The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
well I am science student so I live with science but I have faith in my religion. however Dan Brown is Exclusive in how he stitches religion and science together.Personally I will have both if possible...
Laureen wrote: "Edward wrote: "Ken wrote: "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 ..."Will wrote: "Okay, sustainable energy. Let's go there. It's quite a way off topic, but I'm game.
Thank you for spending some time contemplating my musings. I actually don't think we are far off topic. We both seem not to have found much to enjoy in Dan Brown's novel but it is the question attached to "the Da Vinci Code" that has created this thread and most here would relish having no religion. Maybe we could stretch our imaginations a little and think maybe "science" is a religion too. It is something "lay" people (as you call the uninitiated) believe in regardless of how much they really know.
Don't get me wrong, science is wonderful in that it has given us more organised and comfortable lives. I do love a hot shower in winter and a cool one in summer and, how I love my bed and a good book! It is a pity that it isn't shared by poorer countries. But you raise some points that I feel it is necessary to respond to. One if those points is that our lifestyles are not sustainable. Well there is no argument from me about that!
However, assuming we create all these new methods of generating power, it still would not be long before we ran out of resources. I think we have to approach the problem in another way. For instance, being hypothetical, maybe we could save a lot of time, money and energy if we lived within our means and didn't bow to the rampant commercialisation of consumer products.
We now have junk piled upon junk in our quest to have the biggest and the best of everything in a never ending chase to be recognised as more important, more educated, more successful, richer and more "wanted" than our neighbours could ever dream of. Who needs a Maserati or a personal jet plane to spew fuel and fumes over our world.
Well, guess what, if many people had the chance to own those things, our roads and skys would be filled with them. And then what, Oh, yes, science would find something else to spend our resources on.
How about health. Now past scientists were not rich, in fact, they had a hard time proving anything to the public who loved to have a big laugh at their expense, personally. Health, which is the font of a contented and happy life in my book, now is prohibited to most in the world even though we spend enormous amounts of money on research. It is simply unaffordable.
We spend our lives over-indulging in all the "good" things and wonder why our health suffers. Not to worry though, if we have the money and need a heart transplant in our seventies, we can have one. Pity about those in poorer countries, living with all forms of deprivation, including terror, and would think all their Christmases had come at once for a cool glass of fresh rain or bore water.
So here's a thought. Maybe, when we reach an age when we start to deteriorate physically and or mentally, we go to our local vet and ask him for an injection to put us to sleep permanently, like we kindly do to our pets. It could be completely voluntary, but if the option was there, how much could we save to put towards healthier outcomes like young people who happen to have been born with a debilitating disease or other life-threatening condition and how much of that money could go into science for good causes like helping the starving peoples of the world.
Our bodies are like old cars. If you fix one bit, it is not too long before another bit needs fixing until it is just a piece of money-eating junk. It is ridiculous to expect to have quality of life forever on this planet. It just wasn't meant to be.
Yes, the problem, in my thinking, is in filling our oceans and landscapes with more junk so the rich can become even richer and the poor even poorer. We have to learn to live within our means and stop wanting to live forever. Consumerism is the problem. Overpopulation is the problem. The pollution of our airways would not be a problem if we could have sustainable growth instead of continuously over-indulging in things that only clutter up our lives.
Fresh water is becoming a scarce resource, not because of climate change, but because our population is not just expanding enormously, but water is needed to grow the crops that feed and clothe our over-indulgent society. We have been given birth control pills so we can enjoy the physical side of our human nature, but why isn't it being distributed wisely so we can contain our population. You know why, because, in a wealthy country like Australia, we want to grow our economy even more, so we have more need for production and hence employment which will result in more taxes being paid.
I could never understand why those tall city skyscrapers in our major cities burn lights all night as well as day. I guess some people think it is pretty? I would rather look at the stars (which you can't see for all that electric light).
Science Is a wonderful gift given to us through who or whatever created us, but it is how we use science that is important. To use science correctly, one has to use a moral compass.
Now, getting back to the thread to this discussion. I found The Da Vinci Code to be a yarn and that is all. I didn't feel it said anything about science or religion, but it did seem to say a lot about corruption in high places.i
Laureen wrote: "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."Okay, I'm a scientist, all right?
The world is the mess it is because people don't trust experts enough.
