The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
@Laura - this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Science works by one scientist proposing a theory and then others testing it. It's known as the scientific method and it has been serving us pretty well for ... ooh, just about all the time that we have been civilized.Sometimes two or more scientists will disagree. Maybe it was an asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs or maybe the mammals ate all their eggs. Or whatever. But the fact that they disagree does not invalidate the scientific method. In fact, the disagreement is what we need to hone hypotheses into theories. Over time, this process weeds out all the poor arguments and promote the ones that have an evidential basis.
It's nice to be thought of as living proof of something, but more interesting that you've jumped to conclusions about how well informed I am. I don't agree with you and therefore I am misreading and misinterpreting, hmmm? And what evidence do you have?
Maria - yes, I do believe the American Government would lie to its people. Just about every Government does at some point or another. But I don't believe that they are lying about this. Because if they are lying to you, then the UK Government is lying to me. And the French Government is lying to its citizens, and the Germans and ... you get the picture?
Just because Government's lie about some things does not mean they are lying about this. It's that false logic again.
The clincher for me is the attitude of the oil industry and others who certainly don't want climate change to be true. They have done their own research, they have paid their own scientists - all the time trying desperately to dispute the fact that climate change is happening and or is partly man-made. If climate change was a scam, these are the people who would be shouting from the rooftops about it.
This would be the scientific method in action - finding a better explanation for the evidence, testing hypotheses, coming up with new theories.
And what is the oil industry saying about climate change? More or less what everyone else who is remotely credible is saying.
Oh, and the idea that Wikipedia is not a real source? Are we saying that a blog written by a climate denier is a real source? Or do we look at the real sources quoted in the Wikipedia article?
It's that false logic again - when you look at the sources that agree with you but ignore or discredit those that don't.
Scott said: "That sounds like when people say creationism is "another side of the story"."That's probably the most stupid interpretation of my comment that is possible to make, considering that I referred specifically to counter one scientific source with another scientific source, and also specified what I do not consider a valid source.
Will said: "It's known as the scientific method and it has been serving us pretty well for ... ooh, just about all the time that we have been civilized."
Yes, and I even before, as I very largely said in this same thread; I guess you missed that.
Will said: "But the fact that they disagree does not invalidate the scientific method."
Show me where I claim that disagreements invalidate the scientific method. Seriously, dude, for someone who defends science, you're not strong on reading. Let me help you: I spoke of disagreements as an example of the existence of different scientific opinions and how people can read both sides of an argument from valid scientific sources. I wrote that because you had already misunderstood me when I said it was important to be attentive and read other sides of a story, in the same way that Scott did.
Guys, being pro science (and as a scientist myself, you can't really be any more pro science than me) doesn't mean to swallow up all the kool-aid that open media feeds you as science, without questioning and finding other scientific sources to either confirm or not what you just saw/heard.
Maria said: " Unless you are one of the people doing the actual research, how can you be sure either way? It's got just as much chance of being true as your thoughts. Like I said, unless you were actually there first hand, which I doubt.
How do you know that whatever evidence, research you are reading from is authentic?"
You search as many sources as you can and read them all, then make your own conclusions. You will never know by choosing only one. Not only one source may be lying to you; they may be telling the truth, but that situation may not be applicable to yours. That's why it's so important to question.
Sheila said: "It seems that Science has become the new Religion. Unless you are an acolyte, you are pretty much just the faithful population taking the word of others who profess to know more than you."
In fact, whoever fails to question anything they see or hear in the media, treats pseudo-science like a religion.
Will wrote: "Oh, and the idea that Wikipedia is not a real source? Are we saying that a blog written by a climate denier is a real source? Or do we look at the real sources quoted in the Wikipedia article?"Looking at the sources cited in any article will tell you how serious they are. Wikipedia pieces are too variable; sometimes they do a good job and choose serious references, but sometimes their information is less than reliable.
If you see an article piece about any subject, stating "a study in Harvard showed..." but no serious reference is attached, then it's BS. This is how scientific references look like:
Bouzid M, Colón-González FJ, Lung T, Lake IR, Hunter PR. Climate change and the emergence of vector-borne diseases in Europe: case study of dengue fever. BMC Public Health. 2014 Aug 22;14(1):781. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-781.
Donna wrote: "My opinion, they go hand in hand in a strange way. I prefer not to live without either but keep both in my life."very nice
Laura wrote: "That's probably the most stupid interpretation of my comment that is possible to make, considering that I referred specifically to counter one scientific source with another scientific source, and also specified what I do not consider a valid source."There is no other scientific side of the climate issue. There is just the opposition making things up out of whole cloth--which makes it exactly like creationism.
Scott wrote: "There is no other scientific side of the climate issue. There is just the opposition making things up out of whole cloth--which makes it exactly like creationism."I'm talking about science in general. When I mentioned climate change, I was even more specific. Read my post again, or don't, whatever.
