Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Also an atheist, I feel as many philosophers and even recent prominent "New Atheists" do, that man can't be completely rational, all the time. However, were it possible to be rid of one, I'd choose religion to be placed on that stack of kindling. Instead of arguing from either contented ignorance or incredulity, though, try researching before making assumptions. It was how I found that even animals have a moral sense, and what both environmental and societal influences are capable of. And how much easier life is to understand and appreciate when Occam's Razor is applied, and causes the darkness to recede.
Zack you are right that relgion of the dogmatic kind is extermerly dangerous. All I was trying to say is that there is another more agnostic approch to religon that does bring good. I'm not trying to push my religon just trying to suggest that instead of letting the fundamentalist destroy religon it is time to fight back with a liberal view of religon. I don't think killing religon is a solution. I can't fully explain it but, religon - sprituality awareness lets say has been to often the catalyst in helping a lost soul find they way back to allow it to disappear.One strange thing I have noticed being in the middle - agnostic is that it seems that both the fundamentalist and the atheist at times seems cut from the same cloth. They both seem to think that their truth is the only one that is acceptable and the rest of us are either delusional or stantic.
As for Joan of Arc I find it very mysterious that a teenage peasant girl with no education is able to lead the totally defeated French army to victory over the English. We are talking about the hundred year war which the French had been losing almost from the begining. Even more unbelieveable with no education she is able to truimph in trial after trial against learned priests. Mark Twain spent 12 years of his life trying to figuare her out and couldn't slove the riddle of how she could do what she did without God.
My goodness, Zack, what religions have you been involved with that you have such a negative view of all religions? Sure, PEOPLE of certain religions have done terrible things in the past but I don't think that makes all religion bad (in fact, there are some religions that have received much persecution in the past). Yes, some religions have bad histories and there are still today some humans who act violently in the name of religion, that does not mean all religion is proven guilty. A question, if religion holds no truth because it cannot be proven then how can the big bang be truth?
I have to jump in, again. I'm not real pleased with how America is being divided by religion, currently, but no religion? Jesus (according to the Christian's Bible) taught respect, love and tolerance. That is NOT a bad thing. How we use that religion has become a bad thing, often--huge difference.
Muhammed taught how to live together in an orderly and just society. Bhudda, Confucious, they all taught good basic principles for living together and treating each other well. Science doesn't attempt that sort of effort. There is a place for religion in society, alongside science.
My question is: If religion is supposed to bring people together with love and tolerance, why is it so divisive? People use it for control and power, and others let them; that's why.
I don't want to argue with you about religion, I can't change your mind about what you have decided is wrong for you. All I can do is tell you that my life without religion was bleak and meaningless. Now that I have realized that there is more to life, I have become happier than I ever could have imagined. I love life now and I love my religion, I won't give up my faith in Christ for anything. I know there is a Father in Heaven, I have no doubt about it. I know that when I pass from this world, I will return to be with Him and with my family for eternity. Does this mean that if the leaders of my faith start doing evil things, I will blindly follow? Definitely not! We are encouraged to find our own paths and to seek truth through prayer. I know I cannot convince you but this is my testimony. My last words on the subject are this: To answer the original question posted, if I must choose, I choose religion but I maintain that both religion and science are necessary.
@will i totally agree, i think the biggest change i've seen in the last few years is not only are some 'religous' people being intolerant (this has gone on for the entire history of religion) but now you have the non-religious people starting to be intolerant also.You can say you don't have a religion all you want, but when you start caring about what other people believe or don't believe in, then thats religion.
Very good observation, Michael. Intolerance is rampant, be it among the religious, the atheists, or the scientists. We all seem to forget the concept of acceptance.No single religion is right for everybody, case in point my family. Every one of us, excepting my mother, was raised Catholic. She and my youngest sister are the only ones who consider themselves Catholic. My father considers himself to be a Deist, I consider myself to be Wiccan, and the older of my two siblings is an agnostic. The thing that holds us together is that we simply don't talk about religion around one another because someone doesn't want to hear about another religion; it just comes off as prostletising a lot of the time.
It can work, but you need to know when and to whom to talk about religion. That's where some have forgotten about respect. Only talk about religion to people who actually want to hear about it.
Jean, Michael, Heather, Will and Jean thanks for the comments. I enjoyed them and found them helpful.As for intolerance unfortuntely it has also spread to just about all aspects of life. So, now people want to be only with those who reflect themselves. But, how can you learn if you never listen to a different viewpoint?
I think the key is respect which is what a lot of religon try to teach but, sometimes it gets lost.
