The Lost Symbol
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
date
newest »
newest »
I prefer science over religion. But I'd really prefer to live in a world with both. It's like saying would you rather have all democrats or all republicans.
I agree with Sandy, if i had to choose (Gun to my head) it would have to be science but for much of human history religion (whatever flavour) has been the backbone of our moral and ethical system so I'd prefer to have both.
Why do we have to make a choice? In any case, everything in moderation is what suits us best!
ScienceBut in a world without religion, Dan Brown wouldn't be able to write the way he does :(
I personally prefer both, I view each with an open mind. Each provide a balance, what would be left for us to debate :)
I prefer Science over Dogma.
Delicious wrote: "Science over religion, always. We see in this world what happens in countries that are dominated by religion (i.e. Iran)"I share the same opinion with you but can you please tell me what's wrong with Iran ?
Science. Religion is of no actual use to humanity. Besides, without science we couldn't even be having this discussion. No science, no internet.
Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one, the other could not exist. In fact, could anyone actually say what the difference between the two is, without being contradictory?
Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one, the other could not exist. In fact..."Science and religion are not the same thing. Science is defined as "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject" or as " intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".
Religion, on the other hand, is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" or as "a particular system of faith and worship".
So, clearly, science and religion have nothing to do with each other. You sound like you're just another bigoted religious nut.
E wrote: "Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one, the other could not ex..."Science and religion are the same thing. You place your faith in something that is bigger than yourself. Many things that religions have claimed have been proven correct by science. The only difference between the two is the way this is shown. I appologize for sounding so "biggoted" or like a "nut", but that IS the truth, and is expressed many diffferent times in Dan Brown's books.
Noah wrote: "E wrote: "Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one, the other co..."How are they the same?
Religion is about claims or beliefs that have no burden of proof and often disregard any evidence that contradicts those beliefs.
Science has theories that are only as strong as the evidence that can be found to support them and which are discarded when the evidence against them grows and becomes insurmountable.
Religion makes bold statements and is slow to modify or adapt those beliefs (if they ever do.)
Science proposes bold ideas at a frantic pace and then searches high and low for the evidence that either supports or disproves the ideas.
Religions are documented in ancient texts which are never modified or edited.
Science is documented in an ever growing assortment of textbooks, journals, etc. that are constantly being updated and edited as our pool of knowledge grows.
I won't argue that, "Many things that religions have claimed have been proven correct by science", but I would point out that the reverse is not true. Many things that science has proven have been willfully ignored by those practicing many of the world's religions.
Chelsea wrote: "Noah wrote: "E wrote: "Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one,..."Religions do, in fact, modify texts, descriptive beliefs, and are always modifying their ways. For instance, the Catholic Church has recently modified many rules and practices to suit the modern world. Pope Francis has even taken selfies with people.
The bold statements that are made have been deeply researched and those things that haven't been proven are still believe, and many are frantically searching for answers to them.
Many great scientists have been deeply religious; these include Issac Newton, Galileo, Leonardo DaVinci, etc. They are great scientists because they search for answers that are inspired by questions found in their religions.
Noah wrote: "Chelsea wrote: "Noah wrote: "E wrote: "Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thin..."You're right; I overstated when I said they are "never modified." That is not true. It is more accurate to say that their rate of modification and willingness to embrace new ideas occurs at a glacial pace (figuratively speaking.) For example, the last execution as part of an inquisition wasn't until 1826. It took almost 700 years for them to decide that torturing and killing people that didn't agree with their religious beliefs was a rotten idea.
The problem with a lot of the "research" that is done with the goal of proving religious beliefs is that they begin with that goal in mind. This means that they're far from being objective and cherry-pick data or otherwise manipulate the experiments in order to further their goal. Often, when these experiments are repeated using the scientific method, the "proofs" that were claimed to be found cannot be replicated (such as the "power of prayer" studies.)
I'm not arguing that there isn't a place for religion in the world. I am an atheist, but I don't require a motivation for living my life to the fullest and treating others well. I don't need to think that there's some reward for me in the afterlife to treat others with respect and dignity. I'm not afraid of death and understand that it is where we all wind up eventually. I don't see the point in being afraid of something that is definitely going to happen.
For others, religion provides a safe place from which they can proceed through their life to their eventual death without having to face the fact that it will all be over soon. They also provide a set of social mores that allow large numbers of us to basically get along with each other.
