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

[Sandra]

Would you rather live in a world without air…or a world without water?

[CD]

Sandra wrote: "Would you rather live in a world without air…or a world without water?"

I have to be a smart*** here and say that I'd rather have water. After all, I can make air out of water fairly simply with the typical components of not 100% pure H2O. The other isn't as easy and there may not be quite the right components.

[Michael]

Not quite correct, CD. Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide. Your comment was more *** than smart.

On the other hand, Sandra's analogy doesn't hold up. Plenty of people have lived without science or religion, but you cannot survive without air and water.

[Laura]

Michael wrote: "Plenty of people have lived without science or religion"

Mistake. Nobody lives without science, unless you think science is guys in labcoats doing experiments. Science, in broad terms, is knowledge. You can't help learning things, since you learn to walk and communicate and further on.

[CD]

Michael wrote: "Not quite correct, CD. Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide. Your comment was more *** than smart.

On the other hand, Sandra's analogy doesn't hold up. Plent..."

I didn't say pure water you might note! If you want to throw down, you might want to be a bit more careful of what you assume some one is saying. Particularly when the originally comment was tongue-in-cheek and self deprecating to boot.

Argon isn't necessary. A mammal breathing oxygen moderated with a mixing gas (such as nitrogen) will generate CO2. Water vapor we've got from the original water. And there are undoubtedly dissolved compounds in the water (on a strange world such as we are speculating or postulating about) that can either generate nitrogen or replace it.

If you've ever done any scuba diving (serious, not just the Y type sport diving) you would be aware that nitrogen is replacable with other gases such as helium. Hmmmm, my portable fusion reactor generates He3 as a by product. That'll work!

So Michael do you want snarky or arrogant as a label for your comment or are you more *** than smart?:)

[Michael]

Sorry, CD & Sandra--I was in a nasty mood. (Although I still maintain that humans lived for many thousands of years before developing science, which involves knowledge derived from systematic observation and experimentation.)

And children, agnostics, and atheists get along fine without religion.

[Laura]

Michael wrote: "Sorry, CD & Sandra--I was in a nasty mood. (Although I still maintain that humans lived for many thousands of years before developing science, which involves knowledge derived from systematic obser..."

Knowledge derived from systematic observation and experimentation: sounds to me like learning to make fire, to develop a communication system, learning to avoid poisonous foods, breed animals, crops... Basic things that were developed thousands of years ago.

[Chris]

They actually go hand in hand. This is a tough question since both science and religion are a part of our everyday lives in some way or another.

[Neda]

i think i need both of them for my life. i dont scared losting my religion but i scare mankind lost their religions

[Abhinav]

From reading Dan's novels, I think that religion and science go hand in hand. Science also want to answer the same questions man ask and religion answers,but rather in the way according to earth's environment and man's understanding.And i think it's where the whole conflict lies.I think if there'll be no religion, there'll be no emotions.And if there'll be no science,we'll not be able to convey those emotions.

[Zaheer]

In my opinion people giving an absolute answer to this question are ignorant. Religion and science go hand in hand. There are some people however, who go to extremes. Some twist and turn parts of religious texts, while others take things out of context. On the other extreme you have people who claim science completely contradicts and disproves any religious belief (while this is not true).

The truth is, both religion and science describe things which we can clearly understand with the knowledge and means we have, and there are things that cannot be understood. The problem with some 'scientists' is that they take theories and state them as proven facts. On the other hand you have people who believe the world was created in literally 6 days and that humans are 7000 years old and were created as we are now.

Also if you truly analyse scientific findings, at one point you start wondering if there is a creater or designer of all this. If everything comes from chaos or chance, wouldn't you expect random stuff like planets with triangular or hexagonal orbits around stars, and inconsistent laws of nature, etc. But instead, everything is well ordered and the laws of nature are constant. Also if you look at evolution, the mathematical chances involved in the whole process suggest that evolution purely by chance is so unlikely that you would probably have to conclude that it is most likely not by chance that evolution took place.