Laura wrote: "Read my post again, or don't, whatever."All your posts are saying the same thing. You are effectively saying that we shouldn't trust science because it isn't always right. And you have given some examples of times when scientific papers can be biased or misleading.
It's the same false logic when you dismiss a Wikipedia article because in parts it refers to unnamed sources. You conveniently forget to mention that the article has 146 source notes. And many of those link to other documents. There is a wealth of information out there.
It's the same false logic that conspiracy theorists use when they justify their wacky theories: "Governments sometimes lie, therefore they must be lying about this."
Or when you make assumptions about how well read I am on climate change because I don't agree with you.
You are missing the point.
The weight of evidence for climate change is overwhelming. And sure we might be able to nitpick here or there. A Wikipedia article doesn't give as many sources as we might like. "An inconvenient truth" had some mistakes in it. We don't yet fully understand why global temperatures have not been rising so much in recent years. There may be some slight institutional bias in which scientific papers get published.
Big deal. None of this makes the slightest difference to the overall conclusion. It's noise, irrelevant, inconsequential.
Read both sides of the climate change debate (I have) and it is absolutely clear which side of the argument is based on evidence and which side is based on hopeful thinking and nit-picking.
Will wrote: "You are effectively saying that we shouldn't trust science because it isn't always right."LOL no, that is not what I'm saying. How it is that you understand that is a mystery to me. I didn't refer to a specific Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia in general as a source, which is why I said "sometimes". I also keep saying that I'm not talking about climate change only, but everything you are told in open media about scientific topics.
I still don't understand how you can think I'm going against science or against the notion of climate change. If you knew how to properly read, you'd see I never claim that, quite the opposite. I merely say that people should read different sources (serious sources) of any given topic before making up their minds, because some can be biased, which is totally true.
I AM a scientist, you narrow-minded man with poor comprehensive reading skills. I would never say "do not trust science" and I never EVER said that. I say, do not trust what media tells you and may pass for science, because it may not be accurate. I say, search for other sources and then decide what you think.
I'm not missing any point and I'm not the one who said climate change is BS. And I happen to know way more than you about the scientific process that leads to information. If you like to drink the kool-aid and it makes you happy, carry on. Sometimes the kool-aid will hold the truth, but sometimes it won't. Hope you get lucky.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Albert Einstein
Laura wrote: "I AM a scientist"Sources, please.
Paraphrasing Brandon Sanderson:"Religion seeks to take natural events and ascribe supernatural causes to them. Science seeks to take supernatural events and find the natural meanings behind them."
I couldn't agree with that more, and it's this that puts religion and science in opposition to each other.
What a fascinating discussion, thanks to all for the thoughtful responses!I have to go with a world without religion, but definitely an entertaining, thought-provoking conundrum.
Scott wrote: "Laura wrote: "I AM a scientist"Sources, please."
LOL like what? You want my institute credential or something? :-D
"you narrow-minded man with poor comprehensive reading skills." Laura's got you there, Will. And Laura - you don't owe these people any credentials, sources, or anything else.
It's always fun when people get heated about their viewpoints.I'd like to know, do you feel most people defend science or religion more rationally, or emotionally?
Do you think science attempts to "educate" and religion does more to "control"?
Good questions, Derek! Religion has a lot to do with tradition, family, childhood - so definitely emotionally. People defend doctrine (like the Trinity or hellfire) that make absolutely no sense because of their emotional ties to the religion - no logic involved at all.Science is usually defended using data, very quantifiable information - so rationally.
And, yes, your statement makes sense about educate vs. control...
Maria wrote: "Good questions, Derek! Religion has a lot to do with tradition, family, childhood - so definitely emotionally. People defend doctrine (like the Trinity or hellfire) that make absolutely no sense ..."In theory, I agree with you. However, this thread is the best proof that both things (science and religion) can be defended emotionally and/or rationally, depending who argues and how much they actually know about what they defend or attack.
And of course I don't owe anyone my credentials. I was laughing at the idea. :-D
True, Laura - it does depend on the personality of the "defender" to an extent. Some people do everything emotionally and some people do everything rationally! I lean toward the emotional side....
Laura wrote: "And of course I don't owe anyone my credentials."If you're going to keep using "I'm a scientist" as a reason we should believe you, then you need to back it up; otherwise you're just talking out your arse. My guess is that you're about as much a scientist as Bill O'Reilly.
And now we've resorted to personal attacks.
I would rather not have to pick, I do not think it's possible to eradicate either, but if I HAD to choose it would be religion..
Scott wrote: "If you're going to keep using "I'm a scientist" as a reason we should believe you, then you need to back it up; otherwise you're just talking out your arse. My guess is that you're about as much a scientist as Bill O'Reilly."LOL I couldn't care less what you think of me. I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone in this thread. Do you really think that I'll go cry in a corner sucking my thumb because you don't believe me? You are truly hilarious. And I would be honestly embarrassed that someone like you defends my beloved science, if I weren't laughing so hard at your antics.
