeed.
Here's what I googled:
From 2011:
A U.S. space probe carrying four gyroscopes has confirmed two key elements of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity about 95 years after he postulated it and 56 years after he died.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05...
From 2013:
Scientists measured bursts of energy from a super-dense neutron star to put the General Theory of Relativity, which was first published in 1915, through its toughest test yet. According to the study, which was published in the April 26 issue of Science, the experiment showed gravity crumpled spacetime in just the way Albert Einstein predicted in his theory.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articl...
Relativity has not been "proven" because a theory can only be disproved, never absolutely proven. But this theory has been confirmed by so many observations that it's unlikely, after a century, that it will be shown to be totally untrue.
That's not to say that it couldn't be further refined or found not to tell the whole story. Newton's theory of gravity stood the test of time for over two centuries until Einstein came along, and it's still useful for many calculations.
And I'm not saying that everything Einstein wrote is infallible. With science, you don't need to be perfect. Someone is sure to come along who will point out errors.
But at this point there's about as much chance of someone disproving relativity or quantum mechanics as there is of someone disproving evolution or that the earth orbits the sun.
It looks this thread could do with the injection of my favorite 'tongue-in-cheek' axiom regarding science . . .There is only one true science, physics, and its language is mathematics. Everything else is an exercise left for the reader.
Edward wrote: "CD wrote: "It looks this thread could do with the injection of my favorite 'tongue-in-cheek' axiom regarding science . . .There is only one true science, physics, and its language is mathematics..."
Edward I know from some of your other posts that you seem to be idiom challenged at times. Please note that I said this is a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment.
By the way it is Ph.D. not PHD. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an associate unless you are referring to your relationship to them.
I don't know many physics Ph.D.s (of any sub-discipline and I know a lot of them) who have much more than a passing tolerance for other 'scientists'.
I believe Edwardo was referring to me as his associate. However, my doctorate is in clinical psychology, not physics.Many physicists do indeed believe that the universe can best be described in the language of mathematics. Some, like M.I.T. professor Max Tegmark, even suggest that our world is itself a mathematical structure.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
science and religion; both can be used for evil and good. i'll live in any world where either or both are used for good. present world is not the one i dream about.
A world without religion will be a beautiful world. Religion, in my opinion, is the root of most problems. Science on the hand, explains about the way the world works. So we cannot, not have science.
Laureen! Laureen, Laureen, Laureen! Bless.All science is under review. Constantly. That's how science works. Someone will advance a theory. Others will try to replicate that theory using data. If enough people agree, the theory is accepted by the scientific community. Existing theories are refined. Faulty theories are replaced. Over time, our knowledge moves forward.
That's what the vast majority of reputable scientists do. So, yes, Einstein's theories are constantly being tested. It's the same with every single scientist who has ever lived. Einstein's theories have stood up particularly well, but had he been alive he would not have been surprised when people improve on his work.
The internet encompasses the full range of human existence, from reputable scientists to crackpots. The reputable scientists start with data and evidence and proceed from there to conclusions. The crackpots start from conclusions and then go hunting for data to support it.
By all means google "Einstein was wrong" or some other such phrase.
Look at the individual pages that are suggested.
Look at the credentials of the people claiming that Einstein was wrong.
The world is full of people with agendas. People who will tell you that Elvis didn't die, that Einstein was wrong, that man didn't land on the moon, that 9/11 was all done with mirrors, that native Americans ate every part of the buffalo.
These are people who are believing in something because they want to believe in it, not because the evidence supports their beliefs.
No religion. The only real reason I can think people would choose science over religion (unless someone can enlighten me) is that the world would be more moral and loving, as there is no "rule" on that in science as there is in religion (love thy neighbour etc). But then, if your need to be good and kind is dictated by God, then you're probably not that good or kind.
Ranjini wrote: "A world without religion will be a beautiful world. Religion, in my opinion, is the root of most problems. Science on the hand, explains about the way the world works. So we cannot, not have science."Except, in this discussion, we can see that there are similarities in mysticism and science? Both have many people denying the existence of proof as opposed to personal reading experiences, scientific exposes or esoteric theories. We can see here how diverse are the experiences but particularly in science where everybody is an expert!! Most of us just listen to everybody's personal diatribe, which usually proves nothing but an ideological bias of some kind.
