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

[George]

without religion, sure

[Jason]

A world without religion.

[Pratheek]

In todays world with such gigantic scientific developments, religion I feel purports ridiculousness but we have admit the fact that there would not have been a thing called world to live in if there wasn't religion...!!

[Naveen Cherian]

Its always better to believe something than not believing in anything at all outright. Science and Religion should go hand in hand.After all both are about exploration. One of the outside world and the other of the inner being.

[Michael]

I think you might be able to make the case that spirituality or mysticism is about exploration. All too often, religion is mainly about rigid dogma, stale rituals, and shutting one's eyes to anything new or different.

[Scott]

Pratheek wrote: "there would not have been a thing called world to live in if there wasn't religion...!!"

Huh? The world would be here whether or not humans developed on it at all.

[Dante]

Too easy: I'll take a world without religion every time.

Now, if you were to ask me to choose between a world without science and a world without art (including literature, of course), then I'd have to give it some thought...

[Scott]

Dante wrote: "Now, if you were to ask me to choose between a world without science and a world without art (including literature, of course), then I'd have to give it some thought..."

That would be difficult; fortunately science and art are totally compatible!

[Gerd]

Scott wrote: "Pratheek wrote: "there would not have been a thing called world to live in if there wasn't religion...!!"

Huh? The world would be here whether or not humans developed on it at all."

Yeah, that remark confused the hell (<-hah!) out of me as well.

[Mark]

Without religion there is no society, only anarchy. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything," G.K. Chesterton.

[Mark]

Without religion there is no society, only anarchy. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything," G.K. Chesterton.

[Scott]

Mark wrote: "Without religion there is no society, only anarchy. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything," G.K. Chesterton."

This statement makes no sense. If you believed in anything, wouldn't you believe in God? It is the religious who are infinitely credulous, not the skeptics.

[Gerd]

Mark wrote: "Without religion there is no society, only anarchy. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything," G.K. Chesterton."

Apart from your quote not making a lot of logic sense, I'd advise you to read this about its presumed origin:
http://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to-w...

[Jasbir]

Religion is much more than a search for the ultimate truth. Those other things cause a lot of problems most of the time. If religion were just a path towards realization of our origins and meaning, whether actually achievable or not, not even the scientists would be able to discredit it. Scientists themselves are after the elusive master theory. Strip religion of those other things and what is left is science.

[Nitesh]

Here is an interesting piece of work that signifies the importance of Science and Religion in our lives
Happy Reading
http://nitsgoa.wordpress.com/

[Sarah]

Although religion provides comfort to many i think science is vital to the human race. people may pray for a medical cure but only science will provide one.

i think you have to consider the implications of the world if both were lost. if religion didn't exist the world would continue in the same way, if science didn't exist humanity would suffer.

furthermore everything that has been achieved in science has the potential to be rediscoved if all knowledge about science was lost. the world would eventually return to the point at which it is now. However the idea of religion may never arise again.

Therefore i think science is more vital realistically for the general population but the majority of people need faith as sustenance for survival.
so i would like to live in a world of science for the impact it has had on peoples lives but a world of religion for the positive aspects it has on people psychologically

[Debbie]

No hesitation, without religion!! I know that there are people out there that value their religions but I'm sorry so much damage, hatred, revenge, atrocities have and are being committed in the name of religion that I've decided to remove myself from this.

Science, I do realise is not perfect either but then that is to do with scientists and ethics, Science could bring us so much, treatments, cures and the list goes on :-)

[Eilegna]

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."

Exactly.

[Jeremiah]

Science doesn't fear stating when they are wrong!



Debbie wrote: "No hesitation, without religion!! I know that there are people out there that value their religions but I'm sorry so much damage, hatred, revenge, atrocities have and are being committed in the nam..."

[Pedro]

I can live in a world with religion and science, providing people don´t mix one with the other...

[Brian]

How about a world without Dan Brown???

[Scott]

Now that's just mean!

[Kym]

Nice thing about science is that when a theory (which is accepted as fact until proven otherwise) is disproven, we adjust our thinking. We test new theories. Bad thing about religion is that it is static, and practitioners get caught in the web of faith, which irrational belief in something that cannot be tested.

[Pedro]

Good question!
I spent 3 years researching the story of Michael Servetus before I wrote The Two Chambers. It is the uppermost example of how religion can conceal important scientific discoveries.
As a scientist, I will always favor science. But, believe me, religion is necessary.
In a world without religion, people would believe in science as if it was a religion and that would not be good for science...

[Angie]

Without religion. Wars are fought and innocents killed every day over religious beliefs. No one destroys a country or a people over science.

