The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
Directly encouraging people to kill and destroy other things as well as people can happen in the name of science as well. How else are weapons formed if not through scientific and technological advancement? In fact, religious fanatics may not be able to mass murder or terrorise people if not for scientific advancement. I am not saying that science is bad just that as was said above, it is not merely a choice between science and religion. The end result is that people are the ones responsible for what is said and done in this world. That's what I believe.
Ah no. Climate change is almost certainly caused by man's activities and particularly those activities which are made possible by science, such as the burning of fossil fuels. If we did not have technologies which burned fossil fuels then much of climate change would not have happened. Science is part of the causal chain which led to climate change and which kills more people than terrorism.
The Nazi experiments in the concentration camps were attempting to gain knowledge through research. In other words, science.
The science used to create atomic and then nuclear bombs did kill more than a quarter of a million people. Using your definition, the scientists who worked on the atomic/ nuclear bombs were not simply furthering knowledge. They were knowingly developing weapons which killed more than a quarter of a million people.
The original (slightly silly) question was - would you rather live in a world without science or a world without religion? And it is patently obvious that a world without science would not have developed the atom bomb/ nuclear bomb.
Yes, it's complicated. What we have are people who insist on being on one side of the argument or the other - that we must either be cheerleaders for science or cheerleaders for religion. That is absurd and lazy logic. Both science and religion have given us positives and negatives.
This is not about being politically correct. It is about refusing to take sides when there are no sides to be taken. It is about thinking for yourself and not blindly following other people's dogma.
Will wrote: "Ah no. Climate change is almost certainly caused by man's activities and particularly those activities which are made possible by science, such as the burning of fossil fuels. If we did not have ..."
Mostly correct Will. Especially the last bit.
interesting discussion, given the literacy data (757 million illiterate) , if the world was without religion crime could proliferate…a world without science would mean no inventions, no progress. A difficult choice indeed
Will wrote: "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 wer..."Are you seriously claiming that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were scientific experiments? What sort of drugs are you on?
Not drugs, just well informed.First, we need to be accurate about what I did and did not say. Wendy started this debate by saying: "I've never heard of any terrorist acts committed in the name of science".
She didn't specify "experiments" or for research purposes, just "in the name of science". This seemed to me such a flawed argument that I had to reply.
The most obvious act of terrorism/ war crime in the name of science were the Nazis who carried out a series of experiments on concentration camp inmates.
The Japanese killing whales "for scientific research" (note the deliberate use of quotes) is a different case. The research element is almost wholly bogus (that's why I put it in quotes). What Japan are doing is killing whales ostensibly for food but largely to keep their fishing industry happy. That's an example of terrorism "in the name of science" - Wendy's criteria - which isn't research.
Then we get to the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And you'll notice that I didn't say that they were scientific experiments.
You did notice that, didn't you?
But I do believe that they fit within Wendy's definition of "in the name of science." And indeed, there is an element of experimentation, particularly with the second bomb on Nagasaki.
The main reason for dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima was to end Japan's involvement in the second world war, the argument being that many more lives would be lost by fighting a conventional war. However, there is quite some controversy about the second bomb in part because the two devices used different technologies - uranium fission for the fat boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima and plutonium implosion for the fat man bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb was equivalent to around 13-18 kilotonnes of TNT. The Nagasaki bomb was much more powerful at around 20-22 kilotonnes.
One of the criticisms of the bombing is, if the only purpose was to stop the second world war, why did the US feel the need to test a different (and more powerful) technology for bomb #2?
In part it was to send a message to Russia, but it was also to test the plutonium implosion technology. In other words, state-sponsored killings in the name of both politics and science. Which is precisely where we came in.
I would love to live in a world without religions but not in one without any beliefs though.
Ok, time's up. Put down your pencils and hand-in your answer sheets. Now, please all turn to the next question. Would you rather live in a world without Coca Cola or a world without water? You have one year and eleven months to answer, starting now.
The holy grail of the internet is the statement so awesome and unanswerable that you win your argument outright. Everyone else just stands and marvels as your home run sails out of the stadium and into the sky. Your doubters and critics hang up their keyboards and switch off their computers because they know they can't possibly compete with your awesome unanswerableness.Every now and again someone will come along with their attempt to knock it out of the park, on either side of the argument:
God must exist because ...
God can't possible exist because ...
No-one has succeeded yet. Maybe they never will. That doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Life without religion would be fine, one without science seems impossible.
