The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
Ron wrote: "but if we were "born" in the "Big Bang" why only Earth, in all this enormous space why only Earth ..."Who says that it is only earth?
It's not as if we had any way of telling.
Both science and religion have it's own significance.Religion shows the way to become a human,science takes us there.i suggest that we should have both but we should never exploit them.
Without religion in the "dark age" and we would have progressed eon's in science.
From Tweets of God (https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod):Science is true whether or not you believe it, but religion is true whether or not it’s true.
World without religion is not the same thing as world without God. so having no religion doesn't bother me at all.
Vincent Dohn wrote: "World without religion is not the same thing as world without God. so having no religion doesn't bother me at all."Silly how people only in modern time try to justify by splitting the two or calling it a relationship. You cannot have a relationship as an adult with an imaginary friend, unless of course you're diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Jeremiah wrote: "Silly how people only in modern time try to justify by splitting the two or calling it a relationship. You cannot have a relationship as an adult with an imaginary friend, unless of course you're diagnosed with schizophrenia."Silly how people try to ridicule other people's beliefs by comparing religious people to schizophrenics, disrespecting both religious people and schizophrenics. Ignorance has no limits.
Vincent Dohn wrote: "World without religion is not the same thing as world without God. so having no religion doesn't bother me at all."Diplomatic answer, well done. :)
Vincent Dohn wrote: "World without religion is not the same thing as world without God. so having no religion doesn't bother me at all."In Italy we say: it's not that I dislike God...it's his fan club that's bothering me.
Well, I think it would be a better world without religion. And I don't believe in hell (or in heaven) so don't worry for my "soul" please.
Great, great Italian saying. That's fantastic.
Derek wrote: "Great, great Italian saying. That's fantastic."yeah...we have tons of those XD expecially about religion...you know, we have pope here, we're always inspired :P
Derek wrote: "Great, great Italian saying. That's fantastic."Yes, love it. I agree!
Lets be honest where does religion come into this www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/...
So no need to worry about your soul "Anarchic rain"
Ron wrote: "Lets be honest where does religion come into this www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/...
So no need to worry about your soul "Anarchic rain""
Big Bang is just a theory and not a reality. You can have another theory few years later and then yet another theory. However, Reality is One that does not change. No one knows the reality and sometime people confuse theory with reality.
I'not worried at all... I don't believe in things like soul or whatever. Just don't be rude to others, try to be as happy as you can without hurting innocent people and die with a sense of joy for what your life was. That's all I wish for myself. The rest is nothing. ;)
Awdhesh wrote: "Ron wrote: "Lets be honest where does religion come into this www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/...
So no need to worry about your soul "Anarchic rain""
Big Bang is j..."
"Theory" in science does not mean what you seem to think it does. We have a "theory" of gravitation. A "theory" of electricity.
In science, calling something a theory means it's as close as we can get to a sure thing.
RaptorSaur wrote: ""Theory" in science does not mean what you seem to think it does. We have a "theory" of gravitation. A "theory" of electricity.In science, calling something a theory means it's as close as we can get to a sure thing.
True, but unlike "The Big Bang" a concept like "Gravity" is an observable fact, how our Universe come about can ever only be more or less educated guesswork.
Gerd wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: ""Theory" in science does not mean what you seem to think it does. We have a "theory" of gravitation. A "theory" of electricity.In science, calling something a theory means it's..."
Actually that's also not true. If there wasn't consistent observable evidence that is considered strong enough to constitute proof that the theory is correct, it would be a "hypothesis" instead of a "theory" :)
A good definition of a theory: "Theories are established descriptions of the way something works, are based on great amounts of testing, and have to be supported by substancial evidence. They are generally accepted by all, or at least most scientists to be true."
RaptorSaur wrote: "Actually that's also not true. If there wasn't consistent observable evidence that is considered strong enough to constitute proof that the theory is correct, it would be a "hypothesis" instead of a "theory" :)..."But that's just the thing, we don't have "observable" evidence for a "Big Bang".
And how could we?
All we have is a far removed way to observe effects which we then can try to fit in a theory of how the Universe started.
Evidence is too big a word for that.
We all need science, some of us require religion. Science has enabled us to live longer. Science also created the atom bomb, but religion has killed far more people. I would quite happily live without religion.
Gerd wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: "Actually that's also not true. If there wasn't consistent observable evidence that is considered strong enough to constitute proof that the theory is correct, it would be a "hypo..."You could use that line of reasoning to "disprove" a huge number of things that are accepted science and underpin existing technology. A lot of science involves observing the effects things have on everything else and inferring what happened at the scope the scientist is investigating. The observable effects of the big bang are no different to that.
RaptorSaur wrote: "A lot of science involves observing the effects things have on everything else and inferring what happened at the scope the scientist is investigating. The observable effects of the big bang are no different to that..."Oh they are a lot different than that.
The "effects" we observe, can't be observed directly, science has to rely on information that is extrapolated from sources which by themself can only deliver extrapolated information. So it is a pretty thin construct they build on, on that level.