So in conclusion I believe, religion leads to seeking wordly knowledge, aka science. On the other hand science leads to religion. Basically, one cannot exist without the other.

[Scott]

Zaheer wrote: "Also if you truly analyse scientific findings, at one point you start wondering if there is a creater or designer of all this."

No, you don't.

Also if you look at evolution, the mathematical chances involved in the whole process suggest that evolution purely by chance is so unlikely that you would probably have to conclude that it is most likely not by chance that evolution took place.

A total misunderstanding of how evolution works. It's not by chance.

On the other hand science leads to religion.

That explains all the religious scientists...

[Ken]

Scott wrote: "Zaheer wrote: "Also if you truly analyse scientific findings, at one point you start wondering if there is a creater or designer of all this."

No, you don't.

Also if you look at evolution, the m..."

Bravo Scott

[Zaheer]

:') Scott, this is what I mean by ignorance.... have you heard of expectation bias? Also, you say "no" as if this is a proven fact. As far as I know, a conclusion is preceded by some evidence. I can't see any.

On the subject of evolution, it is definitely based on chance. The chance that a specific mutation occurs at a specific location in a specific order, eventually leading to a beneficial change in fenotype.

[Scott]

Zaheer wrote: ":') Scott, this is what I mean by ignorance.... have you heard of expectation bias? Also, you say "no" as if this is a proven fact. As far as I know, a conclusion is preceded by some evidence. I ca..."

Mutations may be random; the persistence of one given mutation over another is not. That's natural selection.

[Zaheer]

Also, forgot the bit of scientists and can't edit my comment on the mobile version

I will just name two names, the rest is up to you. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Albert Einstein admitted explicitly that there must be a creator of the universe, since it has a beginning. ((That being said, he still did not believe in a personal God.))

[Scott]

Zaheer wrote: "Also, forgot the bit of scientists and can't edit my comment on the mobile version

I will just name two names, the rest is up to you. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Albert Einstein admitted ..."

That does not support your claim that study of science led to belief in a creator.

[Scott]

BTW, Einstein did not believe in god as any kind of entity or consciousness. The universe's physical laws were what he called "god."

[Michael]

Zaheer wrote: "If everything comes from chaos or chance, wouldn't you expect random stuff like planets with triangular or hexagonal orbits around stars, and inconsistent laws of nature, etc. But instead, everything is well ordered and the laws of nature are constant. Also if you look at evolution, the mathematical chances involved in the whole process suggest that evolution purely by chance is so unlikely that you would probably have to conclude that it is most likely not by chance that evolution took place.
"

Many prominent physicists posit that a huge number--or even infinite number--of parallel universes coexist. If this multiverse hypothesis is true, then it is no longer so surprising that our particular universe turned out to be well-ordered and hospitable to the building-blocks of life.

Other theories, such as the bubble-universe theory, alien design, and the idea that black holes produce universes, also answer your questions without introducing the need for a deity.

[Maria]

I have to agree with Zaheer in that it's hard to imagine life as we know it with all the things that are beautiful to look at, pleasurable to feel, taste, smell - as being by chance vs. a creator.

If everything was by chance, then in my mind I picture things as being black-and-white, cold, impersonal - reproduction like animals with no pleasure involved...just the picture I get in my mind.

Maybe the creator/deity or whatever, has turned away and forgotten his creation, letting us flounder around and screw things up on this earth - but I think possibly he or she had a vision in mind for humans, earth, animals, etc. and attempted to make it happen.

[Michael]

Perhaps believing we live in a world that lacks a Creator is just too frightening--like young children alone, with no parent to protect and guide them--so we need to believe in a benign Creator who looks after us, even though we appear to have little to support this notion of an involved and caring deity.

[Daniel]

...asked a guy typing on a computer science led to in a house science figured out how to build in a room air conditioned by science between phone calls science made possible under a light science provided using electricity provided by science after reading a book science made possible...

[Daniel]

Zaheer wrote: "Isaac Newton was a devout Christian."