There are proofs, tangible proofs, that global warming is taking place. They are not just for the scientists to see, they can be seen by anyone.
Did you not notice that 2014 has been an extremely warm year? Indeed, it has been the warmest year in the world since records began!
Not only, the warmest 15 years have all happened since 1997!
Surely that's not a coincidence, is it? (if you think it is, there's nothing I can do for you)
So you see that the evidence for global warming is under everyone's noses. Yet most people still lead the same lives; they still take the car when they could walk or take a bus, they don't car-share, they don't try to cut down their own carbon footprint. Nothing.
And governments aren't setting much of an example, either; although they have been nearly forced to employ some restrictions in trying to make their country more "green", the progress is much too slow. And some countries are even resisting change!
So now, what would be the incredible advantage that would lead 98% (flipping 98%! that's pretty much all of them) of scientists to shout out the same warnings?
Sure, they might get some more funding for future research; but they won't get a raise, nor it is for notoriety -- can you seriously name any climate scientist? No, exactly.
And it is preposterous -- absolutely preposterous -- to come up with the sentence "maybe "science" is a religion, too".
That's the most ludicrously sounding sentence ever.
Science is based on facts. Facts. You can't make up facts, they are there. If you make up something in science, falsify results for your incredibly complicated experiment, other scientists will find out. And shame you. And it has happened.
Religion, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. It is based on conjecture, on unverified and unverifiable ideas.
Linking religion and science together just cannot be done, in any way.
You also complain that wind turbines are an eye sore.
Well, I'm sure nuclear plants would look much better and be so much healthier!
And I'm sure buses and trucks look oh so lovely in the beautiful -- once unspoilt -- countryside.
Would you seriously prefer to have sources of energy that are better looking but vile for nature?
Because if you are, you really need to look inside you and find out which your priorities are. This planet we call home is beautiful and we're destroying it. I'd rather put some turbines than destroying it, thank you very much. I'd rather father children knowing that their life will not be made miserable by pollution and nuclear waste, increasing by many many times their chance of contracting cancer and other horrible diseases.
But hey, wind turbines look so horrible!
Regarding history -- don't you find quite telling that the statement that historical fiction novels portray history better than historians was made by -- wait for it -- an author?
I mean, come on! How can you take that seriously?
It's like me saying that I'm smartest person alive.
What the unnamed author probably wished to convey was that history was brought more ALIVE by historical fiction, because they would create a connection between characters and readers by means of their thoughts and emotions.
That is not what history is.
History is collecting facts, much like science.
History cannot deal with thoughts and emotions of any individual person -- for they are not facts (unless documented in a journal or whatever).
And, actually, you will find that many (most?) historical fiction novels are HISTORICALLY INACCURATE.
They will tweak character names, their personalities, their location at any given time, they will make assumptions on what their thought might have been (but who can actually say what a person's thoughts are, if that person doesn't express them? It can't even be done in the present, let alone in the past!) and so on.
People nowadays don't believe in anything they cannot do themselves. And that's sad.
.
Experts are experts for a reason, you know? Just like you wouldn't go to a gardener to fix your shoes, listen to scientists about science.
Yet people do not listen, and pretend themselves to be scientists and understand all the wicked workings and motivations that push scientists to make such silly claims!
The proof of this is the unacceptably high percentage of people who believe man never landed of the moon.
I'm an Astrophysicist, and I can tell you that's just utter rubbish. That's people not understanding anything about science, yet think they're Einstein.
Please be more clever than that.
I repeat once again: Just like you wouldn't go to a gardener to fix your shoes, listen to scientists about science.
I'd also like to point out that science is now seen as having been wrong at one point. Who's to say that what is currently considered scientific fact will not be corrected in the future?Evidence. Data. Facts. Testing theories.
Science works by testing theories with evidence. Over time the theories get better. New evidence helps to refine our understanding. Sometimes a theory is replaced by new data and understanding. More often it is refined.
I'm afraid that the argument of "they've been wrong in the past" is a logical fallacy. I can't remember where I put my car keys. In my left pocket or my right? I look in my left pocket. No, they aren't there. So does that mean that my car keys are in my right pocket?
Or should I argue that I've been wrong before and could be wrong again? But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
And that might be the difference between a scientist and a non-scientist. A scientist knows that the more evidence you have, the more likely you are to find the truth. Over time we zero in on fact by incrementally testing different theories. Making mistakes is part of the learning process.