I hope I have an open mind which has led me to be skeptical of all these arguments. I want the truth but I realise, as human knowledge evolves, we are going to be subjected to new "truths" and that is as it should be. Science is remarkably like religion in that respect. Oh, I have said a "no no". How dare I compare the two?
Ranjini, whilst Science has done wonderful things for man kind, it has also resulted in some atrocities. Without science, White American policy makers would not have rendered infertile many of their own people of colour through what only can be termed as some of the worst form of abuse. The first nuclear bomb would not have been dropped (of course, this ended a war but many innocent people suffered enormously?)
Like, how much science did Hitler use in his infamous extermination camps. At least with hand-to-hand combat, we have to look our opponents in the eye and really realise what we do even if it is to save ourselves or our team. The victims of Hitler were rendered impotent in the extreme. How would that make anyone of us modern-day experts manage near as well as the victims in that war.
How about the fact that, at present, science is being used to prop up large companies that can afford the research for questionable projects. Profit is amassed for the benefit of these research companies but it is a sad fact that, although these companies will attest to being altruistic, the value of the research does not reach poor countries or even the correct research to gain answers for poor countries to generate their own food and water is totally lacking because there is no money in it for the Western world.
Mind you, I do understand this, because, thank goodness, we are lucky to have rich countries. It would not achieve anything to reduce the Western world to poverty while trying to prop up the needy countries. However, I believe that the people from war torn and deprived countries would just relish an opportunity to stand on their own feet and remain in their homeland with the opportunity to have a good education, be it in agriculture, the science behind building or manufacture, the importance of peace to progress in a disturbed political atmosphere.
Yeah! Perhaps I am not highly educated myself, but I read a lot and I think I have the ability to see two sides of an argument unlike some on this thread. Maybe over-education leads to a false sense of superiority! Even egoism!
Michael wrote: "Nice try, Laureen, but you can find anything you want with Google, but that doesn't make it true. You'll notice that the author of that post does not have a degree in physics, nor does he allow any..."It's like I said Michael, we can all find an article to support our own theories but to be truly searching for truth, we should be reading articles from both points of view without pre-determining our response because of bias. Scientific theories, in my opinion, are just as mysterious as mysticism - HaHa! You obviously read the article I kindly presented you the Website for, but did you read the others?
You may laugh at my suggestion to Google information, but Googling info does not necessarily make it unauthentic or untrue. There is one "educated" person on Goodreads who keeps quoting articles from Wikipedia as if that makes a difference! I thought Wikipedia was open to all people to post their "knowledge" and, in fact, anyone can change the article if they think they know more than the author?
This discussion just gets more ludicrous!
In the elder days when they had no possible way of seeing beyond anything outside of our space, or anything on a molecular level, religion was definitely needed to make sense out of our lives. Itself being a "theory".Science thanks to modern inventions have helped us to see that religion is not completely true, if at all. Scientists also have never tried to overturn religion in its entirety but saw that we still required religion. Progressing science gradually to help people cope with the fact that religion cannot answer questions that scientists have proven to be true.
Equally science and religion have been abused to the point of genocide. So anyone can point to those points in history and hate whichever they choose.
What I would say right now is that science should continue on gradually proving that science can answer questions about our world, and let people see that science is just proving itself as truthful and honest.
So right now I would rather have 85% science, 15% religion.
Wow, so much to answer here! Michael, thank you for your response although I found it a bit too paternalistic and condescending. I am married to a highly educated person who, for many years, while having this discussion, resorted to comments like "if you had an education" or "if you could only be rational in your argument" so I am used to this abuse of my innate intelligence.At no time did I claim that "Einstein was wrong" or even googled that. I, in fact, said that Einstein was a "true" scientist because he broke new ground. This gave our modern day scientists a huge leg-up. I totally agree with everything else you said about science evolving.
Which leads me to the religion question. Yes, religion is still worthy of discussion here being half of the question under discussion. "Religion" has evolved also but, like science, there are hangers on to the past. We now practice meditation which some will argue is another form of prayer but meditation is not attached to any dogma as is religion. It is merely being in a quiet space where you can "log in" to universal energy and, in fact, feel it.