Scott wrote: "Laura wrote: "And of course I don't owe anyone my credentials."If you're going to keep using "I'm a scientist" as a reason we should believe you, then you need to back it up; otherwise you're jus..."
Oh, and I used "I'm a scientist" the second time (because I said it only twice) to back up why you should believe that I'm pro science and not against it. Even if it were a lie, the fact that I claim to be a scientist should be a proof that I am pro science.
Derek wrote: "And now we've resorted to personal attacks."Some people are very passionate about their opinions and may resort to personal attacks when they run out of rational arguments. It's an emotional response. The rest should just ignore it and carry on with the civilized discussion. :-)
Laura - so on that basis, I should ignore your personal attack on me on the grounds that you have run out of rational arguments?Okay, if that's what you want.
Maria wrote: ""you narrow-minded man with poor comprehensive reading skills." Laura's got you there, Will. Actually, I think she has just "got" herself. When people resort to insults instead of debate it generally says far more about them than the people they are insulting.
Will wrote: "Laura - so on that basis, I should ignore your personal attack on me on the grounds that you have run out of rational arguments?Okay, if that's what you want."
LMAO sure, why not? You were ignoring it anyway. And yes, when my rational arguments clashed against the impregnable wall of your closed mind, I resorted to describe you in what you interpreted as insulting. That's how it works, good that you got it!
So let's see if we've got this straight...Any source that you don't agree with is unsound.
Any scientific theory that you don't agree with is unreliable.
Any person who doesn't agree with you is a "narrow-minded man with limited comprehensive reading skills".
Anyone who argues with you is ignoring your rational arguments. Or has a closed mind.
And you can say something like that and it's only an insult if someone interprets it that way.
Astonishing.
Religion and Science go together. They are like left and right part of the brain. One is the source of feelings while other is the source of reason. They exist together and not in isolation. The right question should be 'How can we live harmoniously with religion and science?"
Will wrote: "So let's see if we've got this straight...Any source that you don't agree with is unsound.
Any scientific theory that you don't agree with is unreliable.
Any person who doesn't agree with you i..."
LOL keep going. This is fun.
Good morning:I'm curious what you think about the "connection" between religion and science.
While they seem to "go together" at times, as Awdhesh mentions above, yet at other times they can be entirely mutually exclusive, depending on the ideas and people involved.
In the past, clearly, examples of folks "praying" for a cure before the science was available, to more recent ideas about not allowing certain health treatments for religious purposes, has the two at odds.
Do you think that the question "which would rather do without" leads to "which do you feel advances humanity more"? Or is it more important to ask, "which enhances your life more"
No Derek. I agree with Awdhesh. The question we should ask is "How do we live harmoniously with religion and science?" Isn't that what is happening right now in the Middle East? Fanatics in Islam are stirring the ire of the people against 'the West' but it is not religion they are fighting against but the technological advances that keeps 'the West' in power.
Sam wrote: "Fanatics in Islam are stirring the ire of the people against 'the West' but it is not religion they are fighting against but the technological advances that keeps 'the West' in power. ..."While at the same time fanatically, religiously (hah!), holding on to a religion based society that keeps them from developing the same technological advances which put this "west" in power... for them, this is a religious war. So to me they seem to be the point in case that one is mutually exclusive to the other.
Ah, the LOLs and the LMAO are the clues I should have spotted before. That explains a lot. I'm out of here.
Will, not only are you narrow minded with no comprehension skills, you are also condescending and pretentious with zero people skills as well! Bye!
Religion has caused tens of millions of deaths, and continues, .. its all fake
HA! Good one, Ron.What confounds me is that most every religion trumpets "peace". Yet, in practice, you see something quite different.
How many, of the wars throughout history, have been (at least partly) religion based?
Ron wrote: "Religion has caused tens of millions of deaths, and continues, .. its all fake"Ron wrote: "Religion has caused tens of millions of deaths, and continues, .. its all fake"
Derek wrote: "HA! Good one, Ron.
What confounds me is that most every religion trumpets "peace". Yet, in practice, you see something quite different.
How many, of the wars throughout history, have been (at l..."
Many religions don't believe in God....but they pray to Allah, Muhammad, etc, etc. The American Indians had the God of Rain, God of Sun, etc. Don't you see, there is only ONE God who provides all that is prayed for. The Religious Wars are man's choice to fight, not God's will. If you pray, no matter what your religion, there is only one God. Period. These so call wars are for power, not religion. Border lines, no God. I'm with Awdesh who is correct.
Derek wrote: "HA! Good one, Ron.What confounds me is that most every religion trumpets "peace". Yet, in practice, you see something quite different.