A non-scientist can't see past those mistakes. The scientists have been wrong before, so they might be wrong again.
If that were true, we would never learn anything.
Riccardo, you sound angry? I thought maybe our posts crossed over while I was writing and you didn't actually read what I had said. I believe you aren'treally listening. I have never claimed that science isn't necessary. I just hope that it isn't being used as a tool to appease those who want their point of view to rein supreme. Your defence of your profession is pointing a little that way.
Also I think you missed my point about historical fiction and historians. How can a human being just concern themselves with facts when facts don't encompass that side of ourselves that is personality, intuition, emotional. These wonderful attributes of our human condition are part of ourselves just as our brains are in being able to calculate complex equations. You can't simply dismiss the influence of one over the other in what we choose to explore when looking for clarification of an issue.
I am merely saying that just because science is so respected doesn't mean that the results that are determined haven't been influenced by "belief". Will also takes objection to my saying this. He claims that there are checks and balances placed on scientific theories. Well the people doing the overseeing are also human. I thought scientists were meant to question everything?
Now you and Will can poke fun at non-scientists (again, I am most definitely not against science) but you seem to think we belong to the "flat earth" or "no one landed on the moon" people. That could be construed as an insult if I didn't think I have been talking sense here. Just think, if people used their common sense when they believed there Earth was flat, did they need science to prove otherwise? Where did all the water go when fell off the Earth? Why did we still have our oceans? Now it was nice to have science prove that the Earth was round after some explorers and fisherman found the the horizon remained in the same place the further out to sea they went and science added to that knowledge which was very helpful and necessary to our future understanding of our Universe.
Also, my son is a land surveyor, and he managed to get an old theodolite from an ancient sailing vessel. Amazing instrument! These brave explorers didn't need facts to set out on their journeys, they had a genuine enquiring mind and a need to know "What is out there". Oh, yes, there was some influence regarding trade between countries around Europe and Asia but I am talking about the explorers that travelled outside their comfort zone. Imagine those that set out for the Article regions! These explorers knew how to read the sky before science became science.
Having said all that, I do admire your profession so please stop saying I don't believe!!!! I only wish that some scientists would explore new horizons instead of just looking to improve on old science. Have a truly open mind, like.
Regarding our wasteful society and overuse of raw commodities, I covered all that! Why do you talk like I didn't. I was saying that perhaps we could look at another angle to reduce our negative impact on our Earth. Like not owning gadgets and expensive fuel burning means of travel like jets and sporty cars that aren't necessary to get from A to B, and turn off the lights of city skyscrapers after midnight. Keep our street lighting for safety reasons.
I don't mind the idea of harnessing the sun's energy to acquire power. It is natural after all but I think we could, maybe, have a better looking and more efficient way of catching it than those huge fields of "glass". Something stronger and smaller. Maybe you could look into that, make an assignment out of it? I do believe science can find better answers than those currently being promoted. If we can fly to the moon, why can't we find cleaner forms of energy and reduce the population by natural attrition?
Regarding the scarcity of fresh water! Our cities are full of buildings that have roof tops galore. Yet every time we get storm cells break over our city, we let the water run down the drain-pipes, into the streets and out into the ocean or somewhere else it is wasted. If our countries are becoming dryer, shouldn't we be harnessing water also? I know you will tell me that it already is being harnessed to some degree but obviously not enough. It is waste that causes a lot of our pollution problems - even scientists can't dispute that and I don't need stats to prove it. Can we just start thinking outside the square?
Edward wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Riccardo, you sound angry? I thought maybe our posts crossed over while I was writing and you didn't actually read what I had said. I believe you aren'treally listening. I have ..."
Oh Edward, as much as I believe we have to stand and be responsible for our own judgements and things we say, it is truly lovely to have one that understands your thinking. I was beginning to think I had a problem expressing myself as I am no writer, but if you understand me, then that "proves" I am at least comprehensible.
Oh good! Thanks Edward for letting me know :)
Oh dear. If either of you actually tried to read some science, instead of just complaining about it, you might find that it is already doing what you want.There is no widespread conspiracy that covers the whole of "science". Far from being afraid to look at the "cutting edge", our knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate. Profit is a part of the equation, but only a small part.