You should try it some time. It may help you understand the other side. Religion has evolved into something that scientists should be open to.
Our forefathers, searching for proof of scientific principles, were almost invariably also religious. They didn't find an anomaly in that. The middle-east were, at one time, the most advanced in scientific research. However, power hungry mankind decided to use religion to broker their superiority and achieve power over the people. Hence, education was left in the dark ages.
Yes, traditional religions have done much harm in our World but my argument is that the West, at least, are discovering a new understanding of how "religion" and science should be working together. I agree totally that traditional religion belongs with the "flat earth" believers. The time the Bible was written, there was much upheaval in political circles and so I believe much of the Bible was written to hide a deeper meaning to save themselves from political retribution. The power thing again by Government. Also, the Bible was written by men, under the cloak of their words being "the word of God". I would be a bit peeved if I was God! Interpretation has long been a problem.
However, all this IS speculation as you will no doubt point out but my argument is that anything worthwhile has to be speculated about before it can be proven.
Must rush!
I feel this question is not even close to being hard to answer. Without science there wouldn't be medicine: people would die from otherwise manageable diseases, there would be absolutely no understanding of how our body works, infant fatalities would be extremely high, and so on.
There also wouldn't be "shortcuts" in every day life, there would be no means of transporation other than your feet or a horse (forget even a carriage, because it has wheels), there would be no electricity in our houses, there would be no sewage system so that we'd have to discard our excrements on the street (which of course would be unpaved), and the list goes on and on.
What has religion brought?
Some reassurance to people, especially in the Middle Ages.
But apart from that it is wars, deaths, crusades, invasions, terrorism (by the way, I'm not saying that the Islamic religion is wicked and shouldn't exist, but indeed those extremist do call themselves fanatic of their religion, hence the inclusion of terrorism).
Would anyone truly prefer to have a world with religion but no science?
Riccardo wrote: "I feel this question is not even close to being hard to answer. Without science there wouldn't be medicine: people would die from otherwise manageable diseases, there would be absolutely no under..."
Absolutely Riccardo, my point is that the world would be a lesser place without either science or faith/hope and our innate understanding of right and wrong.
I can't name either one as insignificant. Science is a product of human intelligence and absolutely necessary. The question asked in this discussion
is not able to be answered by a simple yes or no to either side.
Redd wrote: "Riccardo wrote: "I feel this question is not even close to being hard to answer. Without science there wouldn't be medicine: people would die from otherwise manageable diseases, there would be ab..."
That's purely because religion has been around until now. Obviously if you were to magically remove it all of a sudden, some people might have some ill thought about doing crimes as there's no heaven to go to, anyway.
But if religion had never been around that wouldn't happen.
Bad things surely happen when people think they cannot get caught. But that depends as much as on the justice system as on religion.
And also bad things happen when people see themselves as religious martyrs (ie, terrorism).
You can't have everything.
Laureen wrote: "Absolutely Riccardo, my point is that the world would be a lesser place without either science or faith/hope and our innate understanding of right and wrong. I can't name either one as insignificant. Science is a product of human intelligence and absolutely necessary. The question asked in this discussion
is not able to be answered by a simple yes or no to either side. "
I'm afraid you misread my reply, Laureen. I'm very much in the belief that the loss of science would be a much bigger loss.
And surely our "innate" understanding of right and wrong, as you put it, is not due to religion. I'm not a religious man - never have been - but I know that one shouldn't kill, steal, be violent, be discourteous etc.
Your parents teach you that, not religion.
Just wanted to point out this thread originated in May 2014. And no, I'm not judging anyone's religious beliefs or understanding of science with that statement. Just an observation.Carry on.
Riccardo wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Absolutely Riccardo, my point is that the world would be a lesser place without either science or faith/hope and our innate understanding of right and wrong. I can't name either on..."
I beg to differ on some points you make. I do agree that science has to be more important than religion purely for the fact that I have always detested organised religion and believe in a more personal approach to discovering "God" which term is used in respect of brevity.
This being so, we can still have "religion" (personal) as well as science.