The vast majority of the animal kingdom would disagree. They seem to get on perfectly fine without knowing how to operate a bunsen burner.See what I mean? Everyone who tries to come up with a trite "knock it out of the park" argument falls flat on their face.
There have never been wars fought over science although science has on occasion ended wars. So I would have to say that if it came down to a choice, I would choose a world without religion.I could put forward arguments for and against both science and religion, but that wasn't the question, so I will go and do some illustrations instead.
So what are we saying - we don't like things that people have fought wars over?By that logic, we shouldn't like democracy, American independence from Britain, abolition of slavery, opposition to tyranny, self-preservation, territory, freedom of expression, trade ...
If someone ever asks us "what we would rather have - democracy or a bucket full of reindeer poo?", we would have to choose democracy because no-one has ever fought a war over reindeer poo.
And if we are being purely logical about this, there is a line of argument that says that almost every war is fought over science. Sort of.
The argument goes that until the invention of agriculture there was relatively little reason for large groups of humans to fight each other. It was only when we started to grow crops that we needed to protect those crops from other humans. And while many wars appear to be fought over religion, in reality most of those wars are fought over territory or as Adolf Hitler called it "Lebensraum".
I'm still waiting for someone to knock this one out of the park on either side of the argument. No-one has come close yet.
Pardon my elbowing into the conversation, but for whatever it's worth here's my $0.02 ...Science is merely a method of obtaining knowledge about the physical world through the organized testing of falsifiable explanations and predictions. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not an ideology. Therefore if someone does something "in the name" of it, they are doing so in the name of "obtaining knowledge about the physical world."
I believe a lot of the discussion here, what with examples of Nazi experiments etc., muddies up the distinction between human institutions (religion and science) and the ills of ideology. Science and religion are both human inventions, neither inherently "good" or "evil." Science can be used to cure cancer or it can be used to invent a more exquisite means of torture; it's the human actors, what they believe (or fail to believe), the length they're willing to go to fulfill, justify, or rationalize those beliefs that really frighten us, and that we're truly seeking to indict here.
So when we point to "science" as the culprit behind Nazi experiments, we're confusing the tool they used to perform their atrocities with what we really find repellent -- the fact that they performed their experiments on human beings. This is what we condemn. Science did not compel doctors at concentration camps to perform their experiments on other human beings. Their ideology of racial superiority, Nazism, gave them the excuse, justified for them the dehumanization others.
Likewise, saying that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was done so "in the name of science" is equally silly. The US government wasn't motivated by the "search for greater understanding of the physical world" to build these bombs, it was motivated to invent a weapon to defeat a present enemy (Japan) and in the process send a message to a future enemy (USSR). One can argue whether or not this was justified, whether there was some racial supremacy involved in choosing Japan as the target vs. Germany, etc. The motivation, or justification or rationale, again, involved defending one ideology ("democracy") against another ("totalitarianism"). But "in the name of science"? No.
We should think literally about the implications of the original question of this post. If science had never been devised, we would still live in a pre-scientific world -- low life expectancy, high infant mortality, subject to famine, disease, panicking every time an eclipse occurred or a comet was seen in the sky. We'd still be executing people (women mostly) for things such as "witchcraft." The human population would be a fraction of what it is now (not necessarily a bad thing); they're be no atomic bomb or bio- or chemical-weapons, or landmines, or carbon emissions wrecking the environment. However, nothing would prevent us from waging war, or torture, or genocide, or slavery, or hunting species to extinction, or devastating the environment in a less-efficient, low-tech way, as we had for the many millennia before science.
A world without religion? No Bach, no Sistine Chapel, to Taj Mahal, no Tolkien, no Bamiyan Buddhas (created or destroyed), no Temple of Bel (ditto), none of the venerable or inspiring myths, legends, literature inspired by belief that we continue to enjoy, or detest, or debate about -- including "The Da Vinci Code," which is the ostensible subject of this post. Personally, even though I'm an atheist, I wouldn't want to see a world completely devoid of religion. We would definitely loose something.
In a world without science we would be tangibly and substantially worse off, in a very real way. In a world without religion we could still find cultural and artistic inspiration in non-religious sources, as we do now. We would still, I'm sure, also suffer the same ills and evils upon one another as we do now, we would simply substitute bad religious motivations with bad non-religious motivations.
If we lost science we would lose much more than we would gain; if we lost religion we would lose about as much as we would gain. Doesn't "knock it out of the park," but for me at least it tips the scales.