Not that it matters any how close or how far we are from understanding "The Big Bang".
But, as said:
"are based on great amounts of _testing_, and have to be supported by _substancial_ evidence"
There's neither one nor the other available to support a "Big Bang theory"
(although I'd love to see the testing).
Gerd wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: "Actually that's also not true. If there wasn't consistent observable evidence that is considered strong enough to constitute proof that the theory is correct, it would be a "hypo..."We do have a lot of evidence that we can 'see' and 'hear' for the 'Big Bang' . . . and NOT the TV program!
Astronomers can observe the red shift in light (when an object/light source is relatively moving away from the observer the frequency of the light is measurable shifted to a longer or red frequency) across the sky in observable stars and dust clouds. It was first observed and measured in the early 20th Century (earlier but the precision of the equipment wasn't sufficient enough to dispel ambiguity in the observations). The model (or theory) for this emerged initially from the Physicist/Astronomer Lemaître who incidentally was a Jesuit priest.
The Hubble telescope was named for another scientist who inadvertently got popular credit for some of Lemaître's work while Hubble added to the model and refined the calculation that let us see the effects of the initial expansion. The Red Shift (and it is quantifiable) gives us data to support the expansion model and that it began with a bang and not a whimper (cannot resist the T.S. Eliot allusion).
Penzias and Wilson (separately, but almost simultaneously) discovered an 'echo' while doing other research that is background radiation remaining from the event. This microwave signal is a constant level from all directions, much like at a very low level hum (way outside human hearing) that can be measured as a temperature band.
There have been numerous experiments and resulting observations to refine the precise measurements of these and other observable data that reinforce the expansion model(theory if your prefer). Launching of the Cosmic Background Explorer (late 80's?) provided more data on what we can observe and measure.
In the past year gravity measurements have begun to progress to the point that this has been added to the conversation. The consensus on how to measure gravity hasn't quite been settled nor have the measurements ambiguity been fully resolved. Similar to red shift a century in the past.
So until a 'better' theory is proposed from what we know and a can observe ('see and hear') the Big Bang in the current form is the best we've got.
Gerd wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: "A lot of science involves observing the effects things have on everything else and inferring what happened at the scope the scientist is investigating. The observable effects of ..." Excellent riposte ..
But in the end of days WE ALL are like leaves, New and Fresh in bud in the spring, Wonderful in full leaf in the summer, Awesome in the change in colour in the Autumn. Then sadly we fall!!
This isn't picking up the part I want to quote so I'm guessing what it said: "the evils of science are caused by people who misunderstand science..." That is true. But the corollary about religion was not true (that it is caused by religion). No. The evils of religion are, likewise, caused by people who misunderstand religion. Just as science needs people to correct the misunderstandings and to evolve, so too does religion need new Prophets who can correct the mess that humanity makes out of religion. Thus, Buddha corrected the mistakes of those who followed Khrisna; Jesus corrected the errors of those who followed Moses; Muhammad corrected the errors of those who followed Jesus and Baha'u'llah corrects the errors of the followers of all religions because it is a global religion intended for humanity's maturity (i.e., adult-hood). Religion is also knowledge just as science is knowledge. They used to go hand-in-hand. Eventually, they will again.
RaptorSaur wrote: "Awdhesh wrote: "Ron wrote: "Lets be honest where does religion come into this www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/...
So no need to worry about your soul "Anarchic rain..."
Gravity is not a theory, it is an experience. You can verify the relationship between force and mass. It is a fact and called Law. However, Big Bang is just a theory as you can't prove what happened 13.7 billons years ago or what existed before Big Bang. There are so many unexplained hypothesis with this theory.
urthwild wrote: "We all need science, some of us require religion. Science has enabled us to live longer. Science also created the atom bomb, but religion has killed far more people. I would quite happily live with..."It is not the religion which has killed many people but the evil mind of man who wish to rule the world and there is no end to its greed. The Atoms Bombs were not dropped by religious fanatic but America, for no religious reason.
CD wrote: "So until a 'better' theory is proposed from what we know and a can observe ('see and hear') the Big Bang in the current form is the best we've got. ..."Now, that is something I can completly agree upon.
It's not possible to live in a world WITH humans and WITHOUT religion. Some evolutionary biologists have done significant work showing the survival advantages of religion for human societies, and thus how we evolved religion because we needed it. Nor is religion necessarily about belief in a particular god. America has a secular religion with historical figures as saints and rites such as the Fourth of July and other observances--even the Super Bowl. A lot of this is laid out in a pretty good book called The Faith Instinct, if you're curious. As to a world without science, I think the answer is the same as it is for religion, and moreso. Our rational, exploring minds are what MAKE us human. Science is something we have as a result.
People who want to live in a world without religion see only the bad religion has done. And it's done a lot of bad. But I could as easily say I don't want science because it resulted in the advent of nuclear and biological warfare, reality TV shows and other atrocities.
