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

[Venkatasubramanian]

I'll go with MrEkitten.. as per my morality, i assumed that the chicken came first as no egg wud hatch until a hen warms it up..:P

[Gavin]

Actually the egg came first. There were eggs before there chickens.

[Venkatasubramanian]

Then who laid the Chicken's egg my friend.?
The spiritual science explains it the evolution relating to the karma concept..!

[C.I.]

we DID live in a world without science. it was called the dark ages for a reason.

[Gavin]

Venkatasubramanian wrote: "Then who laid the Chicken's egg my friend.?
The spiritual science explains it the evolution relating to the karma concept..!"
Dinosaurs laid eggs! http://images.nationalgeographic.com/...

[Gerd]

Sam wrote: "So this higher evolved morality is not religion?"

Given that morality is a concept that stands indivdiual from religion: Yes.


Sheila wrote: "When, and in what part of the world, has morality developed, but not religion or spirituality?"

The fact that societies develop both, does not mean that they are in some way dependent on each other. Therefore, getting rid of religion would not automatically translate to getting rid of morality.

[Saumya]

Linda wrote: "Without religion, every time."

same here

[Saidah]

It seems that specific individuals can live without religion but can a society live without religion?

[Sheila]

MrEkitten wrote: "Sheila wrote: "When, and in what part of the world, has morality de..."

Jokingly, in the world created by the question of this whole thread. Didn't you read the question?

Ahhh. The source of our disconnect. I perceived the question as "would you rather live in a (our) world without religion, or a (our) world without science" (from here-and-now and into the future).

I think you're thinking of a world that could be, in which religion never existed in the first place.

So I'm really not trying to sidestep the question. I guess it's just kind of beyond the parameters of my imagination. I can't think of it coherently without taking human history into account, and that history and development has been undeniably shaped by religion and spirituality.

Your animal example is a great one, though. It really is.

I think what you're saying is that animals are able to act past their own instinct for self-preservation to occasionally do things that we would perceive as incredibly heroic or unselfish (definite moral traits) without any thought of a larger plan, entity, or belief system.

And I can't argue that. I've read enough "dog saves drowning boy" stories. They can be amazing.

So, I guess the possibility does exist that humans, as another type of animal, could've developed some kind of moral "impulse", without linking it to a thought process that includes any consideration of a "larger being"...

(I'll take my concession back, though, if it's ever discovered that dogs really see us as gods.) :D

[Esra]

of course Without science!!! a world without religion is an animals world..impossible to be moral without religion!!nor can there be a decent human!! people could kill,lie ..etc and do anything they wanted because there would be nothing to say that it's wrong!!!religion is what makes us civilized !!!

[Michael]

I'm reading a book, "The Telling", by Ursula LeGuin in which the choice is between a world under the thumb of religious orthodoxy (Planet Earth of the future) and a far away planet colonized by terrestrials and in which religion is utterly banned. Unfortunately, another ruthless orthodoxy, a global corporate entity, has banned all art, older languages, and local traditions that aren't mandated by the corporate masters. A little uncomfortably close to the forces that are fighting over the remains of western culture? As for the orginal question in this blog discussion, I would fear a form of "Science" placed on a pedestal and exalted above any form of reverence for the unknown realms that reside beyond our capacity to apprehend them with the limited tools of science. After all, the methodology of science systematically excludes anything that cannot be identified in the stream of linear time. That includes ourselves as witnesses and as caring beings.

[Garth]

They're inseparable. Both attempt to explain and interpret our world to us. One from a moral and spiritual perspective and the other from an analytical one. Science without philosophy leads to anarchy. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should. For example look at the debate over genetic manipulation. Genetically modified plants are a product of science, the debate over Frankenfoods is a theological, moral discussion. Science has made it possible to maintain body function in a brain-dead individual; the decision to pull the plug is a theological one. Our theological perspective informs our cultural norms and ultimately our laws. Science has developed means of euthanasia, the taking of life is a theological issue.

[Lynn]

Hello,
Small pox and the Inquisition or...not.

[Saidah]

Garth wrote: "They're inseparable. Both attempt to explain and interpret our world to us. One from a moral and spiritual perspective and the other from an analytical one. Science without philosophy leads to anar..."

I like this answer. It is true that organized religion was built on theological and philosophical issues. A world without religion would leave us bereft of any organization that attempts to curb our darker sides. Individuals may curb their own immoral acts but just like in politics, with no overarching morality, there would be chaos.

[Scott]

Religion and philosophy are completely different things.

[Saidah]

yes but there are no philosophy groups with a wide influence that can encourage us to think beyond ourselves, are there?