There is a lot more to religion than the tourist hot spots. It also gave us our codes of laws, standards of good behaviour, ways of forming relationships and our value systems. It provided us with principles of equality, fairness and democracy. It helped to create the first societies which then gave mankind the specialisation necessary to study science.Oh, and the Sistine Chapel. That too.
True, religion has (and does) give us all those things. I'd argue, though, that standards of good behavior are neither consistent nor "standard" from one religion to another, nor even within a religion -- "turning the cheek", for example, in the New Testament vs. all the various examples of the opposite in the Old. And principles of fairness, equality and democracy are all products of Enlightenment-era philosophies, notably liberal humanism. If modern believers adhere to these values, I'd say it's because they've imposed their values upon their belief systems, not the other way around.
Not all science is consistent either. We all like the science which gives us medicines, flat screen television and mobile phones that don't run out of power before midday. But we're not so sure about science being used for weapons, torture, manipulation.Principles of fairness, equality and democracy being products of the Enlightenment? Excuse me while I splutter into my early morning coffee. The concept of democracy originated at least in Ancient Athens circa 500 BC and the underlying ideas originated probably well before that.
The Americans might like to think that they invented democracy with the Declaration of Independence in the 1770s, but it was based on concepts that came from Ancient Greece, Sparta and Rome.
Sorry, didn't mean to ruin your coffee ... that's truly unforgivable :) Of course, democracy wasn't "invented" in the 18th century (or by the Americans). What I meant to say, in response to your earlier assertion that religion gave us (I read "us" as us moderns) democracy, is that the Enlightenment (which would mean Brit and Continental thinkers - no Yanks) is what brought the concept, which the Greeks et al may have invented but were lost to us for two millennia, to "us."
Science is not a system of ethics or morality -- the use of it (or religion, for that matter) for good or ill is a matter of the character of the human actors who use it. Perhaps we'd agree that the truly consistent factor here is human nature, in all its contradictory messiness.
I would rather live in a world more rational; that is not suppressive in traits. It is possible only when there is Dharm(not religion) that includes progressiveness which is possible through science.
Without religion, for sure. Has any good come of it? It just challenges science.
I am not a friend of religion. I gave the idea up along time ago but I do believe in a life after death and have done so since I was 30. I am currently reading a book (almost finished) called "Proof of Heaven" a Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, by Dr Eben Alexander. If you are one to think science is the way forward and the only way then please read this book. Dr Alexander only believed in science and was a highly sort after neurosurgeon who developed a form of meningitis that few people ever recover from. This is not just a story of his experience but is a very interesting account of how the brain behaves during an attack of this nature.
He never ever believed in NDEs before undergoing this trauma and if you think you have heard it all before, read this book.
You gave up believing in religion, but do believe in life after death. How does that work? If there is life after death, where does exist? How does it sustain? Maybe it's like a perpetual dream state.
Read the book - you will find out. The author is a scientist through & through. I have always believed in a supreme intelligence just not organized religion. The human spirit/soul does not need the sustainance you speak of unless it is love.
Ken wrote: "You gave up believing in religion, but do believe in life after death. How does that work? If there is life after death, where does exist? How does it sustain? Maybe it's like a perpetual dream state."life after death could be a process not driven by a deity. i dont think much of life after death, even though i have had both spiritual and physical encounters with ghosts. for me, seeing is not believing, but atheism is also not simply doubting everything.
I just think that science has a long way to go and that the Universe needs to be re-discovered. It is a bewildering space.
I'd gladly skip religion, even the argument that religion and a fear of repercussions in an afterlife have kept us from killing each other doesn't hold true. Science has helped advance civilization, religion has held it back.Iceland, for example, is virtually religion free and they've lived in harmony for years
Joseph wrote: "I'd gladly skip religion, even the argument that religion and a fear of repercussions in an afterlife have kept us from killing each other doesn't hold true. Science has helped advance civilization..."Agreed!
Joseph wrote: "I'd gladly skip religion, even the argument that religion and a fear of repercussions in an afterlife have kept us from killing each other doesn't hold true. Science has helped advance civilization..."Well, um, the Vatican is almost entirely religious and it's a pretty peaceful place too. Except in the Dan Brown novels, natch.
I don't think that picking on individual countries is a scientific basis for dissing or bigging up religion.