I suspect Riccardo is angry for the same reason that many of us are angry. Science is giving us pretty clear answers yet people with no evidence and no training are contriving to disbelieve those answers.
A case in point - climate change. Governments did not want climate change to be true, because dealing with it is going to be very expensive and unpopular. Industry did not want climate change to be true, because it will restrict production and the use of resources. Individuals don't want climate change to be true, because it tells us that we are over-consuming.
But all the evidence points to climate change being real and that man's activities are at least partly to blame.
So what happens? Instead of listening, a section of the public try to find ways to deny climate change. They say it's a conspiracy. That it isn't happening. That it's all about the miniscule wind generation industry making profits.
All of which is absolute tosh. The weight of evidence is so overwhelming that no-one could possibly have engineered a conspiracy. Governments and big industry don't want climate change to be true. The sustainable energy companies are way too small to have any influence over the much larger oil and production companies.
The annoying thing about science is also its strength. Sometimes it tells us things we don't want to hear.
We need to have the courage to listen.
A world without religion. People can have morals, and know right from wrong without religion.
The funny thing is...religion and mythology fascinate me!
Hi again Will. Please don't lecture me or treat my opinions with such little regard or even thought. You seem to want to put me in a box with "those people". Maybe I prefer those people who can be far more interesting and open-minded. Of course there will always be some people who believe in a flat Earth or that the holocaust never happened. Well even they are entitled to believe that if they want provided they do no harm (which they do) but I will continue to hold my view, not theirs or yours, until I see how much the World improves over the coming decades with ourt wind farms and other hi-tech solutions that science offers. There is an old saying "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Each of us has to be convinced by action and outcome. I have seen no evidence that the burdens placed on the average citizen has been improved by the "green" movement so far. It is up to each individual to change - nobody else can do it for him/her. Damn political correctness! Such an unnecessary complication.
You seem to have deliberately ignored my suggestion that we are spending too much on keeping people alive when they would rather be out of pain and in a peaceful place. Let's hand our world over to the next generation - hopefully they will do a better job than us. Also ignored was rabid consumerism in wealthy countries. The grab for power and recognition. You don't seem to think these are important issues, even deny they are an issue, to address in creating a clean and safe world.
BTW, I have never disputed climate change. It has been changing since the world began. The question is, how much is man responsible for that. Well I addressed that point too when I said we had to limit our population growth and buy less stuff; stuff that we toss in land fill or our beautiful oceans. Also I have such belief in our scientists that I believe, unencumbered, they would find better ways of harnessing natural resources than has been done. AND, no, I am not advocating nuclear energy although it couldn't be much worse than what we are getting.
Guess what? I got my first mobile phone yesterday and I didn't buy it. It was a hand-me-down. But, OMG! it is so old - 3yrs old in fact. Obsolete almost. I am not happy or excited to have one, but my family cares about me and worried if they couldn't get in touch. Also they were thinking that I was not up with technology; I really, really had to have one otherwise I was a laughing stock.
I went shopping for some clothes today instead of going to work (our own small business so no sickie here). My poor mum has grown out of all her clothes and the weather has been damn hot for one week. She is in a nursing home so I had to do it. This new old mobile kept texting me in the most awkward situations. I am sick of it already. Whatever happened to peaceful contemplation, sitting on a bench with no people or phones around, maybe your dog beside you, and looking out over the ocean or at night, looking up at a star-filled sky.
We are losing more skills than we are gaining. Our new generations are so taken up with technology they can't cross a street without staring at their mobile, nor can they cook a healthy meal, or sew, or change a tire, or mend a push bike, or maintain a car, or do minor carpentry around the house. If we do experience an apocalypse, how on earth will we cope? Science won't be able to help without science labs, test tubes, electricity or Government funding. Goodness, we might have to think for ourselves.
So please, let scientists see the importance of simplifying our world, not complicating it.
Everything you throw at me could just as well be said of you. Why is it so important to change people into you? I love the diversity of our world and the people in it. How uninterested it would be if we all thought the same, nice as it is to have someone agree with you. I have to ask Will, do you have a vested interest in pushing the "green" view? Perhaps you manufacture steel windmills or solar power receptors. I do apologise for asking such a personal question (and you need not answer it) but something about your argument doesn't make sense to me.