What of the children who are not taught the difference between right and wrong? I strongly believe that if children grow up with f#### up parents, some will recognise that is not for them and lead a positive, fruitful life with an in-depth understanding of mankind. Then there will be those who, through despondency, will opt to follow in their parent's shoes. I think an understanding of basic moral principles is necessary as is education and that some forms of religion can do it right while others have a negative influence on young minds.
I think that it is so comforting to children who worry about their parent's dying, to believe that their parents' souls will live on and that they would be reunited some day. I actually believe that and I am not the least afraid of death - except I would like it to be as painless as possible. Bring on euthanasia! My grand-daughter was so fearful when her other grandmother died, that she would someday lose one of her parents. I told her what I believed, stressing that it was my personal belief, and she was so excited she said "but that's what I think!"
Laureen wrote: "I beg to differ on some points you make. I do agree that science..."Children can use their little brains, too. If they see their parents getting drunk and stoned everyday and then fighting all the time, and as a result their dad will abuse (in any way) their mother, be sure that a good number of them will be emotionally scarred and automatically know you oughtn't do those things.
Some will not, and will probably not strayed from the wrong path by religion.
I'm sure in a few cases religion would help, but I doubt they'd be that many.
I do agree that religion can provide a moral comfort to some. But it seems like a meagre trade-off against all the religious negative aspects listed earlier.
And this is without considering the utter arrogance of some religions - including Catholicism - which essentially state that only those who believe in God go to Heaven. So it's not a question of being an exemplary human being and being compassionate and sympathetic to others; no no, the important is to believe. You can be the best person on earth, but if you don't believe you can rot in Hell.
This is so because, if you've never noticed, it was used as a form of blackmail towards people so that'd believe in god. Because surely everyone would want to have a chance to go to Heaven. And it is despicable. Science doesn't discriminate and/or blackmail.
Anyway, the post didn't ask whether there were any positive aspects about religion and science. It asked which we'll be better off without; and the answer it's clearly religion.
Riccardo wrote: "Laureen wrote: "I beg to differ on some points you make. I do agree that science..."Children can use their little brains, too. If they see their parents getting drunk and stoned everyday and then..."
OK
Can't really tell. Though we question the church's teachings and all, I still want to think that there is someone up there watching over me. But I don't want to not have science in my life, either. Science is all I have.
Laureen - the internet is a wonderful thing, but you need to know how to use it. If you Google a statement - almost any statement - you will probably find people both agreeing and disagreeing with that statement.The trick then is to look at the credibility of the people on either side of the argument, and in particular to look at their evidence.
Wikipedia isn't perfect because it can be edited by anyone, but it does have an editing team to help ensure standards. Over time the Wikipedia entries become more accurate as more people add information to them. Perhaps the real strength of Wikipedia is the bit that many people ignore. At the bottom of each page, particularly if it's a mature page, you will find several links to source information. In some cases, more than 100 links, which can also lead to other links of their own.
Read the Wikipedia article, follow the links to read the source material (on all sides of the argument) and then make your mind up.
That's usually more effective than doing it in the reverse order - make your mind up then go looking for anything on the web which might corroborate what you already believe (and ignore everything else).
Will wrote: "Laureen - the internet is a wonderful thing, but you need to know how to use it. If you Google a statement - almost any statement - you will probably find people both agreeing and disagreeing with ..."Will, I really do appreciate your efforts to bring me up to speed on the net but your points are not really covering my concern. You see, It is hard to spend the time researching links etc. when you can't have faith in the credibility of anyone. I feel that most people have a bias in their thinking and to discover the truth has to come from within. What rings true to us, what says this is a logical point of view which can be accepted as true at this present time until some other facts or perceptions are brought to bear.
I think we rely too much on so-called experts in a field. I have long had that problem with history. I read an article by an author (can't remember who but, to me, it doesn't matter) who said that historical fiction is more ".true" than what is written in recognised historical accounts. Now before you jump on me, the reason this rang true to me was that historians rarely give any insight as to how people thought or went about their daily lives or the experience of living in a marriage, their relationships etc. this to me is far more interesting than a lot of researched historical facts and dates.
Since reading historical fiction, I have come to love history. In school, I hated history. All that stuff about dates and produce and GDP and conflicts bored me stiff. I wish I had been taught history from a different view point.