[Nandakishor]

A World without religion ofcourse !!

[[deleted user]]

Naveen wrote: "Its always better to believe something than not believing in anything at all outright. Science and Religion should go hand in hand.After all both are about exploration. One of the outside world and..."

Always better? Sorry, no...that's called jumping to conclusions, which is very careless. Science is about testing the world around us until we can find answers based on data that never changes. Religion provides answers and leaves no room for questions. This is why science and religion will never go hand in hand; they are complete opposites to each other.

[Laureen]

I often have this argument with my husband who "worships" science and has no place for anything spiritual. Carrington says data never changes??? Why do we have science then. Scientists use data but that doesn't mean that it doesn't change. True science involves having an open mind or they wouldn't discover anything or build on the past. Einstein's theories proved not to be absolutely correct but that doesn't take away anything from his massive contribution. So it was with many scientists of note but they set the world on different ways of thinking which has so advanced the world in medical science, mathematics, quantum physics, weather patterns and the list is ongoing we hope to eventually find a more ethical way to use our scientific discoveries.

For example, war weaponry, the atomic bomb etc have come from science and technology. We can say this was an advance but was it? Of course, the discoveries and improvement of past methods of defence have some advantages but they have to be tempered with a sense of moral obligation that seems to be lacking in the world.

Regarding health: nobody could deny that medicine has excelled in saving people's lives. However, we now have an overpopulated world of elderly people (I am becoming one so I am not being biased) because we are living longer due to drugs and surgery that save people from strokes and heart attacks etc etc. The West is having a problem with financing people into old age due to the high cost of medicine while in underprivileged countries like some areas of Africa, The Middle East, Asia, Sth America etc, people and, sadly, children, are dying of starvation and disease and lack of essentials such as clean water!!! Why doesn't science solve those problems? Probably because there is no money to be had.

Don't get me wrong, I love my comforts. Hot showers, flushing toilets & a warm bed are essentials to me but I do worry about this division between science and spirituality. They should go hand in hand. I am hopeful that science (in some areas) is starting to look more closely at Univeral Energy and how it effects not only the tides but also our well being. Call it spiritual, or a higher power, God or whatever you wish. Tapping into this energy is what I believe influenced our old Scientists and guided them to the discoveries they made.

Now, we need to understand that new science must combine with some moral obligations to anything new. Medical science is now trying to clone people to get compatible stem cells to prolong life. We are now using IVF, not only for a secure married couple who can't physically produce their own children (which I have no issue with) but also for anybody else who would like to continue their gene line. What is wrong with adoption? Save some poor children including orphans of the world. Governments should relax adoption laws between countries. Also IVF is being used in such a way that people can choose what sex their child is! How is that ethical. While we have 'the nature police' telling us we are ruining nature by emitting carbon into our atmosphere, how is it not providing an imbalance in nature by altering natural selection.

Sorry for this long expose but I needed to explain my thoughts regarding the importance of science and non-proven belief systems.

[Pedro]

You should say "an overpopulated country with elderly people", not a world. Overpopulation in the world is due to a lack of birth control, something that science is ready to do but is impeded by religions.

[Laureen]

Pedro wrote: "You should say "an overpopulated country with elderly people", not a world. Overpopulation in the world is due to a lack of birth control, something that science is ready to do but is impeded by re..."

No, I meant many Western & European countries are experiencing an imbalance in the ratio between younger people who are working and paying taxes and the older retired population which is putting a strain on the medical system and the current tax-payers through the Government. We are learning that living longer has it's draw-backs. Poorer countries don't have that problem because they die much younger through disease or natural causes.

[[deleted user]]

I would just like to clarify my previous point, since it was misinterpreted: I said "based on data that never changes", not, "Data never changes". That was not intended to be a sweeping generalization. Of course there are things in the world that change. There are also things that never change. This is actually what the Scientific Method is all about--doing the same experiment over and over while you control what changes each time. When I said "data that never changes", I was referring to repeated results. And, naturally, a true scientist would be open-minded. I apologize for not being clearer the first time.

[Alisa]

Without religion, no question at all. I really believe that people and the world would be a much better place without it. Morality has NOTHING to do with religion. People are moral because they are moral. If religion is all that makes someone behave then they aren't moral at all, just living in fear of punishment.

[Brian]

Morality is not an absolute in human affairs, it came from religious doctrine. Before the 10 Commandmants and the Beatitudes there were no laws of mutual co-responsbility. Morality has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Even if you do not believe in God, your ancestors did, and taught their children to act within the doctrine.