He also practiced alchemy. Are you advocating that?

And Einstein was quite clear repeatedly that he did not believe in anything resembling a personal god.

[Michael]

Daniel wrote: "...asked a guy typing on a computer science led to in a house science figured out how to build in a room air conditioned by science between phone calls science made possible under a light science p..."

I don't understand your point, Daniel. I am not arguing against science, but speculating on why so many people need to believe in a personal deity.

[Scott]

Daniel wrote: "Scott wrote: "Isaac Newton was a devout Christian."

He also practiced alchemy. Are you advocating that?"

Why are you attributing this to me? Zaheer said it.

[Daniel]

Michael wrote: "Daniel wrote: "...asked a guy typing on a computer science led to in a house science figured out how to build in a room air conditioned by science between phone calls science made possible under a ..."

My point was directed at the original question of the thread, rather than at you. Sorry for the confusion.

The question that started the thread is like asking if you'd rather have water or marbles. Some people like marbles and that's fine as long as they don't use them to hurt someone else. Water is absolutely obviously clearly so much more important as to render the question silly.

[Daniel]

Scott wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Scott wrote: "Isaac Newton was a devout Christian."

He also practiced alchemy. Are you advocating that?"

Why are you attributing this to me? Zaheer said it."

I guess I pulled it from your response to him so it auto-inserted you as the quoted party. It wasn't intentional and I should have noticed it did that. I have edited the post to reflect as much.

[Zaheer]

Scott: "That does not support your claim that study of science led to belief in a creator."
It doesn't, but it was a response to your comment about the lack of religious scientists. Also, alchemy was sort of research. The hypothesis was that they could turn lead into gold. Turns out it can't be done. So I don't see what's wrong with Newton practising alchemy. ;)

Then coming to what Michael said. The multiverse theory isn't something I know much about, but from some quick research it seems like there is no consensus on this matter. The community is kind of divided. Science tells us to look for the most probable answers first before going for far fetched theories. Because that's what this theory really is. (these parallel universes are impossible to ever observe if they exist).

One last comment for now, since the origin of the universe is being discussed here:

"The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it."
Quran 21:104

I don't want to go into to much detail, so I'll try to be brief. When matter enters a black hole, it eventually gets compressed into a sheet which is spiralling downward.(See the comparison with rolling up sheets/scrolls?) It is believed that the first part of the verse refers to this phenomenon. The second part refers to the big crunch, followed by a big bang, starting a new universe.

Almost unbelievable that an illiterate man could have theorised this 1400 years ago, wouldn't you say? ^^

[Scott]

Zaheer wrote: "Scott: "That does not support your claim that study of science led to belief in a creator."
It doesn't, but it was a response to your comment about the lack of religious scientists."

You named one scientist from 300 years ago who had religion. That does not disprove a lack of religious scientists today. If any are "religious" at all, it is the sort of casual religion that most people claim to possess, where when asked they parrot back stuff they had ingrained into them as a child and about which they no longer think seriously.

You claimed that deep study of science causes one to think about a creator. Explain, then, the number of experienced and expert scientists who have no such thoughts.

[Denise]

Humans went approx. 100,000 years without science and didn't get very far. Science has been around for about 200 years (a little more depending on how science is defined) and, for better or worse, we've made it possible to have 7 billion people, long life expectancy, excellent medicines (for those that can get their hands on them), multiple trips off planet, etc. etc. etc.

Humans can do just fine without religion, not nearly as well without science.

[Zaheer]

I thought I'd name a famous scientist who is seen as a pioneer in his field rather than sum up relatively unknown people. There are plenty of lists out there of religious scientists, like on Wikipedia.

Also, the way you are stating it, you are already going into this with an expectation bias. You expect to find that almost all scientists are atheists. You are also devaluing outcomes
that are in conflict with what you expect (by saying their faith is fake). The truth is, you can't know that. You have to assume people are telling the truth. For all you know, religious people claim to be atheist to avoid drama, questions or just to fit in.

