Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,901-11,950 of 12,463

[Danielle]

cHriS wrote: "The world has and will survive perfectly well without science or religion. Maybe the people that inhabit it would not."

Yes, the world can survive without us (human beings), but the question was "Would you rather live in a world..."

[cHriS]

Danielle wrote: Yes, the world can survive without us (human beings), but the question was "Would you rather live in a world..

Yes I know and I did answer that question a year ago, but my last reply was in reply to Unnikrishnan......

[Unnikrishnan]

cHriS wrote: "Danielle wrote: Yes, the world can survive without us (human beings), but the question was "Would you rather live in a world..

Yes I know and I did answer that question a year ago, but my last rep..."

Science is another name for evolution, so i think religion when at its peak will lead to destruction with the help of science.

World has survived and will survive without religion, whether humans survive or not...and i would rather live in world without religion than without science.

[cHriS]

Unnikrishnan wrote: Science is another name for evolution.

?

[Heather]

cHriS wrote: "Unnikrishnan wrote: Science is another name for evolution.

?"

I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Unnikrishnan meant that for him, science represents the evolution of humanity, whether in the sense of the moral zeitgeist or the progress of humanity via technology, by this statement.

[Unnikrishnan]

Heather wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Unnikrishnan wrote: Science is another name for evolution.

?"

I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Unnikrishnan meant that for him, science represents the evolution of..."

Heather wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Unnikrishnan wrote: Science is another name for evolution.

?"

I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Unnikrishnan meant that for him, science represents the evolution of..."

Hi Heather, i mean to say Progress of Humanity Via Technology, any new invention by science is a kind of evolution in todays world.

[Princess]

No offense to religion antics out there but for me, I can't live without science,because science is innovation. it helps improve our living. on the other hand, religion just kept on dividing us into different groups with different believe.

[Asma]

I just find it mind-boggling that this has to be a choice. How about BOTH? Science that acknowledges religion and religion that acknowledges science...they aren't, or don't have to be, mutually exclusive. This is only 1 culture's view of the situation.

[[deleted user]]

I think we kinda need both. Science helps us discover new things. Religion helps shape us into who we are as people.

[Mickey]

I cannot stand religion and I their want their laws and beliefs off of me. They want their prayers in schools and make everyone else pray also. Religious people want to shame those that do not believe as if non religious people are evil and bad. Religious people want their laws pushed upon others like anti single sex marriages that harm no one else. They want tax free institutions like churches where less goes to running a government. Religious people tend be against every social change like civil rights and voting rights for women.

Religious people believe they are chosen by God. If you do not believe, then you are not chosen by God and considered a bad person and do not feel guilty by inflicting pain upon them. If you wish to believe fine with me... Just keep those religious laws off of me.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "I cannot stand religion and I their want their laws and beliefs off of me. They want their prayers in schools and make everyone else pray also. Religious people want to shame those that do not beli..."

I'm sorry, but not everyone who believes in "GOD" pushes their believes on others, or thinks non-God believers are BAD.

There are those who follow "Religion" and those who follow "God". AND YES, there is a clear difference. Not trying to start an argument. Just wanted to clarify your statement.

I agree with you. Religion shouldn't be pushed on someone, nor is it anyone's place to tell you how to live your life or what to believe in.

I am of Christian faith, and religion is not something we follow or believe in. We are followers of Jesus/God. Which means we live our lives trying to be good people (the way God would want for us). Whether that actually happens..is another story/debate.

[Pete]

Joyce wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I cannot stand religion and I their want their laws and beliefs off of me. They want their prayers in schools and make everyone else pray also. Religious people want to shame those t..."

Hi Joyce, I am just curious on your last paragraph.
Have you ever thought that "you can live your lives trying to be good people" (borrowing your terms) regardless whether you have the so-called Christian faith or not?

[[deleted user]]

YK wrote: "Joyce wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I cannot stand religion and I their want their laws and beliefs off of me. They want their prayers in schools and make everyone else pray also. Religious people want to..."

@YK: To be honest, I wasn't always Christian...so to answer your question, I do believe you can be a good person with or without God. It's whatever YOU choose to be :)

I know a few good (non-religious, non-Christian) people. The only issue is: GOOD people are hard to come by.

[Paula]

Its funny this old discussion showed up on my page today. I just finished The Evolution of God by Robert Wright- and I have to recommend it highly to anyone really interested in science vs religion question.

Two days ago I may have chimed in with a personal opinion, but after reading this very interesting well written anthropological study its clear science and religion are both the struggles of man to understand their surroundings and create large scale civilizations that allow the technological advances of today. One can not be considered- would not exist- without the other. Its fascinating to see Wright present this discussion thoroughly from the dawn of humanity- before there was recorded history to the present without bias, without adgenda.

[Paula]

Im gonna throw in personal opinion anyway-

Yesterday I might have said science is better- it allows less room for abuse (and yesterday I was still Christian as I am today)

BUT- Today I would say religion- even though I am horrified at atrocities committed in its name over eons.

