The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
"However - a lot of religious people do believe the world is an illusion and a lot of scientific people do believe that god is an illusion."May be true, but such a believe is not doctrinal of any religion I know, feel free to point me to the religion that actual has the believe the world is an illusion in it's core doctrines.
"-With claiming the worlds existence, the burden of proof lies with the scientific person making the claim, it's not the unbelievers job to provide evidence of the contrary."
You're the one making the claim, though. The reality of the world is evident to everyone, you're the one claiming that we shouldn't trust that perception; not an easy task considering you have nothing to go by.
Both are manmade, and they have never been, nor will they ever be, mutually exclusive. Science was borne of religion. Religion was the early "quest for knowledge." I'd be fine without institutionalized religion. I'd be fine without science. But I'd not be fine with a world without faith, which both require. However, I grieve for the population that thinks science can save a world that God created and that we destroyed.
Mackenzie wrote: "Science was borne of religion. Religion was the early 'quest for knowledge.'"I disagree with both of these statements.
Gavin wrote: ""However - a lot of religious people do believe the world is an illusion and a lot of scientific people do believe that god is an illusion."May be true, but such a believe is not doctrinal of any ..."
So, let me get this right. If you disagree with someone it is up to them to prove they are right and if someone disagrees with you it is up to them to prove you are wrong? You have placed yourself in a very privileged position - you never need to prove anything :)
This is a tactic that I would expect of a religious individual. Someone with a deep faith based on personal experience.
And you hide your faith behind an unacceptable argument - 'it is obvious/self-evident', or, 'everybody knows'. This is just another way of saying that you have no idea but do not want to admit failure.
If you can prove the existence of the world do so.
The world could be a:
dream
hallucination
simulation
Prove it is not.
That's right - it is impossible. Therefore you must become a sceptic.
Rick wrote: "Gavin wrote: ""However - a lot of religious people do believe the world is an illusion and a lot of scientific people do believe that god is an illusion."May be true, but such a believe is not doc..."
If you are arguing the position that you only know you exist b/c you can think and nothing else is definable, then I'm not going to argue that position since any argument made would be outside of your conscious by definition be flawed.
If your position is not that, then we can have a conversation and build from there.
Myself, personally, have induced through experience that I am unable to affect things from mere mental will alone and must physically interact with my surrounding to provide change that leads me to conclude there is something outside of my mind that is real. But that is just me.
But according to you 1) I am not human. 2) I don't exist.
Rick wrote: "The world could be a:dream
hallucination
simulation"
And that my friend is where you prove that what you really are trying to argument is not the question if our world exists, but the truth of our perception of the world we live in.
Religion is deeply embedded in a lot of people's culture. For some people, it is their culture. And although I'm nonreligious, I recognize that it is a way for people to deal with mortality and morality. Many people are easily dismissing this question by saying "It's so obvious: religion" I don't think it's that simple. Humanity can't really exist without either because both taking comfort in beliefs and being curious is in our nature and has brought us pretty far. But if I had to choose, religion it would be.
Gerd wrote: "Rick wrote: "The world could be a:dream
hallucination
simulation"
And that my friend is where you prove that what you really are trying to argument is not the question if our world exists, but t..."
please. if the world is a simulation/dream/hallucination then it does not exist. it is not real. that is not a question of perception. you argument applies to limited perception of the real world - not to limited perception of an unreal world.
i am awaiting proofs that this is the real world.
none will ever come.
Tee-hee, well if you rather belive in delusions then go on. :DHowever, science doesn't care for stupid questions like "is this world real?" - science cares about observable facts, like "all apples show the inclination to fall to to earth, as incidentally people do" and asks the question "why do they do this?" and from there goes to formulate a theory that covers the observed facts and either can be proven in experiment, or not, which then would require a new theory to explain why apples - and people - do what they do.
So if you wanted to propose the question "do we live in a simulation?" (which would still require a real world to be run in), then you have to come up with a theory that could prove it, anything else is making it just a useless philosophic discourse.
I do however give you this, science is build on a faith in the farthest sense as one could state that science believes that everything can be proven, given enough time for observation and collecting facts.
Simply put, compare the amount of wars started in the name of science in comparison to religion. Indeed it is easy to be moral without religion, I am an atheist and human rights activist for instance brought up in a born again christian home in which I never faced more immorality, since then.
Topic: Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?I have reread the thread and my count may be off, but not taking into count all "both/none/other" responses, I present the current count. I admit, I did not realize how one-sided it was.