To add to my pessimism about "authorities" on any subject, is the current debates in the world. Particularly things like climate change. Who to believe? The consensus is that 98 per cent or so of scientists agree that the climate changes are due to man-made interference with the ecology of the earth. How do we know what that means? If you ask a scientist, they will tell you there are different ways to examine statistics to bring the result that the lobbyists are paying for. Just the same as every other grand issue on our planet, we have those who are interested in pushing their own barrow and there is usually money involved. How do we truly get an unbiased view on anything.
Well, I think it is impossible to be human and not have an unbiased point if view. Even "truth" is suspect. What is "truth" but an ethereal belief of any individual. My "truth" and your "truth" is probably miles apart. So that is why I think we have to delve into our inner selves to find what each of us can accept as our personal understanding of what is "true" and what is not. Of course, we are all probably wrong but that is the best we can do to remain true to ourselves.
Believing in others to show us is just not practical in my view. We do have to respect all points of view, of course, but in the end, we have to make our own decisions.
Let me see if I've understood you. You believe that it is impossible to be human and have an unbiased view. We can't trust experts so we have to make our own mind up, right?But how can we trust ourselves to be more unbiased and honest than the experts? The experts have access to data that we don't have. They have experience and training. Their findings are peer reviewed and subject to challenge.
And what have we got in comparison? Far less evidence, no training and no peer review or challenge.
It is quite evident that lay people are very poor at making rational assessments in questions that need expertise. We tend to believe in something that we want to believe, which may be the exact opposite of reality.
In one survey, 93% of men claimed to be better than average drivers. Which is clearly impossible. That's an extreme example, but other surveys have shown exactly the same thing.
Climate change is a perfect example. The overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that climate change is real and that man's actions are partly to blame. They may disagree on what it all means, on how to deal with it, and on the extent to which man is responsible. But the main conclusion is getting to be beyond doubt.
The internet is full of non-scientists who don't agree about climate change. They usually have no training, no expertise and very little data. They are disagreeing about climate change because they don't want it to be so.
The sad reality is that people mislead themselves. They end up believing in things that they think are right and that they want to be right - even if all the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction.
BTW, history isn't just about dates and wars. The modern way of looking at history does look at how ordinary people lived.
Laureen wrote: "Will wrote: "Laureen - the internet is a wonderful thing, but you need to know how to use it. If you Google a statement - almost any statement - you will probably find people both agreeing and disa..."Truth is to fact as belief is to faith.
Will wrote: "Let me see if I've understood you. You believe that it is impossible to be human and have an unbiased view. We can't trust experts so we have to make our own mind up, Not a bad summation but a little harsh. I am not so gullible, I think, but you may feel differently and that's OK.
I don't actually get much information from the Net at all. Long explanations of scientific jargon bores because it is usually written by those who wish to "make a name" for themselves in a highly competitive world. I think maybe you missed my point about the influence of money on scientific data producing desired results for self-interest groups.
A whole new industry has blossomed out of fear. Our beautiful oceans off the coast of Nordic countries are an eyesore of metal windmills. I thought the people pushing this particular barrow were "clean earth" proponents. I don't see any natural beauty in these contraptions and they are probably bird killers into the bargain. Now, it is well known that enough bass load power cannot be produced by them, but so many countries are jumping on board, creating new industries so people can get a job and economies will grow but at what expense?
Now please don't think I am against a cleaner atmosphere. One only has to look at the smog problems of large cities to know something has to be done. That's where science is crucial but it has to come from scientists that are not encumbered with special guidelines as to what is to be produced. Science needs total freedom of expression and that is why I am skeptical of Government sponsored scientists and scientific organisations.
I listen to a lot of radio broadcasts including interviews with retired, highly skilled and respected scientists who are no longer "encumbered" so to speak. That's how I know there is another side to all debates and I insist on hearing both views so I can make an informed decision but I also use my own common sense to tell me when I am hearing bull and when I am hearing something that rings true.
Also Will, just because someone disagrees on some of your points doesn't mean they are easily lead. One could say the same about you but what does that accomplish. Mere point-scoring.
When it comes to majority views I think of of this quote: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain. What wisdom!
Oh!any day a World without Religion. All that Religion does is breaks and separates people from people. It's a sad truth..