[Scott]

Not sure what point you are making.

[Saidah]

The original question. I'm making the point that in a world without religion, there may be no organised group that encourages moral actions.

[~*~Princess Nya Vasiliev~*~]

Neither.. because religion & science in many respects are connected. You can't really have one without the other.

[Scott]

~*~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 without science for a long time. And science, which is merely the critical observation of the world around us, has nothing to do with religion.

[Michael]

It's as if thought--needing a body of knowledge in order to organize itself and ground itself through empirical evidence and logical deduction--has developed science. While feelings--needing a champion to establish morality, commpassion and connection with others--has established religion. There is such a spectrum of embodiments for these hand-maidens of thought and feeling. Organized religion, which so easily becomes dogmatic and an excuse for demeaning the value of present life--most terribly, the sponsor of torture (the Inquisition) and ignorance (the church's persecution of Kepler)--has provided a home for the desert fathers and all the other rich mystical tradions. While unbridled science has led to the narrow technological knowledge that is at present endangering our world with its mad acceleration of a kind of production that serves our most selfish impulses. Witnessing how technology without restaint and religion without compassion threatens our world, how can we find a balance? A balance in which individuals follow their own quiet journeys and in which we care at least as much for our planet and all the beings who walk, fly and swim upon her, as we care about ourselves?

[Scott]

Michael wrote: "While unbridled science has led to the narrow technological knowledge that is at present endangering our world with its mad acceleration of a kind of production that serves our most selfish impulses. Witnessing how technology without restaint and religion without compassion threatens our world, how can we find a balance?"

Science is actually offering us solutions to the endangerment you mention, but it is the religious contingent that is denying us those solutions.

[Gavin]

I think many people are confusing morality and spirituality with religion; they're not the same thing. Both of those things (morality and spirituality) have arisen and will arise without religion. Neither is science this heartless mad scientist that doesn't know or care what's good for anyone. There wouldn't be medicine is that was the case.

[~*~Princess Nya Vasiliev~*~]

Garth wrote: "They're inseparable. Both attempt to explain and interpret our world to us. One from a moral and spiritual perspective and the other from an analytical one. Science without philosophy leads to anar..."

Exactly

[Scott]

Gavin wrote: "Gavin I think many people are confusing morality and spirituality with religion; they're not the same thing. Both of those things (morality and spirituality) have arisen and will arise without religion. Neither is science this heartless mad scientist that doesn't know or care what's good for anyone. There wouldn't be medicine if that was the case."

Nor conservation, either. That's still science.

[Scott]

Garth wrote: "They're inseparable. Both attempt to explain and interpret our world to us."

Religion attempts to "explain" things by making things up--and then demanding that we hold to those ideas regardless of what new information arises.

It's the opposite of science.

[Richard]

No religion = no religious war, no persecution or exploitation of groups in the name of god, no institutional abuse, no catholic guilt, no mysoginistic church structure

No science = no medical breakthroughs, no aeroplanes, cars, computers etc and without religion likely less weapons too

So I'd say no religion

[Michael]

I agree with everyone who has come down in favor of science. I just think that it doesn't happen automatically that human beings learn to pay attention and develop the spirtual side of our being. Since religion cannot be trusted to play this role in human affairs, how do we avoid getting lost in the trivial and meaningless? Science has nothing to say about the heart of the scientist. Must we leave it to chance that this heart will be awakened?

[Scott]

Michael wrote: "I agree with everyone who has come down in favor of science. I just think that it doesn't happen automatically that human beings learn to pay attention and develop the spirtual side of our being. ..."

I think it's preferable than bringing something artificial into it. Expose kids to culture, to nature, teach them to empathize, and it will develop.

[Michael]

A disclaimer: I discovered Buddhist philosphy as a grown man and found a deeper understanding of myself there than I had learned through "culture, nature or the kindness of family". I carry with me both gratitude and a sense that I would not have stumbled on such riches wandering around in a world centered around the understandings of science. I feel that we don't have to learn everything over each generation and that not only science accumulates knowledge over the gererations, but also ancient wisdom about what it means to be a human being is preserved in literature and ancient spiritual texts. Our over-excited culture could not find this wisdom on its own. . . . . but please excuse me for dragging the discussion so far away from the original question which was probably aimed at issues of world creation in fiction . . .

[Scott]

I like Buddhism. I know there is some debate about whether it is a "religion," but to me it seems very different from the other "great" ones. At least, it does not call for worship or dependence on an outside force, but is more about finding qualities within. I would not mind a world with Buddhism.

[Firdani]

I can't even think that I could live without religion and science. I prever do not need live without either..