Maybe I did not undersand a response or two, and maybe my count is off, but this is what I have determined it to be thus far from people that actually answered the question:
World w/out religion - (21) Linda, Anthony, RaptorSaur, Brooke, Gerd, Lauren, Lorna, Lesley, Selena, Lucia, MrEkitten, CD, Gavin, Venkat, Saum, Richard, Michael, Ambar, Indigo, Jay, Mel
World w/o science - (1) Esra
Faith (ha!) in humanity restored.P.S. You missed me.
A bit of both is fine. Too much of either is not.
Rick, I don't have to disprove whatever comes to your mind. If you're going to claim that this world is an illusion you need to provide evidence of your claim, otherwise there's no reason to take you seriously.As far as anyone can tell, we are actually experiencing the world, reality, and we can cross-reference with each other and we conclude is the same reality. This is what we actually know, everything else about simulations, illusions, etc, is just unfounded speculation.
As for the point I made about thinking, unless you're claiming that you don't think, then it also applies to you.
Jeske wrote: "A bit of both is fine. Too much of either is not."How can you have too much science?
Gavin wrote: "Rick, I don't have to disprove whatever comes to your mind. If you're going to claim that this world is an illusion you need to provide evidence of your claim, otherwise there's no reason to take y..."I have nothing to prove. I do not claim that the world is an illusion - simply that it can not be proven to not be an illusion. It cannot. Cross-referencing proves nothing. Thinking, despite Descartes, proves nothing. We cannot know that the world is real. We cannot know that we are real.
This is philosophy, not science. Science cannot deal with an untestable hypothesis. You are attempting to deal with it by denying it. How is that logical? It is a reasonable, although counter intuitive, statement that cannot be proven either way. The only rational approach is to accept the uncertainty. Be a sceptic.
Rick is a brain in a vat. The rest of us are real.This I believe.
Rick wrote: "Gavin wrote: "Rick, I don't have to disprove whatever comes to your mind. If you're going to claim that this world is an illusion you need to provide evidence of your claim, otherwise there's no re..."I'll try this once again but from a different angle. If you are going to try to convince me that nothing but *your* conscious exists, then I can prove you wrong b/c I have my own conscious/experience. I may not be able to prove it to you, but for all practical purposes I have disproved it from my end as I know I exist.
You would have to convince me that *my* own conscious is the only conscious and that nothing else exists, not even you. Which I know you don't believe. So trying to convince me of something that you, yourself don't believe, is futile.
Both ways we come to the same point. Your statement that we both cannot mutually exist, fails at one end (either the person doing the convincing isn't real or the person they are trying to convince isn't real).
Once you move from that and say that we both exist, then you have now moved on to perception of the world instead of the existance of it.
quick note before going to work:i am not a solipsist. i am a sceptic.
perhaps i exist and the world does also.
perhaps i exist and the world does not.
perhaps the world exists and i do not.
perhaps neither i nor the world exist.
unknowable.
Scott wrote: "Rick is a brain in a vat. The rest of us are real.This I believe."
:)
Rick wrote: "It is a reasonable, although counter intuitive, statement that cannot be proven either way."Reasonable how, if you can't give any evidence what so ever for it?
It may be amusing as a philosophic discourse, but beyond that, what use is it?
Scott wrote: "Jeske wrote: "A bit of both is fine. Too much of either is not."How can you have too much science?"
Too much of pure science (the quest for truths) is, in my opinion, when we will sacrifice anything to obtain knowledge, for examples the lives or freedom of fellow human beings (there are many mystries that could be solved through certain unethical experiments)
Gerd wrote: "Rick wrote: "It is a reasonable, although counter intuitive, statement that cannot be proven either way."Reasonable how, if you can't give any evidence what so ever for it?
It may be amusing as a..."
it is reasonable in relation to reason - not in relation to evidence.
as for utility ... such a fundamental scepticism teaches us many moral lessons e.g. humility, stoicism, respect for the opinions of others (after all, if the world is a dream who knows what crazy things might be true?), clarity, freedom. these things can improve your scientific life and/or your religious life.
it's all good :)
Rick wrote: "quick note before going to work:i am not a solipsist. i am a sceptic.
perhaps i exist and the world does also.
perhaps i exist and the world does not.
perhaps the world exists and i do not.
perh..."
How am I able to form thoughts and ideas and have experiences if I did not exist? How am I reading books if I did not exist? I reject your notion that I cannot know if I exist. Even if everything around me was not there, just the fact that I created it in my imagination means I exist (to create it).
I fail to see how I can start with "I do not exist" and get anywhere meaningful.