The Vatican, Will, has seen its share of violence.From Wikipedia:
Several Roman Catholic popes had violent deaths. The circumstances have ranged from supposed martyrdom (Pope Stephen I)[1] to war (Lucius II),[2] to a beating by a jealous husband (Pope John XII). A number of other popes have died under circumstances that some believe to be murder, but for which definitive evidence has not been found.
Murdered popes:
John VIII (872–882): Allegedly poisoned and then clubbed to death[12]
Stephen VI (896–897): Strangled[13]
Leo V (903): Allegedly strangled[14]
John X (914–928): Allegedly smothered with pillow[15]
Benedict VI (973–974): Strangled[16]
John XIV (983–984): Either by starvation, ill-treatment or direct murder[17]
Clement II (1046–1047): Allegedly poisoned[18]
Celestine V (1294, died 1296): Allegedly murdered while in post-abdication captivity; allegations blame his successor, Pope Boniface VIII[19]
Boniface VIII (1294–1303): Allegedly (though unlikely) from the effects of ill-treatment one month before[20]
Martyr popes[edit]
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
In tradition, the first pope, Saint Peter, was crucified upside-down.
Saint Peter (c.67), traditionally martyred by crucifixion[3]
Pope Linus (Saint) (c.67-c.76)[4][5]
Pope Anacletus or Cletus (Saint) (c.79-c.92)[6][4]
Pope Clement I (Saint) (c.92-c.99), thrown into sea with anchor around his neck[4]
Pope Evaristus (c.99-c.108);[4][5] not listed in the Roman Martyrology
Pope Alexander I (Saint) (c.106-c.119);[4][5] recognition as the martyred Saint Alexander (feast day May 3) rescinded in 1960
Pope Sixtus I (Saint) (c.119-c.128)[4][5]
Pope Telesphorus (Saint) (c.128-c.138)[4][7]
Pope Hyginus (Saint) (c.138-c.142);[4] martyrdom dubious[8]
Pope Pius I (Saint) (c.142-c.154), martyred by the sword;[9] claim of martyrdom removed from the 1969 General Roman Calendar[10]
Pope Anicetus (Saint) (155-166), traditionally martyred.[4]
Pope Soter (Saint) (166-175), died a martyr [4]
Pope Eleuterus (Saint) (175-189), died a martyr [4]
Pope Victor I (Saint) 189-199, died a martyr [4]
Pope Calixtus I (Saint) (217-222), died a martyr [4]
Pope Urban I (Saint) 222-230, died a martyr [4]
Pope Pontian (Saint) 230-235, condemned to mines in Sardinia and died on island of Tavolara[4]
Pope Anterus (Saint) Elected 235-12-21, martyred at hands of Emperor Maximus [4]
Pope Fabian (Saint) Elected 236-1-10 and died a martyr 250-1-20 during persecution by Decius[4]
Pope Cornelius (Saint) Elected March 251 and died a martyr June 253.[4]
Pope Lucius I (Saint) Elected 253-6-25 and martyred 254-3-5.[4]
Pope Stephen I (Saint) Elected 254-5-12 and martyred 257-8-2.[4][1]
Pope Sixtus II (Saint) Elected 257-8-30 and martyred 258-8-6.[4]
Pope Dionysius (Saint) Elected 259-7-22 after year of persecutions and died 268-12-26, martyred [4]
Pope Felix I (Saint) Elected 269-1-5 and died 274-12-30, martyred [4]
Pope Eutychian (Saint) Elected 275-1-4 and martyred 283-12-7. [4]
Pope Caius (Saint) Elected 283-12-17 and martyred 296-4-22, but not at hands of his uncle, Diocletian [4]
Pope Marcellinus (Saint) Elected 296-6-30 and martyred 304-10-25 during persecution of Diocletian [4]
Pope Marcellus I (Saint) Elected 308-5-27 after 4-year vacancy and martyred 309-1-16.[4]
Pope Eusebius (Saint) Elected 309-4-18 and martyred in Sicily 309-8-17. [4][11]
Pope John I (Saint) , Elected August 13, 523, during the Ostrogothic occupation of the Italian peninsula. Was sent as an envoy by Ostrogoth king Theodoric to Constantinople. Upon return, Theodoric accused John I of conspiracy with the Byzantine empire. Imprisoned and starved to death on 18 May 526. [4]
Pope Martin I (Saint) Elected in 649. Died in exile 655-9-16
Oh damn, now you're mixing facts and history with religion. This certainly will not sit well with the faithful, but props to you, dude.