[Marius]

I would rather live in a world without either.. or.. questions.

[Deepak]

Religion and Science are twin sisters who can't live without the other. I'm afraid if even their destinies are the same.

[Anthony]

one is a fairy tale and the other is an organized quest for knowledge, how are they twins or two parts of the same thing?

[Ambar]

In today's post-theistic age, definitely world without religion. I'd prefer it to a world with religion.

500-1000 years ago would be a different case though...
Although if the choice is science or religion, science every time.

[Gerd]

Scott wrote: " I would not mind a world with Buddhism..."

I may confuse things here, but isn't Buddhism the one that teaches that that you have to live a proper life to reach enlightenment or at least to be reborn on a higher level, but says that if you are a woman you can't by default be reborn as anything higher than an ape?
Seriously, that's not a believe system I could say I would like to see grow in the world...

[Michael]

I've never encountered anything that would suggest women and men are unequal to one anther in Buddhism. We're all free to dance through the eons according to how we have lived this time. Including all those wise and kind members of our fellow species.

[Ambar]

Gerd wrote: "Scott wrote: " I would not mind a world with Buddhism..."

I may confuse things here, but isn't Buddhism the one that teaches that that you have to live a proper life to reach enlightenment or at l..."

Not really no. Buddhism is not really a religion to begin with. The basic tenet of Buddhism is the development of skill.

The idea is to develop skill in what is one's "own good". This may differ from person to person, but Buddhism generally recognizes that one's own good is found in Buddha's eightfold path (which is essentially nihilism, the giving up of "cravings")

[Indigo.plume]

I'd rather live without religion than without science. Science is the collection of knowledge based on observations and experiments of many, many intelligent people. Science requires creativity and cooperation, and it has the power to help us better understand the world we live in. Without science, the world would be doomed.

On the other hand, religion is just organized spirituality in which people are indoctrinated to believe in things we can never see. A person can be spiritual and believe in God/The Universe/The Great Spirit without needing the rigid structure of religion to be secure in those beliefs. I believe that religious rules only serve to limit our experience with the spiritual. How can we, with our three dimensional brains, seek to even understand, let alone define, the multidimensional force/being that created the entire universe?

[Jay]

Definitely a world without religion. It pains me terribly that the majority of people still cling to millenia old superstitions and lie to their own children just as way to reify their own shaky beliefs in such nonsense.

It also worries me when the parties of God actively try to subvert open inquiry into philosophy and science and when they try to apply their backward moral codes to developing society. I see religion as nothing but an impediment to human development. As the late Christopher Hitchens said, religion is part of humanity's "intellectual history." In the infancy of civilization, literature, philosophy, cosmology and even healthcare were spawned from religions. But it's time to grow up, we no longer need religions to interfere with civilization's development.

I'm not saying that it's backward and barbaric to believe in the edicts and precepts of any particular religion, I'm merely saying that I disapprove of religious people imposing their values on the rest of us. If humanity has any hope of saving itself, it will be through science and education in science. Intellectual honesty through science is the path forward as I see it, not by clinging to outmoded ways of life.

[Rick]

I am not pro-religion. Religion has its faults. It also has its virtues. Reason would suggest that we embrace the virtues and learn from them. And that we recognise the faults and avoid them. It seems to me that a number of the pro-science camp have the same faults as the worst of the religious folk. We are all human. We all have the same virtues and the same flaws. If you recognise a fault in the religious approach, intolerance, for example, how can you believe it becomes a virtue when you practice it?

AND

The scientific folk are exercising a belief system every bit as irrational as any snake-hugger. I have two words for you: 'epistemological scepticism'. Look it up. If you are of the grosser science type it will scare the hell out of you :)

[Gavin]

"The scientific folk are exercising a belief system every bit as irrational as any snake-hugger."

Do explain how, please.
Someone of the "grosser science type" would ask this epistemological skeptics for some evidence of their claim, which they have none, so there's really no reason to be scared.

[Rick]

Gavin wrote: ""The scientific folk are exercising a belief system every bit as irrational as any snake-hugger."

Do explain how, please.
Someone of the "grosser science type" would ask this epistemological skep..."

You cannot prove that the world exists. That simple. It follows that all science is based upon an act of faith.
The religious individual believes that god is real and the world is an illusion. The scientific individual believes that the world is real and god is an illusion. Either could be right but neither can provide proof.
Both, therefore, rely upon faith.

'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.'
Richard Dawkins

Nineteenth century materialism is dead. The hat is floating in the water. The corpse is bobbing in the reed beds.
It's gone.