I think a major problem in our pop culture and society is the portrayal of absolutes. If we're Democrats, we're taught that all Republicans are bigoted farmboys who hate women. If we're Republicans, we're taught that all Democrats are crazy America-hating socialists. We're taught to hate people, to make these massive generalizations. All religious people are stupid, sheeplike, and delusional. All atheists are evil, immoral, and unhappy. None of these things are true. The fact is that no one is completely right and no one is completely wrong, because we're human. That means no one is perfect, but that also means no one is evil. There are people like Hitler and Stalin that are about as close to evil as you can get, but they're still people, still human. Somebody loved them sometime, and they loved somebody back. Everybody's opinion deserves respect. You can disagree and try to change their opinion, but you must respect it.
The big thing with religion being used for bad things is oftentimes that what is said is misinterpreted. Case in point: the "spilling the seed" that Catholics say is the reason for not using birth control is actually the ancient Hebrew law of a man copulating with his brother's wife if he is unable to get her pregnant, but a man cannot have sex with his brother's wife and "pull out."
Secondary case in point: The whole thing that the bible saying gay marriage bad is a Hebrew law that says that you only copulate with humans and not animals, so you don't have someone pleasuring themselves with a sheep.
Religion begins as the effort of people to figure out mysteries by guessing, and usually evolves (yes, that's the word) into a system of social control used by people in power to make sure they stay in power. It has been a net loss to humanity, perpetuating ignorance, superstition and mysticism and causing untold divisions and suffering.Science is the effort to figure out mysteries by actually collecting and analyzing information. Without it we'd still be throwing rocks at animals.
Religion promotes closed-mindedness; science promotes open-mindedness. Religion has pseudo-answers; science keeps seeking better real answers.
Others have the right to choose religion, and I leave them alone as long they don't try to impose it on me, but it's useless as far as I'm concerned.
science:Take all the information, double check it, see what is the likeliest explanation, go with that until more information/a better explanation appears.
This is used with everything. Nothing is fact. Just the best explanation we have at the time.
This is also my own religious view, (a type of agnosticism). And perhaps the sanest of all religious stances.
Taking all religion out, and keeping just science doesn't mean everyone's an athiest.
NOTHING IS FACT.
what about string theory, which is both a science and a religion?
Michael: How is "string theory...a science and a religion"?It's a theory. The hint is in the fact that it's called "string theory". Religion? How?
Religion is a plauge on society. I'd much rather there be a world without any religion.
Thank you, Wittystar. I feel like the only one here who sees it this way. I think that by spirituality, people mean that you are able to take religion as it is, without anyone telling you what to think of it because there are no leaders.
I know my spiritual group, Inner Peace Movement International, teaches that religion and science must coexist, but one should not overpower the other.
That is the main problem; there are religious nuts who won't listen or take science into account, and there are scientists who believe they are disproving religion instead of proving it.
Every religion has some semblance of truth, and it is science's job to show us that religion does have that truth.
I believe that if you combine the semblances of truth in every religion, you find a lot less trouble. The only problem is having people who are out to control the thoughts of others. For example, the original teachings of Christ were beautiful, but the apostles were daft. Paul especially was daft because he didn't even know Christ; therefore he shouldn't have been making the rules that we know today.
I don't want to argue with you about religion, Jean. I can't change your mind about what you have decided is wrong for you. All I can do is tell you that my life, since I gave up religion, has been freeing and meaningful. Now I realize there's so much more in the universe then what religion has to offer. I have become happier than I ever could have imagined. I love life now and I love being free from religion. I wouldn't adopt a religion for anything. I know there is no Father in Heaven, I have no doubt about it. I know that when I pass from this world, I will rot in the ground and my life's energy will be reabsorbed into the universe and this makes me happy. Does this mean that if leaders with no faith start doing evil things, I will blindly follow? Definitely not! I know I cannot convince you but this is my testimony. My last words on the subject are this: To answer the original question posted, if I must choose, I choose science but I maintain that both religion (for some) and science (for all) are necessary.
A world without science or a world without religion? Religion.
But a world without science or a world without Christianity?
Science.
I think a lot of you guys in this thread are very confused. A lot of you seem to be using the argument that the atomic bomb is proof of science as 'evil'. Scientists were not the ones who used the atomic bomb - politicians were. In fact, Einstein himself was incredibly naive and did not at first realise the implications of E=MC2 until Leo Szilard pointed it out to him. Given that this was 1939, it was believed Germany was trying to create an atomic bomb - Einstein put his signature to a letter warning America, believing America should have an atomic bomb first as a deterrent. He was not the kind of cynical realist that would have thought America would actually use one unprovoked - he believed America to be the force of good and justice. Einstein's own naivety and innocence in the human state then, can be said to be a 'cause', but really, you cannot blame science for the use of the atomic bomb - politicians ordered its use, American politicians who all 'had faith'. I don't think you can let religion off the hook so easily.Knowledge by itself is not evil - it can merely be twisted as such by individuals keen on domination and power. I would rather live in a world without religion than without science, and any of you considering otherwise should think about whether you'd like to be living in a cave eating raw animal flesh right now, because it's about where we'd be without science.