And Iceland was home to the Vikings of raping and pillaging fame. So what?Religion gave us the crusades. Science gave us the atom bomb. You can pick a side and give only one side of the story. Or you can look at both sides and try to be balanced.
You made a statement, Will, without backing it up: "Well, um, the Vatican is almost entirely religious and it's a pretty peaceful place too."I showed that you are entirely mistaken, yet you don't acknowledge it.
I was responding to Joseph who said: "Iceland, for example, is virtually religion free and they've lived in harmony for years"This was an attempt to show that science is good and religion is bad. But it would only really work if every religion-free country lives in harmony (whatever that means) or if every religious country was somehow violent or disruptive.
And that's where the argument falls down. Because for every harmonious Iceland we can point to equally harmonious religious countries or peoples. I gave the Vatican which is both religious and in harmony (whatever that means). I could equally have quoted the Amish, the Quakers, Buddhism, Nepal ...
Your list of murdered or martyred Popes doesn't prove anything. First it was a list of violence done to the Popes and not committed by them. Which makes it irrelevant. Secondly, it is a list of things that happened in the past, which has little to do with Joseph's present tense argument that Iceland is religion free.
And if we're opening the door for things which happened in the past, Iceland becomes a very poor example of a country which lives in harmony, don't you think?
You didn't show that I was "entirely mistaken". You constructed a flimsy argument which doesn't prove anything. And that is the problem with this whole debate. People keep trying to simplify a very complicated question into something which can be "proved" whether it's Thomas Aquinas' five proofs that God must exist or someone like Joseph saying that religion is bad because "just look at Iceland".
Nodding head and wry smile, to Will
Laureen wrote: "I am not a friend of religion. I gave the idea up along time ago but I do believe in a life after death and have done so since I was 30. I am currently reading a book (almost finished) called "Proo..."I read that book too and it was very interesting. I too am spiritual and not religious. I do think the Bible has been edited and rewritten time and again by men so religion is man made to serve the men-whoever was in power and wanted to control the masses at the time. You make good points but people seem to think that you have to have either religion or atheist. I used to think that way too.
I would rather live in a world without religion. I think nothing divided humanity more then religion (as an institution). Also, it has to do with belief, and that is something that's coming from the inside. I think I would still find something to hold onto in a spiritual way when it would only be a world with science. Science is something universal in a way that we as humans need. Religion or belief can represent many different things for different people and I think that even in a world without it, there would still be some kind of a "force" or whatever you like to name it that we, as spiritual creatures would look for. Although it was my choice, it's still pretty hard to imagine a world like that. I imagine it to look like in the movie "Equals". Wow, this isn't as simple as I imagined.
We certainly can't live in a world without science but... I think that religion can bring discipline to our world. so I can't really choose one and leave the other.
I don't think so , it's the things that control and mange our life, and without it we will live in messy world .god bless you all my friends.
I would argue that we already live in a messy world and religion plays a large role in that mess.
A world without Scientology. ;)
Ken wrote: "I would argue that we already live in a messy world and religion plays a large role in that mess."Yes all the wars and problems really are linked to religions and those who follow them fighting over who has the best one. The world would be much better without religion.
We need science -especially medical research- On the contrary the world could keep on progressing without religion, no problem at all.
For me, a world without religion by far. I myself had an unusual upbringing being raised both Jewish and Catholic. Due to this, my religious beliefs were not reinforced leaving me in a weird quasi state. So many wars, so much blood has been spilled in the name of religion. Some people rely on God, cannot live in a world without his grace or guidance. It gives them a meaning to and of life and gives them solace that their fate is entwined in the hands of God. I am not one of these people, though I wish I was. I believe in me, myself, and I. A tried fact that I will believe in for the rest of my life.
A world without science, where would we be? Simpletons! No progress. Nothing. As human beings we are infinitely curious. What state would we be reduced to if we could not act out our basic urges, to explore, find, and discover? Science to me is amazing, a true and joyous wonder. It is faceted into every aspect of life. Think about all that science has done for us thus far and then think about what the world would look like without it.
What true repercussion would there be in a world without religion? A world without science would leave a gaping hole, a void in our knowledge. We would be doomed to walk this Earth with no forward progress. Perpetually trapped within our very own existence. What kind of life could we possibly be expected to lead? A world without religion on the other hand would have no real repercussion (at least to me).