[Alisa]

I disagree completely. Goodness is innate in people. Babies share and are loving and kind and they know nothing about God and haven't been taught to be that way. As a species we would not have survived if we didn't help each other. Religion is a means of controlling people. It has nothing to do with morality.

[Laureen]

@Carrington. I get you now and I have no problem with what you say.

[Laureen]

I agree that morality has nothing to do with "organized" religions most of which had much immorality and even corruption attached to them. Like Governments, there is a hierarchy that determines the law and how people should behave.

Being in touch with nature or spirit energy is innate in all who wish to attune themselves to this energy. Some people are born that way and recognize it early; others have to work at it but we know within ourselves the difference between right or wrong, naturally. Those who don't, have a form of illness whereby they have a blockage to this energy. "We should not judge" comes from the Bible which does have some wonderful sayings but like all organized religions, holy works are interpreted by those who wish to have some sort of power over others and wrongly believe that their way is right, generally for their own egos.

[Pedro]

Quoting Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner:
"Good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

[Laureen]

Pedro wrote: "Quoting Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner:
"Good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion""

Great quote Pedro! Love it.

[[deleted user]]

religion simple as that

[Gerd]

Alisa wrote: " Babies share and are loving and kind and they know nothing about God and haven't been taught to be that way. As a species we would not have survived if we didn't help each other..."

More over, similar behaviour traits can be found in other animals as well, so, unless they share a religion we are ignorant of (completly possible naturally) it doesn't seem to come down to some doctrine.

[Maria]

Alisa wrote: "I disagree completely. Goodness is innate in people. Babies share and are loving and kind and they know nothing about God and haven't been taught to be that way. As a species we would not have s..."

I disagree with this. Babies are a blank slate. A baby who is treated unkindly from day 1 will be unkind and rebellious. Babies are only "loving and kind" because most people treat them gently and kindly from the day they are born.

Tabula raza.

[Gerd]

Maria wrote: "Babies are only "loving and kind" because most people treat them gently and kindly from the day they are born..."

But even allowing for that, (normal) people treat babies that way from instinct, not through dictate.
So it would still be a natural cycle.

[Pedro]

Maria wrote: "Alisa wrote: "I disagree completely. Goodness is innate in people. Babies share and are loving and kind and they know nothing about God and haven't been taught to be that way. As a species we wo..."
I don´t believe babies are a blank slate. And I am not alone
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

[Maria]

Pedro, you are entitled to believe whatever you want - doesn't make it so.

[Laureen]

Maria wrote: "Pedro, you are entitled to believe whatever you want - doesn't make it so."

Maria, yes you are entitled to think what you will too. However, it is shame when parents beat themselves up about "what did I do wrong" when they have been perfectly loving and nurturing and yet their child, who often doesn't appear to like being handled or nursed and rebels at any form of discipline, turns out to be a criminal.

[Renas]

with out religion, religion close minds & teach them living with out questions about life and religions . it's good for people to have faith something make them calm and live with hope but the way that there's a god that judge u it's just an stupid thing and the Religions that many people believe on them they didn't come with thinking and choosing it's just because family affects or environment and people cause they afraid to ask them selves about world and secrets they afraid to make questions & researches because they know the'rs no answers...but in religion there's no good prove and all religions they have same ideology,,,,,no need for religion to have moral...people with out religion they have more moral & deep mind and ability...have faith in humanity & logic and love,peace,beauty that's what u need to be good human...........

[Pedro]

Renas wrote: "with out religion, religion close minds & teach them living with out questions about life and religions . it's good for people to have faith something make them calm and live with hope but the way..."
I agree, Renas. Agnostic scientists usually are respectful and peaceful people with high moral standards.

[Laureen]

Pedro wrote: "Renas wrote: "with out religion, religion close minds & teach them living with out questions about life and religions . it's good for people to have faith something make them calm and live with ho..."

Pedro, so are Mystics. It is the organized religions that teach dogma that cause disharmony and even wars.

[Jenny]

Well, science is a method, not a believe system. So the question is, would you like to live in a world were we only can accept that we can prove without a shadow of a doubt, having very little left to spare for all the wonderful culture things religion (and superstition and as an extension, tradition and a fair portion of the worlds art) brings. or live in a world were we can not solve any problems in a rational and analytical manner? A world where you cannot "prove" anything beyond a shadow of a doubt because the method to provide such prove is utterly lacking? A world that would have not technology, not even the most basic, because the method of finding out and retaining such information does not exist (or refuses so exist, whatever). Both sound pretty dire to me actually.

[Laureen]

Yes, that is why we need both. Remember, science comes from humanity's innate curiosity or we would never have discovered anything.