For instance, you seem to imply that "climate change deniers" are in the majority whereas I believe they are a minority, extremely so. Everybody and his cat wants to jump on the green wagon and I just happen to like sticking up for the underdog. Why would anybody wish to subject themselves to the kind of ridicule I have received here? You haven't said you are a scientist, so how can you so vehemently protest when I present an alternative point of view? Pot calling the kettle black?
Laureen said: "We are losing more skills than we are gaining. Our new generations are so taken up with technology they can't cross a street without staring at their mobile, nor can they cook a healthy meal, or sew, or change a tire, or mend a push bike, or maintain a car, or do minor carpentry around the house. If we do experience an apocalypse, how on earth will we cope? Science won't be able to help without science labs, test tubes, electricity or Government funding. Goodness, we might have to think for ourselves." That technology such as mobile phones is becoming too common and that texting is almost replacing social interactions is true.
But whose fault is that, really?
Scientists provide the means - the technologies - to make a mobile phone. They don't produce mobile phones. Manufacturers produce mobile phones.
But manufacturers don't advertise their products like: "buy this phone today and replace all your friends for ever!"
It's down to people how they decide to use what they own.
Science has no part in it.
And for goodness sake, do you really think science isn't trying to do all you say already? That's such a naive view.
Science wants to simplify, not overcomplicate.
What do you think it's more simple - extracting petroleum from the ground and turning into fuel or using the sun brightness to harness energy?
Also, the portion of people not believing in climate change is higher than you think.
According to Yale University, up to 23% of Americans didn't believe in climate change in late 2013
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-c...
And I'm not sure about how Will will take your insinuation, but your suggestion that he is making a strong point about global warming because he is to gain from it directly is simply preposterous.
Science is not involved in the least in producing wind turbines or solar panels. Scientists have nothing to gain in people being more 'green'.
And at the beginning of every post you always exclude yourself from the group of people who don't believe in science and such; but trust me, you do not understand science at all, not even a little bit.
Also let's remember something: having scientific evidence for/against something and being close-minded are not the same thing.
We have scientific evidence that the gravitational force will always pull objects towards each other, which is why we are not floating off into space; we have scientific evidence that magnetism exists (though we can't see it!); we have scientific evidence that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies (at least) in the Universe; we have scientific evidence that black holes exist (though we can't directly see them!); we have scientific evidence that quantum mechanics works (though it sounds like utter rubbish); we have scientific evidence that global warming is taking place.
Scientists - true scientists - don't give a damn about how these facts may be used by manufacturers and untrustworthy people to create weapons or mobile phones or such (apart from renewable energy scientists, whose job is to find sources of renewable energy).
Scientists are simple creatures. They are only after one thing: SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
PS: science is not science labs, test tubes and electricity. That sentence shows how very little you know and understand about science.
Science is the observation and the recording of data (of any kind) and formulating hypotheses upon this data.
I would not imagine a world without a religion let's say before couple of thousands years ago.But now, it's obvious that religions, all of has nothing to do & it's the era of science, & can't imagine the world without all the inventions science blessed us with.
However, we must admit that this whole universe thing must have some keys somewhere that neither religion or science can explain in our times.
So, every one of them has done & doing it's part in the mankind history on it's own way.
And to be more specific, now!!! I can't live in a world without Science, religion has nothing to do nowadays.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”Albert Einstein
Or...as the late Pope John Paul II said: Science can purify religion from error and superstition.
Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Laureen - let me tell you why this is important. The human race is heading for a crisis point. We might even say that we are at that point already, or that we have passed it. But either way we are in deep trouble.Several things are happening at once which will have a fundamental impact on us. Our climate is changing, and a part of it is almost certainly man-made. We are living longer, placing more burdens on the state to look after us in old age. The population is expanding at an unprecedented rate - it has more than doubled in my lifetime. Increasing mechanisation means that it's not clear what jobs we will be doing in the future.
All these things are undeniable. The evidence is overwhelming. We are in deep doodoo.
It is at times like this that we need to trust two groups of people in particular. People we need to find solutions to these problems. We need them like we have never needed them before.
Those two groups are our scientists and our leaders - whether those leaders are politicians or the church.
And what we are finding is that some members of the public have a deep and irrational mistrust of both groups. At a time when we need our scientists and leaders like never before, we don't trust them.