But if I have to choose between a world without religion or a world without science, I would ditch religion in a nanosecond. :)
EDIT:
Here's an interesting article I just stumbled across:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/...
"The Vatican conceded Thursday most Roman Catholics reject its teachings on sex and contraception as intrusive and irrelevant"
It actually creates an interesting question about what exactly determines the beliefs of a religion? Is it the official beliefs of the church, or is the embodiment of a religion the collective beliefs of its followers?
But this quote reinforces the point I am trying to make above:
"Core church doctrine on the nature of marriage, sexuality, abortion and divorce is not expected to change."
Fewer and fewer people even believe their doctrines, but rather than admit that maybe they need to make some changes, they will likely maintain the same stale doctrines that are alienating the very people they're trying to appeal to.
Thank you for attempting to understand. That is something that at times I do not do. Though, just so this very common misunderstanding is corrected, the reason for being good isn't necessarily for the reward in the afterlife, it's because that's what we were created for. To live a good life on Earth, and then let go of all of our worries later. The reward is just an added bonus. This is so misunderstood that many who follow their beliefs don't even fully understand it. But again, thanks for understanding. Tolerance is the very basis of the USA, and I know that I believe in that.
that escalated quickly
there should be a good balance b/w Science and religion(90:10).too much religion creates countries like Saudi-Barbaria.
"Science without religion is lazy, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
Noah wrote: "E wrote: "Noah wrote: "Screw you people. If any of you had actually read this book and comprehended it, then you would know that science and religion are the same thing. Without one, the other co...""Science and religion are the same thing. You place your faith in something that is bigger than yourself. "
Where you're wrong is when you call science a "faith". Science is not a blind belief in something that's higher than oneself. Science is, essentially, a means to seek and understand the truth behind anything through experimentation.
Religion, on the other hand, is a means to have the so-called "truth" told -dictated, rather- to you.
"Many things that religions have claimed have been proven correct by science. "
No, many things that scriptures connected to a certain faith/religion have claimed have been proven by science.
I'll add this disclaimer, just in case: God and religion are two different (albeit connected) things. Religion is a merely collection of views and beliefs that claim to know everything about God and it is not something that I believe in, but God is something that I will neither believe nor disbelieve in until there is solid proof (which is probably never).
I would like to keep science, please. It's kind of useful in preventing/coping with disastrous diseases and ailments, keeping women from dying in childbirth, drastically lowering infant mortality rates, understanding the nature of the world better so we're not as vulnerable to the elements and disasters, improving nutrition, the ability of humans to travel and communicate over long distances, the ability to take things like videos and photographs to preserve memories... I could go on for hours. Without science we'd be living in the Dark Ages, which, especially as a woman, I'd rather not do.
if one is lost , the other won't function . religion and science complete each other "Science without religion is lazy, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
science please...!!!
Mixture of both because one completes other. Most preferably the religion because it doesn't stop you from being a scientist.
This is a no brainer. I'm all for people worshiping who or what they want but it should be kept between that individual and their god. If they are entitled to some reward for their worship, let them wait for their god to bring it in the afterlife. Leave the rest of us out of it and let us move on to make this world a better place now. This philosophy would bring instant peace to this world.
Definitely rather live in a world without religion, especially as living in a society without a knowledge of science, I would likely be burned as a witch. LOLHuman race has already lived in a world without science. Dark Ages anyone?
Edit: Just read up the message chain and spotted a spirited dialogue on Science Vs Religion.
Frankly, we all know that both are incredibly dangerous to us all when applied without common sense or forethought. You might as well give a toddler a gun and stand back to see what happens.
Religions, as a system of control, have dominated humanity since the dawn of time, and frankly, were a primitive people's attempt to define the world around them - aka the first science. If you read some of the ravings recorded in religious texts, I usually think to myself "Fetch the Lithium." Wars are fought, people are killed, because we pray west, and they pray east, they wear a hat, and we take ours off, they bow to the ground, and we kneel. Really? All this strife, when what we are arguing is over whose river leads to the sea.
Go forth and be fruitful - Did anyone stop and think what that means, when soon humanity will overcrowd the earth and we all start fighting over the last of the resources - like food and water? I guess not, as long as we have 19 kids and Counting.