[Gerd]

Rick wrote: "You cannot prove that the world exists. That simple. It follows that all science is based upon an act of faith."

Where exactly do you make the jump from the purely philosophical sentiment that "you can not prove that world exists" towards saying that looking for cause and effect is based on an act of faith?
Because you _can_ prove cause and effect, other than any "it's God's doing" rubbish...

[Rick]

Gerd wrote: "Rick wrote: "You cannot prove that the world exists. That simple. It follows that all science is based upon an act of faith."

Where exactly do you make the jump from the purely philosophical senti..."

If the world may not exist then belief in the existence of the world is an act of faith. To believe in the attributes of the world is to believe in the world. Science is predicated upon the existence of the world and its attributes. It is a faith system.
You write as if you only had the two options: fundamentalist science or fundamentalist religion. There are many more options. This is not a binary system. Between black and white there are millions of colours.

[Gerd]

Rick wrote: "If the world may not exist then belief in the existence of the world is an act of faith."

Obviously the world does exist, thus the question if becomes purely academical. :)

Secondly, Science is not a blind believe system like Religion.

Thirdly, me seems who ever came up with the notion that we can't "prove the existence of the world" confuses this with the problem of perception of the world - we can't ever prove the "true nature" of our world, we can only perceive it, and interact with it through the filter of our brain.
Therefore the world is, for all practical purposes, as we see it.

Or we are talking absolut nihilism, nothing exists, which Descartes would like to disagree with?

[Indigo.plume]

Gerd wrote: "Rick wrote: "If the world may not exist then belief in the existence of the world is an act of faith."

Obviously the world does exist, thus the question if becomes purely academical. :)

Secondly,..."

Great comment! I've been following your exchange with Rick and agreeing with you. Thanks for making so much sense.

[Gavin]

Rick. I'll quote like this because GR's quoting sucks.
"You cannot prove that the world exists. That simple. It follows that all science is based upon an act of faith."

I take the existence of the world, reality, to be self-evident, so if you ask me to prove the world exists, I would tell you to looks around you. The famous phrase cogito ergo sum comes to mind.
The thing with the world existing is that denying it is contradictory as the world has to exist for you to even make any sort of argument in the first place. Or at the very least there's a lot more reason to believe the world exists than it doesn't. So the faith lies in your position ("you can't prove the world exists [so it may not exist]"), completely lacking evidence than in mine that has the entire history of science as evidence of the world's existence.

"The religious individual believes that god is real and the world is an illusion. The scientific individual believes that the world is real and god is an illusion. Either could be right but neither can provide proof."
Both, therefore, rely upon faith."
A lot of things are wrong with this statement:
-Religious people don't believe the world is an illusion, at least none I've met...
-Scientists don't aren't necessarily atheists/agnostics.
-With claiming god's existence, the burden of proof lies with the religious person making the claim, it's not the unbelievers job to provide evidence of the contrary.

"'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.'
Richard Dawkins"
A good quote. Relevant to your first point about my supposed inability to prove the world exists.

"Nineteenth century materialism is dead. The hat is floating in the water. The corpse is bobbing in the reed beds.
It's gone."
I'm not a materialist, much less a nineteenth century one, so this point is kinda out there...

[Rick]

Gerd wrote: "Rick wrote: "If the world may not exist then belief in the existence of the world is an act of faith."

Obviously the world does exist, thus the question if becomes purely academical. :)

Secondly,..."

A religious person would say that it is obvious that god exists. But they understand faith or at least acknowledge it. You have no such luxury. You have denied the role of faith in the scientific world view. Therefore you have to prove that the world exists! I wish you luck.
Greater minds than ours have tried for centuries to do so. And failed.
You might fight it, but scepticism is the only logical conclusion. This is not to deny that the world exists. Merely to realise that it might not. There is still science to be done. Perhaps with a greater humility than it is often done at present.
As for your second point ... religion is not without its faults.
I was raised as a Christian but left the church as a teenager. Did not love the bull. Religion becomes an end in itself for many people. I felt like Mithras.
My present take on it is this: We all have a sense of self. Get Jungian with it and call it Self - the essence of the human psyche. It is the model for god. And that is why religious people can get so out of hand. You criticise their god and you are striking at the unifying core of their minds. It is deeply personal. It is felt as an assault on their being. You make them even more determined to resist you and your evil scientific ways.
Unfortunately more and more people are projecting their Self not into religion but into science. Science then becomes a religion.
This is not good.
Personally I regard the mind as a garden. It can, like all gardens, be a paradise. A certain amount of planning, a lot of care, a bit of weeding - boom - paradise. Every mind is an Eden.