Why? In part it is because some scientists and political leaders have misled us in the past. The oil industry funded research to oppose climate change. Politicians have to disagree with each other if they are going to get elected. Some people have vested interests. And don't get me started on the church.
And that can lead some people to think that all scientists and leaders are untrustworthy. That's flawed logic. The fact that one person is lying does not mean that everyone is.
You ask if I have a personal financial interest in climate change. And that is the problem right there - a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. You have slipped into mistrust mode. You are assuming that I must have some motive for what I am saying.
The only motive I have is this - if we don't solve these problems millions or even billions of people are going to die. Or live in suffering. It is that serious.
I won't make a penny out of climate change. Quite the reverse. It will force me to change my lifestyle. I will probably have to work for longer, pay more taxes, consume less. That's the whole point - almost nobody profits from climate change, but the deniers think that there must be a profit motive. So they have come up with a ridiculous theory that the manufacturers of wind turbines have somehow invented all of this.
Why is it so important to get people to realise this? If it were almost any other subject, we could agree to disagree. I'm entitled to my opinion - you are entitled to yours.
But, not to get too melodramatic about it, it's the future of the human race we are talking about. We simply can't afford to get this one wrong.
Will wrote: "Laureen - let me tell you why this is important. The human race is heading for a crisis point. We might even say that we are at that point already, or that we have passed it. But either way we are ..."Well, I swore last effort that it would be my last attempt. I am in total agreement with you for the first five paragraphs. Then you turn on the "you said, or some people believe" or just totally misunderstand me or misquote me. However, it is a serious subject when we have no say in how we are governed and what the outcomes are. I do believe that we have the only viable political system in the world today but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist by way of some form of corruption. On the hustings trail, you will hear how much our leaders love our countries and the freedom of speech that encompasses democracy.
However, short term governments have or take no responsibility for our future and will tell the people what they want to hear. Then when they are elected and find our the job has responsibilities in the "present" and have to back up their promises, then they have to find excuses why they can't fulfil that promise or promises.
Yes, I treat this subject very seriously or I wouldn't keep subjecting myself to this senseless conversation. To claim that the sciences are not open to corruption, but religious leaders are is just ludicrous as Riccardo would say. Every group, race, community, business, government, family have black sheep somewhere within. Don't you think that with the seriousness of our situation that it is necessary to have some moral compass for our science exploration to follow? How about they give up sponsorships for those companies, lobbyists and Government that are requesting data that will support their interests. Like making the public happy by providing something new for them every other minute to play with. I'm being sarcastic - please don't treat that as something to criticise me for.
There are many more serious concerns than who wins Government. We absolutely need progressive thinkers and, I know you disagree, but many spiritual leaders are extremely inspirational (that word sounds like spiritual to me). I believe that humble spiritual leaders who truly devote themselves to bettering the lives of others are our best chance at helping humanity to want to change their lifestyles. Then we will see Governments requesting more research "to please the public" which might just happen to solve most of the problems affecting our planet.
One last time, I am not against science - I just need proof it is not being tunnel visioned. We need both science and mysticism. Getting rid of organised science and organised religion is our best hope for the future and I strongly believe it is coming.
We have to rid ourselves of the mob mentality and think of ways to improve our world that are truly innovational - thinking outside the square. I am no expert on science or religion but I do believe I have what was originally called common sense, not so common these days because people have been told what the flavour of the month is, what to get excited about, what to request from Government etc etc. I feel that we are subject to our first grade teacher still who would tell when we could go to the lavatory, how to hold a pencil, when we may sit or stand. Oh, now the scientists want us to invent massive infrastructure to save us from giving up our present fad and also make the be obsolete within a few years so we have to purchase something new.
We should be demanding that manufacturers make things last at least 20 years. Yes, and we should be prepared to pay more. I can remember when an old kerosine fridge would last forever. Now with all our new technology, we are lucky if the fridge seals do not need to be replaced in 5 years. We do have the science and technology to make that happen but we want to be the throw-away society so we can buy something new.
My time is precious to me and I would prefer to enjoy this life and a beautiful environment free of junk, have some peace of mind instead of trying to find a Mr. Fix-it every time our "superior" junk breaks down. I love beautifully made things, I.e. Things made to last that have a lot of thought put into them. But hey! People don't want to labour at fixing things, they would rather design or buy new things. That is our economy in full flight. And science is a part of it whether you admit to it or not.