But without science you wouldn't be on a computer commenting on a discussion thread. You would be doing whatever it is you are doing by candlelight, or maybe just by a lit up stick, since some science is probably involved in making a candle...
Without Religion..Most of the religious things are based on Science only (At least for Hindu). And religions can be bent to suite the will of some powerful people. Science cannot.
Maria wrote: "But without science you wouldn't be on a computer commenting on a discussion thread..."Yes, but without Religion you couldn't post OMG on the net. :D
Gerd wrote: "Maria wrote: "But without science you wouldn't be on a computer commenting on a discussion thread..."Yes, but without Religion you couldn't post OMG on the net. :D"
That's the best argument in the whole thread! :-D
Gerd wrote: "Maria wrote: "But without science you wouldn't be on a computer commenting on a discussion thread..."Yes, but without Religion you couldn't post OMG on the net. :D"
Priceless!!
It's like the joke where someone says to their friend, "I was told that you are an athiest - that can't be true is it?"The athiest friend replies, "swear to God". :)
Also when an athiest hits their thumb with a hammer, do they say GOD-XXXMNIT like everyone else?
Esra wrote: "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 t..."May I assume you are being ironic!
Michael wrote: "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 cha..."It is not science that is "endangering our world with its mad acceleration." It is an abuse of science. For example nuclear science has led to many innovations in the field of medicine - as well as weapons systems.
Science always .. Its more rational and It can't be moulded as you wish. Most of who consider themselves to be more religious, mould and interpret everything said in a religion according to their hopeless brains and are doing bad to this world in the name of religion than good.
Gina (My Precious Blog) wrote: "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."what about stuff like TNT then? and mass destruction and atomic weapons?
without science, a war wouldn't be more than a fist fight between two people!
Homakp wrote: "what about stuff like TNT then? and mass destruction and atomic weapons?without science, a war wouldn't be more than a fist fight between two people!"
Are you for real? Without science you would die from a common cold, if you don't manage to poison yourself first eating what you shouldn't.
How about a world that hasn't become so dumbed down that it is able to think factually and metaphorically and to function intelligently in both modes?
I would like to enter this debate but haven't read all the posts above so if I repeat an argument, please know it was not my intention.Religion: "Organized" religion could be banned, but of course this is a Democracy, and I believe the world would be a better place. However I do believe in personal belief systems; ones developed through one's own personal experiences of the world. I do happen to believe in a higher power and re-incarnation makes sense as it explains much about why some things seem so unfair, eg why are dome people born blind and others not. This may sound simplistic, but there are many, many more examples which we see every day. There is no excuse for religions to recruit people through fear and there is no religion which does not have criminal minds within it as with any other culture or race in the world.
Science: So very important to the world and our understanding of it. Education in any form is essential. The only hope we have for getting rid of religious zealots is to educate the people who are denied an education. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their actions. We depend on science in so many ways to solve the problems of the world, be it health, weather, the natural sciences etc etc but scientists can only do this if they have a truly open mind. I believe that in the future, there will be further advances in understanding the Universe and that includes human spirituality.
It's a tough question. Religion was "founded", you could say, to create a sort of order for society. Human beings, without a faith, without someone/thing to turn to during hard times, fall into chaos, not only in their surrounding environment, but for their psyche as well.Religion creates order.
Science, on the other hand, shows people what is physically true. While religion focuses on the spirituality of things, science tells people what is solidly true.
Religion is spiritual, Science is factual.
Mankind will not be the same if you have one without the other.
However, if there had to be a choice, I suggest a world without religion would make a better place than a world without science. Science can be it's own faith, believe in the power of nature. Universally, all facts are the same.
If we lived in a world without science, it's a different story. Not all religious "facts" are universally the same, even when it comes to speaking of the same religion; no one has the same belief. There will be chaos when it comes to sects and extremists wanting to prove their belief to be the "real" belief.
Definitely a world without religion.
I agree with most of what Maria says except, perhaps, that science is fact. All scientists work to prove a theory is fact but most build on the knowledge gained from what scientist's have believed proven in the past and some of their "proven" beliefs have turned out to have a flaw.The people of our world once believed it to be flat. It takes courage, imagination and an inner conviction to progress forward and follow your instincts to discover something new scientifically. That's what real scientists do; not just follow on from someone else's instinct/conviction.
P.S. You have to know the question before you search for an answer - that's science.
we need them both.but not the religion which make people kill one another. like everything, religion also has a good side and a bad. same goes for science. like atomic energy. in wrong hands religion can be used as a weapon to control people. when a persons faith turns to blind-faith the true purpose of religion [which i think to bring order and discipline among some other good qualities] is failed
I would rather live in a world without religion.
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)
It is factually wrong to say that religion is the root of all wars. The two World Wars, which killed more people than the people would have killed in the history of mankind, was not fought on the ground of religion. Most participants were Christian and also Europeans. That should remind us that people can use any excuse to wage war by dividing people on the lines of Nationalism, Language, Type of Government (Communism/Democracy).