[Daniel]

Zaheer wrote: "You are also devaluing outcomes
that are in conflict with what you expect (by saying their faith is fake). The truth is, you can't know that. You have to assume people are telling the truth. For all you know, religious people claim to be atheist to avoid drama, questions or just to fit in. "

I can't tell if this is a level or if you don't realize you just made two directly opposing arguments. The first that you have to take people at their word if they say they are religious, and the second that you don't have to take their word if they say they are atheists. Why the double standard? Which do you believe and which were you being disingenuous about?

For what it's worth, surveys show that approximately 97% of scientists state unequivocally that they do not believe in a personal god of any sort. That does make it pretty hard to argue that studying science makes you into a believer in a personal god (the only kind abrahamic religions have).

[Daniel]

Zaheer wrote: "Almost unbelievable that an illiterate man could have theorised this 1400 years ago, wouldn't you say? ^^ "

Hard to say since the quote bears almost no resemblance to your comment on a black hole, aside from your choice to use the word "sheet".

I'm not sure you choosing to use a single word now that was also used in a book you are trying to prove is prophetic really supports your argument at all.

[Daniel]

Zaheer wrote: " Science tells us to look for the most probable answers first before going for far fetched theories. Because that's what this theory really is. (these parallel universes are impossible to ever observe if they exist)."

Please continue telling us how you are the expert in science and Stephen Hawking is not really practicing science since he's a leading proponent of the multiverse theory.

[Gerd]

Denise wrote: "Humans went approx. 100,000 years without science and didn't get very far. Science has been around for about 200 years (a little more depending on how science is defined) and, for better or worse, we've made it possible to have 7 billion people, long life expectancy, excellent medicines (for those that can get their hands on them), multiple trips off planet, etc. etc. etc.

Humans can do just fine without religion, not nearly as well without science."

Actually, your list makes me wonder about the "not nearly as well without science" part, looks as if science made it only easier for us to kill, maim and do generally nasty things towards each other over a longer lifespan. :)


Daniel wrote: "For what it's worth, surveys show that approximately 97% of scientists state unequivocally that they do not believe in a personal god of any sort. That does make it pretty hard to argue that studying science makes you into a believer in a personal god (the only kind abrahamic religions have)..."

Which is not the same as not being religious, I'd say. I don't think that you have to believe in a "personal God" for that. Aside from it being a bit pointless a question if a scientist does or doesn't have faith, naturally always only so long as his faith doesn't negatively influence his research, but that goes for all biases.


Zaheer wrote: "The multiverse theory isn't something I know much about, but from some quick research it seems like there is no consensus on this matter. The community is kind of divided. Science tells us to look for the most probable answers first before going for far fetched theories. Because that's what this theory really is. (these parallel universes are impossible to ever observe if they exist)"

Did you just try to debase a theory by calling it "too far fetched" while holding strong to "religion" as a valid theory that can't (or would I have to say - according to your beliefs - "because it can't") be scientifically disproven (which, btw. for most parts it can).
I mean, if we look for the most probable answers - then a "God" will never figure in by definition.

[Scott]

Zaheer wrote: "For all you know, religious people claim to be atheist to avoid drama, questions or just to fit in."

It may be different where you are but over here it is admitting one's atheism, or even a skepticism, that causes drama. People are far more likely to say they believe in "god" just to get people like you to leave them alone. Fortunately that tide is beginning to turn, but we've still got a long way to go.

[Stephen]

Personally, I'm a bit of a born-again agnostic and I feel that if either science or religion were missing, we'd just invent them. ... Or have we already?

Both CAN be forces for good in the world, but both camps have zealots that tend to screw things up for everyone.

[Maria]

Daniel wrote: "...asked a guy typing on a computer science led to in a house science figured out how to build in a room air conditioned by science between phone calls science made possible under a light science p..."

Is it just me or does this comment not make sense?

[Maria]

Stephen wrote: "Personally, I'm a bit of a born-again agnostic and I feel that if either science or religion were missing, we'd just invent them. ... Or have we already?