Science, starting with the Industrial revolution or even earlier with exploration, started and caused this fix we find ourselves in today, e.g., global warming, population explosion, depletion of resources, loss of habitat, extinction of species at an alarming rate, etc. We hope (pray) that science can get us out of this mess.
Will, I just found another quote on my list that is topical. "It is better for us to have some doubts in an honest pursuit of truth, than it would be for us to be certain about something that was not true." Daniel Wallace.
...the largest problem facing mankind is not one science can answer. It is terrorism. When a few zealots, with access to devastating weaponry (devised by science) can in one minute destroy what has taken decades to build, it seems a logical, thereby scientific prescription for doom. And...most of the terrorists are guided by their twisted notions of religion.
So - here we are: Crazy religious zealots with their powerful scientific weaponry. When you put religion and science together this way...EPIC FAIL, folks.
This discussion/argument is turning into a "What came first - the chicken or the egg" sort of thing.
Sadly, religion has historically been the single greatest cause of war. Apparently humans are unable to live in peace within the scope of their religious differences. Bye-bye religion.
Your point is quite valid. I just hadn't planned on commenting much past the thread's original question. I will add now though that race is often tightly intertwined in religious identity and so speaks to my point. Economics and logic are also tightly intertwined. So to your point, economics has driven many a war as well.Happy reading :)
It may well be that as time goes on religion becomes less associative with a given race but that does not negate the historical connection of war/religion.Current "globalnomics" will undoubtedly be one of the driving forces of ongoing difficulties around the world, but the current middle-east situation clearly shows us that it will not be that alone. Religious differences continue to rear their ugly heads. While race lines have blurred, in many instances they remain intact and thriving.
Humans have and will remain (sadly so) driven by power, greed and God. Not necessarily in that order. As those lines too blur and shift over time it is sad to note that the science that we hoped would bring us out of the age of unenlightenment will eventually extinguish life as we know it.
Edward wrote: "Ken wrote: "Science, starting with the Industrial revolution or even earlier with exploration, started and caused this fix we find ourselves in today, e.g., global warming, population explosion, de..."Take a look at The Human Age by Diane Ackerman. There's plenty of exciting stuff going on with science. All hope is not lost.
I guess we should have stayed on the European continent and never cast our eyes towards the Americas. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if we had kept those all of those peasant's children on the tenant farms where they belonged instead of educating them. Are you kidding me?The Industrial Revolution and exploration caused this fix we find ourselves in today? NO. Man's lust for power and his never-ending greed bolstered by the Christian Churches assurances of God's blessings on the net results of those frailties have put us where we are today. The attitude of the ends justifying the means has put us in the fix we are in today.
Science is THE ONLY hope we have of cleaning up the mess we're in. All the praying in the world hasn't and won't save us from ourselves. The unfortunate fact is that man's despicable inability to see the error of our ways will probably end up corrupting the science as well; resulting in our ultimate destruction.
Monique wrote: "Or...as the late Pope John Paul II said: Science can purify religion from error and superstition.
Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
The rub on both sides of this quote lies in selectivity.
I believe that the wars and persecution of world citizens are not brought about by religion or science which are merely the tools by which MAN exercises his power. Man (as in humans) was given free will to exercise his own conscience when making decisions for the betterment of mankind or the planet. I don't happen to believe in "The Devil"; the excuse humans use for not taking responsibility for their own actions. Now I do believe in a supreme being or energy and for the sake of expediency and not to offend anybody I shall call this being/energy "God".
Any harm that is caused on this planet is caused by bad choices that man has made. It is that simple in my opinion. It is the use of power that is the enemy here. Organised religion has and is using it to influence the minds of gullible people and man is using science to influence gullible people. Now I am not saying that it is easy to distinguish which is more harmful and I don't see that it is necessary anyway. We have been given a mind and a conscience to distinguish for ourselves what is practical and humane. We just don't follow our conscious knowledge but hand it over to others and blame the others when the world ends up a mess.
id live with religion but not make it my life. I dont think it should make you who you are, its not what you believe in but what you do or how you treat others.