This is such an interesting question. I must say that, if I had to choose, I'd rather live in a world without science than one without religion. I'm wondering, however, what we mean by religion in this particular case. Do we mean the concept of believing in a higher power or hidden power, or do we mean organized groups that believe in the same docrine and creed? I'm thinking the former. I think it's absolutely necessary to human life that we believe in the possibility that there is something beyond us, something that can't be explained, something that is greater, better, and awesomer. This gives us hope, something to aspire to. I also think that organized groups help people understand themselves, gives them comfort, and community. So, although I realize that organized religion is sometimes the source of conflicts around the world, generally it's the groups that are extreme one way or another that make it so. I think that most people who are religious enjoy going to church, synague, or temple to be in communion with others in the belief of thir common higher/hidden power.
As an exercise for discussion, this has been an interesting question. My answer, after some contemplation is: I want to live in a world where science and religion peacefully co-exist; where science and religion aren't competing. Why must we give up one to have the other? That is the question! We don't; that is the answer.
I agree with Laura that my defination of religon was belief in something higher than myself. I choose religon because for me religon is the birthplace of story and I for one can't live without story. Religon is the keeper of the id the dreams, the unknowable. Science is the knowable, the measureable, the ego. With science ruling and no God allowed do you realize how many stories would be lost forever? Count of Monte Cristo, Les Mes, all of mythology, A Christmas Carol, East of Eden, Razor's Edge etc. If the world could only be what is true and measurable doesn't that mean goodbye fiction?For those who choose science remember the question was a world without religon. That means no Chirstmas, Thanksgiving, St. Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter, Passover, etc. It also means no weekend since that develop as a religous idea of having one day of rest to think of holy things. Goodbye weekend hello seven day work week - science what to get things done.
Yes, science has given us great advances especially with technology. But while I can imagine a world without technology I can fathom living in a world without story.
Best is as Will says to live in a world of both science and religon.
Very astute observation, Pandora. It is true that too much of anything is bad. This is especially if it's all work and no play, or living in the dark ages, as living in a world with only science or only religion would be.
I'd rather live in a world without religion! Nobody would fight about who is right and who is wrong!
Just a thought on the subject.... In a world without science, we would still be squatting in the woods or desert sands, walking or riding beasts of burden, carrying water and starving during droughts.
Oh, and we would still have wars, disease and crime.
War is really a poltical instrument. Religon can be misused to justify it but it is poltics that drives war. Just like polticis drove the cretion of the atomic bomb. Maybe it is poltics that needs to be gotten rid of? And those who only want to live in the science world do you really only want to live with only being able to read nonfiction? If you look at many dysutopia novels there is usually two things absent. Religon and books. The two are linked.
By the way in world without religon how do you plan to know what year it is? The calandar is based on Jesus' birth. It's wrong but, still can you use a calandar that is based on religon in a world without religon?
Will you have a point but, the Earth also wouldn't be tipping to disater because of pollution, no overpoplution, and though there would be war it would be less destructive. More importantly we might not have books but, we would have storytellers.
It is really not the world of religon or science that I live in but, the world of story which to me is more the philosophy mode of thought. Like Spencer Tracy in Inheirt the Wind I want my Bible and Darwin side by side.
I think that humans will continue to argue about who is right and who is wrong even if we do not have religion. We make those arguments with scienec too. We have tendency to assume that somehow science is always black and white, always clear in its answers, but that's not true. Science has its "isms" and pattern of thinking, philosophy, approach, and point of view, all of which affect the thing that we think is a fact. Science is not always exact, and therefore we will and we do fight over who is right and who is wrong.
Good point, Laura. It might be possible to have a world without religion or science, but a world without politics? Never will it happen.
Politics is the totality of interrelationships in life involving power, authority, or influence. How can we eliminate it? We can't. We can do it poorly or better, but never eliminate it.
Science exists, discovered or undiscovered.
Religion is about how people believe way down deep in their souls. Organizing it might be eliminated, but people will always find something to believe and believe in.
I was joking about poltics but, also trying to make a point that even without religon there would still be war. I do agree that there has to be science and religon. They are both two parts that make the whole.