Without an omnipotent moral God (or Gods) to enforce a code of behavior that is generally accepted at a distance and applied to all people the group would never come together. We would all still be living in isolated xenophobic tribes. Prehistoric man would never advance enough to create large scale states where people could afford to separate and focus on larger issues- You wouldn't have farmers in the mid west and computer geeks in the north east, bankers in NY and physicists at the Franco-Swiss border. It just wouldn't work.

[Mickey]

Paula wrote: "Without an omnipotent moral God (or Gods) to enforce a code of behavior that is generally accepted at a distance and applied to all people the group would"

One does not need a "God" to create or enforce a code of behavior. People create and enforce laws. Some people create a "God" and push what they believe is "Right and Wrong" upon others. It is these what is right and what is wrong values change as societies grow.

The Bible and other religious text tend to have laws in them that their followers to live by and many of these laws are death sentences that are written in stone.

One does not need a religious text to define what is "Right and Wrong" or what is "Good or Evil". People can find common ground in which to live by. With democracies people can change the laws in which we live by. Religious laws are not so flexible and not needed.

[Shanice]

As a Physics student and a devout Catholic, this is quite a dilemma to me. I would have to go with science, though. Religion has always helped me (and the people around me, I believe) to keep what society has labeled as morals in tact. Nevertheless, without religion, these morals would probably be lost, as I think religion has had a lot to do with deciding on what is "right and wrong."

[cHriS]

Shanice wrote: devout Catholic .... I would have to go with science, though..."

devout ?

[David]

Would any of you give antibiotics, vaccines for mumps, measles, chicken pox, small pox, polio, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, jets, television, radio, indoor plumbing, central air and heating, seat belts, air bags, etc. ? Science and technology brought all these improvements to our lives. If I had to give up one thing, it would be religion.

[Johnny]

For me it would have to be without religion. I had a conversation with a christian friend recently, and was trying to explain that I had no faith at all (in a religious sense) and that I just didn't feel it, or have any sense of there being a supreme being. Science is tangible, and that appeals to me more as a human being. That's not to say that I am merely a crass materialist, and see no wonder in the world of nature and it's marvels, but belief in a god seems to me to be the worst example of circular logic.

[cHriS]

....but then these 'wonders of nature' are not wonders unless you perceive them to be or you think that nature is itself supreme.

[Johnny]

cHriS wrote: "....but then these 'wonders of nature' are not wonders unless you perceive them to be or you think that nature is itself supreme."

Well, I didn't intend "wonders" to mean anything supernatural; purely that nature is an awesome thing in itself. There are reasons why natural things happen as they do, and we, as people, understand why most of them happen as they can be observed, studied and even predicted in many cases. This is more understandable, to me anyway, than the idea that "God makes everything happen...how do you know?...it says so in the bible...how do you know the bible is correct...you just have to have faith...why?...because it says so in the bible", etc.

[cHriS]

But you seem to be giving ' nature' the credit for things that you perceive to be wonderous.

[Heather]

Johnny wrote: "cHriS wrote: "....but then these 'wonders of nature' are not wonders unless you perceive them to be or you think that nature is itself supreme."

Well, I didn't intend "wonders" to mean anything su..."

I agree with you; much about the world is absolutely wondrous and awe-inspiring. Much of what I've learned about the world around me has been catalyzed by observing something and wondering how it works or why it is. It's why I decided to go into archaeology from a more science-oriented perspective.

[Elaine]

Religions were created by people. Moral beliefs of what is right and wrong were created by people. Religion and religious beliefs are unnecessary for society to function. Science has enabled people to live rich, long, healthy and interesting lives.

Chris, please clarify your comments about nature and wondrous: I don't understand the point you are trying to make. (Nature is wondrous!)

[cHriS]

Nature is just nature. It is only perceived to be wondrous, by people.

[Brad]

Kindness is most important because it is always available. Love is involuntary and respect must be earned.

Otherwise, I don't like Dan Brown's books. They are ridiculous.

As for science vs religion, I can't imagine a world without religion, though it might be a better world. I can imagine a world without science because science did not come into existence until the 14th century. Though I can imagine it, I would not want to go back to the world before science. So let's keep science.

[Hajirah]

I think science and religion go hand in hand. They each strengthen and prove the existence of the other. The fascinating presence of science points to the divine being of God, his perfection and the perfection of His Creation. But the source is always God, so a world without religion is impossible. Likewise, a world without science is impossible for they are the signs of God himself. But, I'll just play along - I'd much rather live in a world with religion.

[Uday]

I'm a big time atheist. But I don't think religion is essentially bad. Like someone said, it gives people a moral compass and a support system. And the world might be in disarray today if not for it.

I only get pissed off when people use religion to judge other's morality or to mandate what to do or not to do. That is SO WRONG! You cannot rub religion into someone else's face who is completely fine by the way. Each of us have our own moral compass, and as long as you are not harming anyone with your deeds, I don't see why it's so blasphemous to live against the ethics set by religion.

Bottom line is, science is essential!! We would have been living in a cave as stone age men today if not for it. But religion is an extra addition. Think of it as adding spice to food. For some people, it makes everything better. But for some people, it might just be too much to handle. And forcing everyone to eat spicy food doesn't go too well either. Because each of us have our own definition of 'tasty food' (Okay, I'll stop with the analogy now :D)

[Johnny]

cHriS wrote: "Nature is just nature. It is only perceived to be wondrous, by people."