I am sorry, but I honestly do not see your viewpoint as being reasonable/logical in the slightest. I think we are too far apart on this subject for us to have any intelligent discourse. I will resort to lurking again. :)
MrEkitten wrote: "Rick wrote: "quick note before going to work:i am not a solipsist. i am a sceptic.
perhaps i exist and the world does also.
perhaps i exist and the world does not.
perhaps the world exists and i..."
in the modern computer game you will find characters powered by artificial intelligence. not very much, but enough to display a variety of simple behaviours.
imagine a computer game 1000 years from now. 1000000. 1000000000. that would be a pretty cool game. surely by then the game characters would be far more complex. to fill a planet with the likes of you and me would take about three lines of code.
we would believe we were real, that our world was real, that we had experiences in that world ...
does this lead anywhere meaningful?
i hope not. we have too much meaning in our lives. we are slaves to the meaning.
meaning is the opiate of the masses :)
Rick wrote: "as for utility ... such a fundamental scepticism teaches us many moral lessons e.g. humility, stoicism, respect for the opinions of others (after all, if the world is a dream who knows what crazy things might be true?), clarity, freedom. these things can improve your scientific life and/or your religious life.it's all good :)"
:D
Perhaps the touchdown certainty is not that "the world exists" but that "I am here", where "I" as a witness is unknown. Positing a world separated from our knowing of it may be an arbitary interpretation of an experience in which neither subject nor objects are fundamental. The swirling cloud of impressions, sensations, memories, expectations, can be interpreted as a self at the helm steering through a substantial reality; and it even kind of works. But the side-effects are pretty extreme: the self has to confirm every item that comes to its attention as having a place within the filing cabinet of previously identified "objects". As a result the new and mysterious just drops out of sight as a mystery, a mental misfiring, or some kind of extraneous illusion, and the tortoise-pace process continues. The impression of a "real" world continues with the self at the center, and it's left to SF to imagine a wharp speed engagement that might already be available here and now.
Michael wrote: "Perhaps the touchdown certainty is not that "the world exists" but that "I am here", where "I" as a witness is unknown. Positing a world separated from our knowing of it may be an arbitary interpr..."nice prose! i must read your book :)
Good Morning, Rick. Ah, my first possible Goodreads reader! It would be pretty exciting if you do read my books as a result of this social media market place. I might even start believing in a real world . . . Please let me know if you do make the leap from intention to action (if I may be permitted to invoke the second and fourth steps of the Noble Eightfold Path). . . . : < )
It's a hard question for me personally because I hold a great deal of respect for both religion and science. Instead of an answer, I have a counter-question: how would a world be without either? Even if both vanish temporarily, won't people just develop them again (and, though some people might disagree because they are non-religious, won't still God exist and therefore find a way back to his people?). And if you believe that religions are myths made by humans, won't humans just recreate more myths? What will stop science from progressing? Curiosity will still be a part of human nature and that is the basis of science. So again I ask, how could the world truly exist (for a substantial period of time) without either?
Religions are mostly EVIL. Dan Brown is on my Do Not Read Under Any Circumstances list!
Knowing the outside = Science.Knowing the inside = Religion.
Religion is also a science which helps us to observe ourselves.
I think one thing to take into account here is that religion is not the same as ethics. Most of the arguments in favor of religion are really arguments in favor of good behavior that can be assessed with ethics, not necessarily religion. You do not need a structured belief system nor do you need a supreme being to act in an ethical way or to love humanity. I am an atheist and have been for a long time and I have never killed nor robbed, nor tortured anyone; and I have never thought that I needed religion to regulate my behavior or to make me a "good" person. I think the best success humanity could achieve would be that people acted the way they should (according to ethical standards) without having to fear an afterlife full of suffering and without attempting to obtain an afterlife full of prizes but just because they wanted to.
There's no such thing as a world without science. Science isn't a tangible thing, it's just observation of the natural phenomena in our universe. Any world has rules, science is just the name we give for our study of it.
Most definitely religion. I agree that morals, ethics etc. are a part of natural evolution and shouldn't be enforced by religion. To live without science is to live in the dark ages forever.
A world without religion.Kindness and empathy is all the religion any world could ever need.
We tried the living without science bit for a long, long time. We survived, but it wasn't a lot of fun for a lot of people.
Most common misconceptions:1. All religious people are inherently good, moral and ethical. Bull shit. There are people, right this minute, bombing each other to bits because of their religion (and also political issues, derived from their religion). They are not the first and won't be the last example of "religious" wars. Every religious system has corrupt and despicable criminals on their "flock".
1.b Which religion are you talking about? Do you really think that each religion out there shares the same morality standards as yours? Are you aware that some religions have approved of maiming, killing, raping and other things that, surely, you were not considering moral or ethical? Are you aware that your religion probably approves of things that other religions could consider immoral?