But now, enter Science, a more impirical way of defining the world around us. Yahoo, we're saved. REALLY? It is just as dangerous when applied without thought - global warming, nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction, germ warfare. Plastic. Cars. Pollution of Air and Sea. Do you really think it any better?
My point is this: Until each and every human being on earth is able to stand upon their own feet, empowered to make their own choices based upon Intelligence, Kindness, Humour and Love, without any dogmas telling them to kill their neighbours because they are different, nor choosing to use technologies that destroy their world in the name of convenience and comfort, then humanity will have a very near sell-by date.
L.G.A. wrote: "Definitely rather live in a world without religion, especially as living in a society without a knowledge of science, I would likely be burned as a witch. LOLHuman race has already lived in a wor..."
So true.
Without ReligionReligion kills, science saves lives, no contest there
It would be a sad day if we were ever forced to choose one over the other. It is impossible to have one and not the other; so getting rid of one is losing both.
Juris wrote: "It would be a sad day if we were ever forced to choose one over the other. It is impossible to have one and not the other; so getting rid of one is losing both."sorry I really don't understand how you could come to that conclusion. many people live good lives without being tied to any religion. in fact history tells us that it is religions that force people to choose, choose one religion over another, and look what happens throughout history if they choose the less accepted, or even unaccepted one. persecution and worse in the name of religion. cant see science laying down such edicts!
This is just MY point of view. It takes science to help prove and spread religion, and with no religion there would be no science to begin with. I also believe that science, like religion, takes faith to believe that a hypothesis is true and turn science theory into science law. I realize that this is not everyone's opinion and I respect everyone's own choice and belief.Also, I was not saying that anyone has to be "tied" to a religion; I just said that it would be a sad day if everyone were forced to choose. I do agree that nobody should be persecuted in the name of religion.
I truly believe science and religion go hand-in-hand, but again that is my belief. I also respect the right to you and everyone else to their own belief.
Without Religion no science. So can you explain that 4 me because I really cant see how the two equate out. The one is based on solid principles and the other on ancient beliefs. Beliefs that are quite often drawn from Pagan rituals and that have their origins in a time when mankind had very little understanding of anything relating to science.
Let me add for clarity that I respect anyone's decision to hold their own beliefs if that's of help to them in their daily lives.
Well your religious statement has and still is happening. your scientific one is prefaced by the word could, so in effect science has not yet brought about the havoc and death that religion has, but how about this argument.How many lives has religion saved? think on that my friend.
Religion and science go hand in hand. In fact, I've heard most scientists believe in God, as do I. Science helps us understand things. Religion gives us faith. Both are necessary for us to live in peace.
two years since anyone commented on this, amazing.But the question 3 years ago was, one or the other?
well all the pointers say that strict religion stifles scientific progress. people like da vinci and galileo were ridiculed for their ideas.
But what has religion given us through the ages, wars, persecution and barbarism. Everyone in war thinks that their god id on their side, thats laughable.
Science in itself is not evil, its what humankind does with it that can be evil. i'll still go with science.
Religion asks the questions. Science finds the answers.
Jin wrote: "Religion asks the questions. Science finds the answers."Really, I see religion blocking out the questions, turning a blind eye, even dismissing things they don't understand , 'as the work of the devil' and lets not forget those who would let others die rather than allow them medical treatment.
I think science let us bend the nature of things, it is more accommodative. Religion for whatever may be its reason for its inception doesn't seem more accommodative and flexible. Though surprisingly someway, religion keeps science under control and under check to some extent. As much science gives infinite power to mankind, religion asks man to reconsider this power and in some cases gives man a little purpose and direction and lets him know that with power comes responsibility. Still, I think I would prefer to live in a society with science and no religion.
M.M. Strawberry wrote: "Science over religion, always. We see in this world what happens in countries that are dominated by religion (i.e. Iran)"I agree! Amen!
Most religions come from pagan ceremonies and half truths about what is not based on solid facts, science is; however, even though I rather be in a world with science over religion I would still like to respect one GOD, love one GOD and "do" my science homework with one GOD, not some human that has been elevated to the rank of GOD which I personally believe is not human.
naah... both are necessary in this world. the religion has established our past and the science will establish our future. although I think in today's era, science is a more necessary element then religion. and many will accept the fact that religion has caused very severe problems all over the globe.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."