I think we've mostly agreed that science and religion are both necessary; now, how do we get them to co-exist in a positive and cohesive way? I grew up with both and never saw them in conflict. Now, it seems they have declared war, one against the other, for some reason. I'm just not sure what the reason is.
I may be going off into irrelevancy, BUT....
I love ancient lore. I love reading the Christian Bible's accounts of ancient people finding ways to live together, often failing but trying again and again to arrive where we are today. But I wouldn't pit it against science anymore than I would put the accounts of King Arthur against science for accuracy or probability.
I guess my question is: Why do we have to make everything a battle? Can't we love our Creator and our creation, both?
Oh, and I was kind of joking, also, when I suggested that, unfortuneately, we can't eliminate politics and politicians.
I think it is the rise of fundamentalism that is casusing the problem. The idea I am right and you are wrong. As fundamentalism gains power there is blacklash of angry that encompasses unfortuntely all religon. The solution though is not to get rid of religon but, instead foster a more liberal view of religon in which religon and science support each other rather than declare war. Instead of trying to prove who is right wouldn't it be better to find out whatwe share as beliefs rather than focus on what is different?
I too grew up with the idea that religon and science could work together to give humankind a better understanding of the world. I also grew up with the idea that no matter how good a fit my religon was for me it wasn't the only good option. Different religon for different people.
Fundemental religion is definitely the problem. Recently I was taught that you can't "save" anyone because they're where they need to be in life. To take someone out of the situation they're in may very well cause them to miss out on the lesson they are supposed to learn.I was also taught that every religion reaches the same place in the end; the only variances are the paths taken and the belief of what the destination will be like.
With the elction over, now, I took the time to read back through this thread; some very interesting points were made that I missed along the way. I never finished, so never published a project, working titled--I know I'm right, but that doesn't have to make you wrong. It came from an interesting conversation, similar to this one.
On many subjects we often feel we are SO right, religion being one example. The obvious conclusion then becomes--those who disagree must be wrong. What seems perfectly "right" for one person may be very "wrong" for another.
When we seek not our differences but our commonality we win. Along the way, the working title became, "Divided We Fail." AARP snagged that one before I got around to using it, but it does make the point: If we focus on our different views of "right" and "wrong" we lose.
Now, back to the subject....
In science, we look for the absolute truth of how things work. We develop theories and test them. We then look for ways to use that knowledge.
In religion, we seek something totally different from outsie sources and inner sources. We arrive at conclusions with little objectivity and much subjectivity.
Thus, science brings us closer together in our conclusions and religion draws us further apart in our conclusions.
Oh, and I've read the Bible several times and don't remember Jesus ever advocating murder, just for the record.
i wanna to live in world of science but not with religion...
Does that mean you don't what to read fiction anymore? If science is enough they why in almost all the dysutopia novels the two things that are gone are religon and books? The two are tied together. Both are about thinking beyond what is factual. With fiction and religon people learn to think beyond themseleves and think of a higher good. Thus, it becomes easier to rouse them to fight for the higher good - Civil War, World War II, and protests leads by the Rev. Martin Luther King. Yes, it can also be used for evil which is why you need the doubt that science supplies. Religon is capable of great evil because it is capable of great good. Yin and Yang.
Science is good but, it is a cold shoulder when your world is destoryed. After 9/11 I didn't go to a science hall I went to my church.
Do you really plan to work seven days a week? The concept of a weekend came about because of the Sabbath. Not to mention gone would be most of the holidays (holy days).
I don't believe that science has an answer for everything (yet), but I'm a strong atheist and so I'd rather live in a world with science than a world with religion. As far as I know, wars are more often started because of religion than science. (these days particularly)
I would like to live in a world where both of them complemented each other instead of fighting each other. Religion brings a touch of imagination and mystery to a scientific world. A world witout religion would be boring. I'm not a religious person but I understand why it matters (when used properly of course). Religion doesnt have to be a bad thing just because it is based on things that arent (scientificly)real. Look at art for example. Its useless and most of the times doesnt represent reality at all. But why is it important? Because we like it and it makes us feel. On the other hand, a world without science would be horrible. Would be like going back to the dark ages or something. Knowledge is one of the most important things in our world and I just couldnt live without it. For me, science is a lot more important than religion, but living without religion at all doesnt seem very interesting either.
Science encourages us to say "Can we do it?" amd religion tempers that with "Should we do it?". In a nutshell, a little influence form each is balance.
Without religion, no question about it.
Wittystar: I didn't do a count, but I thought I saw more "both" answers than "science only" answers, but to try to answer your question, "Why more 'science' answers?".... I think the responses assumed the definition of "relgion" meant "organized-religion." If the question were a choice between science and spirituality the answers would be different, maybe.