True, but it's still tangible and can be seen to exist; what happens in nature is observable. Nature is something that people can see and have to engage with directly, whether they think that it's wondrous or not.

[Circlestones Books Blog]

Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religion. So for me definitively it would be a world without religion but a world not only of science but most of all of phantasy, creativity and all kind of art.

[Heather]

magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religion. So for me definitively it would be a world without religion but..."

I do agree with you on living in a world without religion, but I think a world with science would most definitely still have fantasy, creativity, and art. There are plenty of atheist fantasy authors and I wouldn't doubt that there are lots of atheist artists.

[Travis]

Johnny wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Nature is just nature. It is only perceived to be wondrous, by people."

True, but it's still tangible and can be seen to exist; what happens in nature is observable. Nature is somet..."


Not really sure why humans preceiving it, makes nature any less wondrous?

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religion. So for me definitively it would be a world ..."

I'm confused, if religion and god are real things, as people claim, then why does getting rid of them cause people to say we would also lose fantasy and imagination?

Doesn't religion only need fantasy and imagination if they are making stuff up?

and who says there's no imagination in science?

Something's mixed up here.

[Heather]

Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religion. So for me definitively it w..."

I was saying that I don't think we would lose fantasy and religion if we gave up religion because if that were the case, we wouldn't have people like George R.R. Martin, Archie Hind, Arthur C. Clarke, Vincent Deporter, etc. Sorry if that all got mixed up.

I think there's a great deal of imagination in science, judging by Carl Sagan's work on a guidebook to first contact.

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religion. So for me de..."

Wasn't going after you specifically, it's just the 'we lose religion, we lose imagination' things has shown up several times on this thread and it always puzzles me.

I always figured imagination goes with science, after all religion is the word of god, so there's no need to make stuff up.

[Heather]

Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life without any religi..."

Sorry; I'm familiar with the fact that it can be hard to disseminate what people mean with only type. I will agree that the "we lose religion, we lose imagination argument" is just as ridiculous as the "we lose religion, all hell will break loose" argument.

Imagination definitely is required with certain sciences, especially some forms of archaeology and astrophysics. The quote "my research suggests that in some alternate universes I'm a clown made of candy" from The Big Bang Theory specifically comes to mind, but I'm also not very familiar with string theory, so I'm sure there are better jokes/analogies out there.

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "magicsunset wrote: "Any religion leads and has led to wars, death and cruelties. So, its a long time now that I - personally - life wit..."

My fault. I have a bad habit of reading a bunch of responses and then replying without backtracking replies, so I make a general comment on a specific post.

[Sharon]

If we didn't have science, we wouldn't have weapons.

If we didn't have religion, we wouldn't have wars.

[Mickey]

Sharon wrote: "If we didn't have science, we wouldn't have weapons.

If we didn't have religion, we wouldn't have wars."

Cool, I will then take the weapons without the wars any day :)

[Sharon]

Mickey wrote: "Sharon wrote: "If we didn't have science, we wouldn't have weapons.

If we didn't have religion, we wouldn't have wars."

Cool, I will then take the weapons without the wars any day :)"
Me too!

[C.C.]

Sharon wrote: "If we didn't have science, we wouldn't have weapons.

If we didn't have religion, we wouldn't have wars."

Not just bullshit, but patently absurd bullshit. The U.S. has fought a number of wars, but none of them were because of religion. Some might have ties to religion if you want to trace causality back far enough, but they would all have happened with or without religion.

This is as stupid as saying that without religion no one would ever help anyone else just because religion sometimes factors into someone's decision to help someone else.

[Sharon]

I was being poignant, not factual. Ease up.

[Ruth]

Religion. That's easy.

[Johnny]

Brad wrote: "Kindness is most important because it is always available. Love is involuntary and respect must be earned.

Otherwise, I don't like Dan Brown's books. They are ridiculous.

As for science vs relig..."

Brad wrote: "Kindness is most important because it is always available. Love is involuntary and respect must be earned.

Otherwise, I don't like Dan Brown's books. They are ridiculous.

As for science vs relig..."

I'm sorry, but it is demonstrably untrue that "science did not come into existence until the 14th century"

[Raghav]

A world without religion is like lemon juice without a bit of salt,its bound to be sour.
On the other hand,a world without science is like juice without the lemon itself.
Combined,they give you the best way to beat the heat.

[Arnis]

I'd rather live in a world without religion.

[Pauline]

As A Great man who i adore once said:
"Science without religion is Lame,Religion without Science is Blind" - Albert Einstein

[cHriS]

: )

[Lynda]

Both. Only both.
Pandora, above, states that religion could turn into science but not likely the other way round.
I think the other way round could work -- if you're deeply into science and you work at it for a long time you simply have to marvel at 'life the universe and everything' -- maybe whatever experience of wonder that scientists have wouldn't be called 'religion' but there's a deep sense of mystery and gratitude that comes with science and with being gifted with the opportunity to participate in the study and act of living.