We would definitely invent them - as you say, we already did! It's human nature to want to worship something outside themselves, to give thanks when they have good times and beg for help when they have bad times.

When the bad times have passed, or they have begun to deal with the situation they are in - they praise their deity for helping them. When really, it came from inside them all along.

[Joyce]

Religion is belief in someone else's experience, Spirituality is having your own experience." Deepak Chopra

That is my favorite quote I have read lately. I pick religion to live without for all the reasons everyone has mentioned. And think of a world with none of the religious wars! All the good part of religions are the spiritual parts in my opinion and you don't have to have the religion for that. Science can be linked to Spirit at it's best regardless of the scientist religion or lack of one!

[MrEkitten]

Scott wrote: It may be different where you are but over here it is admitting one's atheism, o..."

Your statement hits very close to home. I, unfortunately, was one of those people for many years. In order to avoid the 'stigmata' of the label 'atheist', I would always say 'no religious preference' or 'non-demoninational'. I didn't want to offend anyone, and it seemed they always were when they found out they were in the presence of an 'atheist'. ((insert mock shock/horror face here))

It wasn't until many years later that I became secure enough in myself to no longer hide it. I no longer feel guilty if they (anyone) have a problem with it, because I have come to realize, it is that: "their" problem.

[Zaheer]

MrEkitten wrote:
Your statement hits very close to home. I, unfortunately, was one of those people for many years...."

Yes, you always have those people (from both sides I must add, who are easy to judge others. Everyone should be free to believe whatever they want to believe. Unfortunately, there are a lot of narrow minded people out there. They just live in a world of their own and are not open to anything that doesn't fit in their belief system, sometimes not even willing to acknowledge the possibility.

For example, I try to be open minded whenever I can. I am religious and believe in God. I acknowledge that there is a possibility that he doesn't exist, but I have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that he doesn't exist. I have noticed however, that some people (mainly atheists, not being judgmental here but just an observation) are not even willing to admit that God might exist.

Anyways, in my opinion there is no harm in discussing religious matters like in parts of this thread, but when you start judging others for what they believe, that's where you cross the line.

[Rose]

It's not possible to live without science. It exists whether we see it, believe it, or not.
Religion only exists if we believe.

[Jo]

A world without religion would be nice. Think of all the medical breakthroughs we'd have!

[V.P.]

I have to have science !

[Beverly]

Without religion which does nothing but cause wars.

[Jo]

I think women would be safer.

[Tareq]

In all Dan Brown books he points to this issue, science and religion, But why are we separating between them, it's not like science is against religion or the opposite, they both complete each other. Having some religious people who represent any religion fighting science doesn't mean that this religion is against science, that's a stupid, foolish act of a group of people who aren't even religious because 'again' religion isn't against science and this will be proven in the future. The unreal battle that was made by stupid people won't last forever because it's based on nothing. A world without religion is a world with no rules or morals or dignity and a world without science is also a place with no rules no culture and no history...

[MrEkitten]

Zaheer wrote: "Yes, you always have those people (from both sides I must add, who are easy ..."

You are right. That is also a plus, of my coming out; I found out that there are some awesome people who don't share my view.

Tareq wrote: " A world without religion is a world with no rules or morals or dignity and a world without science is also a place with no rules no culture and no history..."

I would disagree with this 100%

[Gerd]

Jo wrote: "I think women would be safer."

Actually, no, I don't think so.
After all Religious crimes are only a direct reflection of human nature - all Religion does is provide these people with a excuse they can use to justify their personal hatred against women (i.e. it's God's law that women shall not... be educated, have sexual freedom, have a right of choice whom they marry and so on, and so on, ad nauseam...)


Tareq wrote: "A world without religion is a world with no rules or morals or dignity..."

What about the many rules religions impose upon us that are immoral by and in themself?
Obviously the world with religion is no more moral, nor does it give us anymore dignity - and for the rules, see above. :/