Okay, sustainable energy. Let's go there. It's quite a way off topic, but I'm game.Governments all round the world are getting into sustainable energy because the 7 billion of us living on this planet have an over-reliance on fossil fuels. And the planet is making any more of those fossil fuels in a hurry. And our population is growing by around an extra billion people every 12-13 years.
So if we don't find other forms of energy, or stop using so much energy, or stop our population from spiralling out of control - then we are going to run out. And that means power outages, no fuel for our cars. No heating or electricity for many of our homes. It means that people are going to die.
This isn't the action of self-interest groups. It is not a case of scientists trying to make a name for themselves. There isn't some far-fetched conspiracy where nearly every Government in the world is conspiring to lie to us.
And it most certainly isn't the mighty sustainable energy industry flexing its muscles. That particular industry is tiny in comparison to the industries that would much prefer that climate change wasn't real. The oil industry spent millions trying to discredit climate change before the weight of evidence made this pointless.
Climate change is real. Hyper population is real. The depletion of fossil fuel stores is real. You are being told the truth by genuine scientists.
Wind turbines don't look nice and kill birds? Maybe. Nuclear and oil/gas power stations aren't exactly oil paintings either. And just where else are you proposing to get the power that we need for a population that has doubled in my lifetime and could double again by 2100?
Sometimes the majority is a majority for a very good reason.
Edward - there are a couple of things that help to keep scientists honest. One in particular is the role of peer review. A single scientist or organisation can't simply make an outrageous claim. They have to publish their findings and their methodology.This then means that others will try to replicate their experiments. If someone working independently comes to the same conclusion, it helps to lend validity to the claims. But if others can't replicate it, then it suggests that the claim may not be valid.
A good example of this in the UK was the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vacc...
One doctor claimed that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism. But subsequent studies found no such link. This was particularly important for me as my son was born in 2000 when this argument was at its height. We had to decide whether to give him the vaccine or not.
We looked at the arguments on both sides. There was one doctor claiming a link between MMR and autism and several hundred saying that there wasn't a link.
We decided to give him the MMR vaccine and he is now a strapping 14 year old with no health problems. But several people we knew took a different decision and didn't get their children vaccinated.
Some scientists will be affected by the organisation or individual who is funding them. But the challenge and scrutiny in the peer review process makes it difficult for them to mislead us. And we can take notice when several scientists are all saying the same thing.
Okay, here's another example. What caused the dinosaurs to go extinct?When I was a kid (quite some time ago!), the generally accepted view was ... that we didn't really know. There were all sorts of theories. That the mammals ate the dinosaur eggs. That the cold blooded dinosaurs couldn't survive an ice age. A great flood, possibly biblical.
And there were a small group of scientists, sitting off in a corner, arguing that an asteroid impact killed them off.
I remember this theory being ridiculed at the time. One asteroid killed hundreds of thousands of dinosaurs? How could that possibly happen? And where was the crater? I remember visiting the National History Museum in London and giggling about how silly this idea was.
That's the peer review process kicking in - either to challenge and knock over a theory, or to support it.
Other scientists started to investigate the same theory. They found fossil records which showed that dinosaurs (the really big guys like T-Rex) existed up to a certain point and then all disappeared. Whatever killed them was sudden.
Then they found evidence of climate change at the same time that the dinosaurs disappeared. And then they found the crater - at a place in Mexico called Chicxulub.
And the scientific community now is largely agreed. The asteroid or meteorite might not have been the only thing to make the dinosaurs go extinct, but it was a large part of the reason.
One scientist making a claim without any substantiation or peer challenge could be a crackpot. But when many scientists investigate the same theory - and then corroborate that theory with separate evidence - we can start to have a lot more confidence.
More information here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland...
http://paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/...
Or just Google dinosaur extinction.
I don't see Babel. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, they do use long words. But if you take the time to read what they are saying, there is a lot that we can believe.
Peer reviewed, evidenced, independently verified. I would take that any day over wishful thinking or conspiracy theories.
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)
If the two are blended you get Nature
Nature is beautiful, logical yet mysterious.
Ask the question:"what is religion. What does it mean?" Don't answer with what you have been taught, try original thought.