2. All religious people are stupid enough to believe in fairy tales, which they force upon their children. Bull shit. Jesus may be a fictional character to you, but if someone is happy believing that he existed and saved his/her soul, and especially if that moves him/her to be a better person, why diminish that? Your belief is not the ultimate, absolute truth. The truth is that we don't know and will never know if Jesus existed or not. A woman who willingly and proudly wears the hijab, does so because it is her truth and you are nobody to prove her wrong.
3. Science is a bunch of guys in white coats playing with dangerous vials to produce things like nuclear power or bio-weapons and stuff. Bull shit. A toddler exploring his/her toes is doing science. The doctor who will cure your disease is science. The guy who developed the computer you're typing on is science. The first person who ever watched someone eat poisonous berries and die, then told another to avoid them, was doing science.
4. People without religion are amoral and can easily "go to the dark side". Bull shit. After reading misconception 1, it's easy to infer that religion and morality don't necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, non religious people would even agree that, when they do a good deed, they do it because they are inherently good, not because they want to please a god or because they are scared of a divine punishment. While that is not necessarily so, to say that non religious people are naturally amoral is the most judgmental and narrow-minded concept ever imaginable.
Now... what is my choice? As I pointed out in misconception 3, it is not possible to choose. We do science every single day of our lives, without even noticing. Every time you smell that thing in your fridge and think it may be already foul, you're doing science. You would have to lobotomize the entire humanity, to prevent humans to observe what's around them. Religion, you can choose.
I choose to live without Dan Brown. He had really cool ideas, but he failed to make good books off them.
Sheila wrote: "This question is so complicated to me. Everyone tossing off "oh, yeah, religion should go, definitely".... I'm just not so sure. My first question would be, are we supposed to assume that religi..."
exactly what I thought! you put it so neatly.
Without religion. Even though I know that it can really help people cope with life, it creates a lot of problems and sparks wars at the same time.
God is a scientist.
If I had to choose, I would say religion. But I would prefer it if religion continued to develop alongside science and technology. It is a part of us and I think in time it will prove useful for many. Whether or not we like to admit it, there comes a time for many us when we question whether or not there is something, perhaps not God but a sentient force that helps build this world full of amazing patterns and structures throughout a universe of chaos. At one point or another we might question it because it is in our nature to do so.I think currently, people who devote themselves to God give religion too much credit and we see the same arguments again and again and again. Morality and compassion are often attributed to a higher form. Elephants are one the most compassionate of creatures and they have to form of worship. Compassion and morality come with being an intelligent life form. Religion has the potential to help quite a lot but only when science has pushed us along a little further, when people can simply admit that they cannot entrust all answers to a higher being. We have to shed the flaws that the majority of religion as a feature of humanity was born from. The desire for answers and a desperation for altruism.
People might say that religion has been the cause for a majority of wars but, evil acts would have occurred regardless of religion's existence. It has and will continue to. We are misusing science now just as we have religion. So, I do not agree that you can justify an intolerance of belief simply because an individual (or many) are abusing it.
Kimoya wrote: "God is a scientist."A mad one, apparently.
A world without religion. Not because I don't value religion (I do), but I feel like I can recreate my spiritual life without others. I need HELP with science, lol.
I would rather have a world without religion because I've found religion bastardizes faith and personal relationships with one's god. Lack of religion doesn't mean lack of faith or lack of a relationship with the living God. If anything, it would probably result in stronger bonds with Him. However, a world without science would be a world without progress, rampant disease, no technology, backward thinking and a quality of life in the Dark Ages.
This is an interesting question, but I am glad we are in a world with both science and religion. Religion comes from the word "religio," which means "to bind together." Science gives us knowledge, but religion offers us wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.
Thank you for this comment. This is actually a very cogent response.
Robert wrote: "I would rather have a world without religion because I've found religion bastardizes faith and personal relationships with one's god. Lack of religion doesn't mean lack of faith or lack of a relati..."I like this!
Religion (fiction) or science (non-fiction). I'll stick with non-fiction.
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)
"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..."
I was trying to convey a mountain with two brush strokes.
However - a lot of religious people do believe the world is an illusion and a lot of scientific people do believe that god is an illusion. There is no fault here.
Your next point is interesting:
'-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.'
With a little retyping this becomes my reply to your first point (the one about self evident truth):
-With claiming the worlds existence, the burden of proof lies with the scientific person making the claim, it's not the unbelievers job to provide evidence of the contrary.
So true, so very, very true.