Atrocities have been committed in the name of both. Humans have the capacity for damage, with or without science or religion. Science gives us better health care and bigger bombs. Organized religions are more about controlling people. Spirituality is more about people's desire for solace and peace in their souls.
It's an interesting discussion, but the truth is: we will always have all of those elements as long as we are human; they all meet our needs in different ways.
I think Wittystar (A breakthrough a Morman and Unitaran Universalist agree) though does have a point. That most of the science people answer as to why no religion is that they don't like organize religon. They see to what to get rid of the fundamentalist type of relgion without seeing there are other ways to be religious. They also don't seem to answer any questions about are they really ready to give up what has come about through religon - stories, holidays, weekends, the way we date the calandar. They just seem to say religon bad goodbye.
When I choose religon I did think through what would disappear from the library shelf. Religon goodbye fiction (irrational not proveable), Mythology, and folklore. Science goodbye the 500's and 600's. Hmm don't read much of those all right goodbye.
I also tried to think what the world would be like. In truth I couldn't think of a time when religion hasn't been a major factor in the world. Can think of times when science wasn't. Bibical times, Middle Ages. That is one plus of religon. A religious world can give birth to a scienctific one like the Middle Ages did. Don't think it can work in reverse.
In a world without religion (pure logic no irrational) all I could think of where sci-fi examples. Invansion of the Body Snacters, The aliens in Gaxlaxy Quest, and the Vulcans of Star Trek. The common factor is that they are all not human.
To me that is the main problem with choosing science. Religion is the id of society. Without
the id you have a calmer rational creature but, it is not human. So, if you choose science could you please explain how people are still going to be people? Are you really ready to lose everything religion has brought about?
PS. In answer to Will. I also think if you say science only and no religion than there goes spirtuiality. Otherwise it would be like the religion people saying no science but, I'm keeping my technolgy.
I believe that religion and science at their core are unseparably intertwined.I'm not talking about the people who use them.
No, I meant religion of all or any kind. Better off without it.
Kat: I should say spirituality opposed to organized religion, which is what I do in my life. I stay away from all forms of organized religion, but am huge on personal spirituality. I often take the approach Einstein did: (paraphrased for my own purposes) If I were the master designer, how would I do it, or how would I wish it to be?
In my spiritual understanding of my universe, God exists in all things at all times; finding the god thing and respecting it in myself, others and things is my challenge, all day, each day. I can no more give that up than I can live w/o air. I don't call that "religion." I call that my form of "spirituality."
I'm a massage therapist by trade, author by desire; I cannot function in my trade w/o higher powers invoking healing. I am not a healer but an enabler. God instilled healing into life. Religion (among other things) is what we do to mess up God's work. Science is what we do to understand it and use it.
Heather: Well put.
But, the question is either or. Science or religion. If you divide everything we have into the relgion camp or science camp then spirituality goes into the relgion camp. As for sprituality being opposed to all religions are you really sure about that? The relgious right has a very loud voice but, it is not the only way to view organized religion. There is also the religious left which I'm part of.
I identify with what you said about finding god in all things and respecting it because of my Unitarian Universalist belief in the inhert worth and diginity of every human being. Though I don't know much about it I'm think the Quakers would also fall into with your ideas.
To me you can't get rid of a negative relgion by saying there is no religion. Instead you fight fire with fire and come up with a better one.
Also without organized religon to come up with the concept of God how would you have a god to think about?
Actually my perfer method of thinking is neither science or religion but, the option that is not even offered. The philosphical one that seeks understanding through all knowledge.
PS Thanks for answering. :)
I am religious, but I believe that a world without science would be horrible, of course, both are necessary, but for the sake of this, I'd rather be in a world without religion.
Both religion and science ask Why? What? Where? When? and How? questions. Why do we have a conscience? Why is the grass green? What is right and wrong? What is gravity? Where do we go when we die? Where do the birds go in winter? When was the earth created/evolved? How do we know there is a God? How do we taste our food?To get rid of either, I think you would have to somehow stifle the couriosity humans are naturally born with.
I am a christian, and since I believe that God created the world, for me studying science is learning about God.
Hear, Hear, Wittystar!
Kristal, >>>I see it this way: science doesn't usually inspire the kind of dangerous zealotry that religion can and often does.<<<
That's because religion usually holds the scientists accountable. Without religion there would be no right or wrong.
Hitler, for example, allowed the theory of evolution to dictate to him which humans had worth. Mass murder.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
feeling good is wrong? Thats very 1984.