“There are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. Without art science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous."The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler; and English Summer: A Gothic Romance
Raymond Chandler
Religious fervor has caused more pain and suffering than science. I would love to see some aspects of religious teaching absorbed, particularly those in both Quakerism and Buddhism. Otherwise, let the divisions and hatred caused by religion leave this world as soon as possible.
So you're agreeing with the Pope, the church is called address climate change?
Science has the potential to wipe every living thing off the face of the planet...as of right now, we're still here.Religion ('bad religion' ie twisted dogma) - on the other hand - is responsible for the deaths of millions.
If religion lead to war so it's religious people fault as the aim of religion is to unit humanity and gather them under the umbrella of peace
Why would you ever have to choose. The question implies a conflict that is unnecessary.
mona wrote: "If religion lead to war so it's religious people fault as the aim of religion is to unit humanity and gather them under the umbrella of peace"Say what?
Cawkins wrote: "Why would you ever have to choose. The question implies a conflict that is unnecessary."Because most religious teachings and rhetoric are in direct conflict with science.
Science relies on facts, either already in place or that can be proven.
Religion relies on superstition, fear and myths.
To agree with most people out there.. a world without religion. Where I know that for most people religion plays a major role in their day to day life. It does not cure cancer, or go to the moon. Religion in my perspective gives people hope of what could happen if you pray. Science and medicine on the other hand delivers by running expiraments and giving data to tell when and where something will happen. To give the people an exact date of what they can hope for. Also there is no hard data that their even is a god so what do we believe god is? God is different for anyone and for some they rely solely on science to give them the facts of life.
People always talk about the "power of prayer". I've always thought that was bunk. Prayer gives the one praying a chance to unburden his problem (or whatever he is praying for) onto "someone" else - they leave it to that entity to give them the answers or fix the problem.
When they do that, they can then relax and free up their mind - they don't have to worry about it anymore, they've transferred it to "god" to take care of.
At that point, with a clear head and relaxed mind - they then solve it for themselves - and the credit all goes to a non-existent or at best apathetic spirit creature.
We can't live without science... but we can live with faith, without a religion. We can trust in God and not follow an specific religion.
That's more of the way I feel on the subject myself, Maria Fernanda!
wow, obviously religion!
Not a good question. To deny one is to deny a sense of understanding. Science and Religion are ways to understand our reality. The earliest scientists began through their religion. In society, religion plays a role for understanding and hope for the unknown. It would be naive to say a world without science would be good because we need that factual and practical understanding. It is equally naive to say begone to religion because religion inspires many, brings unity and hope in human struggles, and is natural. You can't have one without the other because they are searching for the same thing.
I replied to this question a few years ago. My answer was that I'd live in a world without religion. I didn't have to think twice before it. Now, after like 4 years or whatever, I change my answer. I'd live in a world without science. I'd live in a world with religion, of hope, of small, tiny, closed minds, and of ignorance. Like they say, ignorance is bliss.
Tonya wrote: "Not a good question. To deny one is to deny a sense of understanding. Science and Religion are ways to understand our reality. The earliest scientists began through their religion. In society, reli..."I absolutely agree with you Tonya. As I have said in the past, why would we want one without the other. They are both essential to humans to become whole through education and social awareness and responsibility.
Owaiz wrote: "I replied to this question a few years ago. My answer was that I'd live in a world without religion. I didn't have to think twice before it. Now, after like 4 years or whatever, I change my answe..."
With the added caveat - if said religion is 'twisted and hateful', I agree with your comment. lol
both are nessary for a fast moving wotld. Science gives solid fact whil religon gives us something to believe in
I've never heard of any terrorist acts committed in the name of science, therefore I would choose to lose religion.
Well, there were the Nazi experiments on concentration camp prisoners. The Japanese government insisting on killing whales "for scientific research". Two atom bombs dropped on Japan. Then there were the scientific accidents such as Chernobyl, Three mile Islands, Thalidomide and the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.Put it another way, the world health organisation estimate that over 150,000 deaths are caused each year by climate change. This compares with around 30,000 killed in 2014 by terrorism.
All in all, it's a complicated question which can't really be answered satisfactorily with a soundbite. In truth, we probably need both science and some form of religion(s). The binary choice of science or religion is not one that we are ever likely to face.
Then there's the terrorism visited upon prisoners on a daily basis around the world. Even in the enlightened west they still use mental torture such as solitary confinement.
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)
Love the quote Edward!