How many, of the wars throughout history, have been (at l..."
To be fair, that was more about a few people with political power, using religion to make others fight wars for them. The belief, any belief, in itself is not to blame for what it gets used.
The best example are the Crusades and/or the Inquisition, to name an extreme. Nowhere in the Gospels can be found Jesus claiming that anyone who doesn't believe deserves to die, yet the Catholic church has done all that in the name of religion.
Are you Catholic? I am. Didn't Jesus die so we could enter into heaven? And now you're getting the idea of Religious Wars--everything is for a purpose.
Donna wrote: "These so call wars are for power, not religion. Border lines, no God."Ah, you had said it... I'm sleepy and lost it.
Laura wrote: "Nowhere in the Gospels can be found Jesus claiming that anyone who doesn't believe deserves to die, yet the Catholic church has done all that in the name of religion..."Sorry, but I do have to kindly disagree some here.
Sure while Jesus himself never goes as far to say we should kill another, he outright refuses to help people that do not believe in his father/him, see the whole "Pearls before swine" exchange, what worsens matters and puts his character more in question is there that it isn't even about him refusing to help the woman that asks for his help, but refusing to help her ill child... and by that asks people to believe in his father, God, who did openly call for killing others.
There's passage after passage of that in the OT.
Gerd wrote: "Sorry, but I do have to kindly disagree some here.Sure while Jesus himself never goes as far to say we should kill another, he outright refuses to help people that do not believe in his father/him, see the whole "Pearls before swine" exchange..."
I think you make a very nice point and it doesn't really disagree with what I said. That is a fantastic example of how things may be interpreted to suit people's interests. Your first reference was from Matthew 7 (I'm not a Bible expert, so I went to look it up):
"6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
This was in the middle of a very long sermon that Jesus was preaching, and comes right after "do not judge" and before "ask and it will be given". People have used this sermon (and that particular verse) to justify a whole deal of things, but if you read it, Jesus never specified who the swines are and what the pearls. Someone can tell you "well, it's pretty obvious", but it's really not; it's open to interpretation.
Now, there are other even darker passages, which have also been interpreted in different ways to justify wars:
Matthew 10
"34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."
Someone can tell you Jesus meant that this new faith was going to be persecuted and attacked (as it was in the Roman Empire), but others may interpret that this is an open invitation for a religious war. Again, the text is not really obvious and it can be used either way, even though earlier we had the bit about "love your enemy".
I'm not saying Jesus (for people who choose to believe he existed) was perfect, a saint, the son of god or god or whatever. I'm saying that it wasn't the Christian faith what caused the two extreme examples I mentioned (the Crusades or the Inquisition). Those things were done by men after political power, who used their interpretations of religion as excuse.
The Old Testament is another matter entirely (really creepy stuff there regarded as virtuous). I mentioned the Gospels because they are supposed to be the core of Christianity.
I just want to add that I currently don't own any Bible and I had never read it in English. I'm aware of the different translations and that's also a fact that has helped certain manipulations of interpretation. When you decide how to translate a complicated word, sometimes a nuance can change the sense of the phrase.
i believe that science is our new religon...so a world without any is difficult to imagine
Sam wrote: "No Derek. I agree with Awdhesh. The question we should ask is "How do we live harmoniously with religion and science?" Isn't that what is happening right now in the Middle East? Fanatics in Islam a..."Religion may have God but not necessarily. Religion is like a code of conduct and a set of values which the followers believe and obey 'religiously'. If God is part of religion or religion is considered to be the words of God, it is to avoid people questioning the values all the time.
To live in a society, we need common values and that is provided by religion. Atheism on the other hand denies religion and God but does not provide the positive values.
Hence in my opinion, religion is complete with its positive and negative (it depends how you use) while atheism is only negative, which is either not of any use or used negatively against religion without giving any alternative.
Kshitija wrote: "i believe that science is our new religon...so a world without any is difficult to imagine"Science can't replace religion. Science is a matter of fact which can tell us "what it is". However, science can't tell us "what it should be". Science can't teach us do's and don't. The day science (religion)will declare its values, it would suffer the same fate as religion because every value can be as much misused as used.
That's pretty easy, a world without religion makes the most sense. After all, its the root cause of most wars. Science saves lives, unfortunatley religion seems to have the opposite effects.
Its odd to me, and slightly off angle but still science and religion, I do not in anyway believe in Creationism, Obviously we have so much evidence going back and beyond stone age, but if we were "born" in the "Big Bang" why only Earth, in all this enormous space why only Earth ..
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)
How do you know that whatever evidence, research you are reading from is authentic?
It seems that Science has become the new Religion. Unless you are an acolyte, you are pretty much just the faithful population taking the word of others who profess to know more than you. And who may, or may not, even agree with each other.
I wonder when climate change becomes the catalyst for the next Great War....