Yes we might feel something missing where religion was placed but all in all is it possible the world might be safer? If you look up the term "religious war" on google a litany of items pop up. Click on one and see how far the extent of religion goes, how religious animosity drives much of the conflict. I'm not saying the world would be fine and dandy without religion, there will still be problems and other facts to war over. All i'm saying is that perhaps a world without religion might bridge the gap between cultures. This as a result might make the world just a little bit safer.
I'm only a junior in high school. I am not well versed in this field, and I am sure that many scholars can look at my argument and poke quite a few holes in it. This is my opinion. I respect every comment on this page regardless if we have the same stance or not. However, I would love to hear feedback from someone with the opposite viewpoint. This is a very interesting topic to debate over and a little more knowledge wouldn't do me any harm :)))
You are exceptionally wise and articulate for your age, Doriana. Beautiful post.
Doriana wrote: "For me, a world without religion by far. I myself had an unusual upbringing being raised both Jewish and Catholic. Due to this, my religious beliefs were not reinforced leaving me in a weird quasi ..."To have a world without religion would mean removing the impulse to form religions in the first place. That, in my opinion would be removing the self-reflecting impulse, the self-improving impulse and the community or social order impulse. If we are left with just science, we can only progress if experiments show the world to be true. Anything that can't be proven will have to be left by the wayside. Faith would not be a component of science so facts are either proved or disproved before they can be acted on.
Michael wrote: "You are exceptionally wise and articulate for your age, Doriana. Beautiful post."Thank you very much Michael! Your message made my day, especially coming from an esteemed author such as yourself. I usually never get involved in message boards/discussions but this topic was too interesting to pass up!!
Saidah wrote: "Doriana wrote: "For me, a world without religion by far. I myself had an unusual upbringing being raised both Jewish and Catholic. Due to this, my religious beliefs were not reinforced leaving me i..."I have never thought of it that way, and find your interpretation very interesting. I for one never thought of self reflection as a direct correlation with God and religion, but I understand what you are saying. In the "self- improving impulse and the community and or social order impulse" segment of your comment are you referring to the way the world is structured? By saying this I mean do you believe the world will result to chaos with no religion? I can't speak first hand since I am not deeply religious but for a few of my friends they make their decision with God in mind.
It's kind of like the camera theory. If there is a camera in the room, would you be more likely to behave or misbehave? The odds point to behave, because you know you are being watched. Now lets relate this to religion. If you consciously make decisions based on whether you're going to heaven or hell, chances are you're a good, law abiding samaritan. Take away God from this equation, take away heaven and hell, would you be more or less likely to behave? This I can't answer for sure, but I am leaning towards less likely. Nevertheless it is a very interesting scenario to ponder over. Yes, there are laws and regulations in place to check disorder, and yes not all religions believe in heaven and hell, but still something would have to change!
I still firmly believe in my original comment, I just enjoy playing devils advocate :)) (again, what a great topic!!)
A world without religion. Putting aside my bias, religion has undeniably caused a lot of conflict throughout modern day societies as well as early ages (ISIS, Holocaust, the Crusades, etc.). Although I understand that religion is comforting for many, it is also a very opinionated thing that, of course, will lead to arguments.Meanwhile, science is study steeped in fact. Though there can be controversies, for the most part, science abstains from incorporating personal ideologies and is neutral as a whole. Science is universal, whereas religion is segregated.
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)
Climate change is not actually caused by science and that difference is all the difference. In fact, none of the things in your list are caused by science.
It's not complicated. There is a massive difference between saying that the goal of expanding knowledge and the means to learn things about the world (which is all science is) is responsible for every bad thing that happens after it and the actual active participation in encouraging people to die and kill for religious reasons. The two aren't really similar.
I mean, are we really supposed to blame serial killings on science because the killer used a car to pick someone up to kill? What about how priests molesting children often used rooms with electric lights installed? Doesn't that really just make it another crime by science? They wouldn't have been able to see to molest children if they didn't have electric lights, after all.
The key difference, and really the only one that matters in this context, is that one actively goes out of it's way to encourage murder and destruction in it's own name and one encourages nothing except further knowledge. I'm not disputing that sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but let's not pretend the two are the same thing just so we can feel politically correct.
Encouraging people to learn things and build things and invent things and discover things is just not even a little bit in the same league as directly encouraging people to kill or murder (or spending centuries actively participating in and working to protect child rapists from consequences, for that matter).
[note: I know that you, Will, are not anti-science. I just think that these false equivalencies show up every time this debate rears it's head and a lot of people actually believe the two are equivalent, so it's important to point out how they are not remotely the same thing at all.]