Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
i prefer livining in world that has no science and no religion
I think anywhere there are humans gathered together in a society, there will be some sort of religion that is invented. Humans either feel grateful for the good that has happened and want to thank a power higher than their own, OR they have had bad things happen and want to blame a power higher than their own.
They also want to be able to call on someone or something to give them strength during trials.
None of this is logical in any way, but I do think it's "human nature". And no matter how misguided or misplaced, it probably has given them strenght to do things they wouldn't have otherwise been able to do or endure. Even though it came from within them all along.
Maria wrote: "I think anywhere there are humans gathered together in a society, there will be some sort of religion that is invented. Humans either feel grateful for the good that has happened and want to tha..."
You're right to tell that religions are "invented".
Of course they are invented - they were just invented so far back in time that people think they've just always been there.
When "man" were nothing more than barely conscious animals, crawling from their caves, surrounding by tooth and fang, watching death all around them, they needed something to explain what was happening around them - why the sun came up, why there was death and life. At the time, it was understandable, and "religion" the way to explain the unexplainable. Now, our brains should be wise enough to understand that nature and science are what is true, but so many still rely on the crutch of religion. I seem to be missing that gene, if there is such. Things are or they are not, and no amount of crying to some unseen entity is going to change that - only hard work, compassion, and learning.
And can we have a Hallelujah, Brother?!?!? ROFL!!!
Travis wrote: 'Now, I'm trying to figure out who the pope would send his stuff to in order to have a 'peer review'.He's the pope! Who counts as his peers?'
The heads of other religions? How about people - he's a person. My point was that there's no balance and checks on religion, no way to test it. And that's where this kind of discussion fails, because religious people always pull out the 'blind-faith' card and there's no arguing against that.
You can take all organised religions and flush them away as far as I'm concerned. People can believe what they need to without having an organisation tell them them how to do it.
Llyr you make some valid points. However, I must point out that my objection to organised religion is based on the fact that it can't demonstarte the validity of it's claims. And furthermore, it's leaders are all well educated theologians that undoutedly know that the much of the bible is made up of retold versions of earlier religions. If they know this, why do they maintain biblical truth?I totally agree that there are bad people of all persuations and that science is not an opposite of religion. I would also agree that believing in a 'god' is beneficial to people that find it comforting.
But that's where I draw the line. Why should the Church have any sway over political decisons? Why should people's lives be influenced by the decisons of a few powerful men/wpomen at the head of organisations that can't substantiate their claims?
They have too much power.
Llyr wrote: "Danielle wrote: "Religions are moral or psychological crutches to help walking people who can't do it on their own."No, I still knew right from wrong before I became a Christian (though Christiani..."
Agreed.
Llyr wrote: "Hm. There are several people, religious and not, open-minded enough not to insult religions. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of hateful people too, religious and not. just accept the beliefs of..."Agreed again.
Rob wrote: "Llyr you make some valid points. However, I must point out that my objection to organised religion is based on the fact that it can't demonstarte the validity of it's claims. And furthermore, it's..."True Rob. I have no problem with at all with spirituality - it is a centering force of great power. What I am deeply opposed to is churches and what they stand for - power and control, feeding off of the people and their fears.
If you find that spirituality works for you? Go for it. But don't let yourself be manipulated by a twisted and political church that uses you. Go for a walk. Sit outside and look at the stars and talk to whatever entity you happen to believe in. But the whole Hallelujah, and pass the plate, oh and by the way hate anyone who has different beliefs than you do? That is just twisted.
Geez, is there a choice? Not in my mind. I already do live in a world without religion, and it works just fine for me.
God, not religion, is a constant. What other constants are there? Now, Truth, unconditional Love. I choose God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6WaC... Peter and Gordon say it best, "I don't care what they say, I won't stay in a world without love."
Danny wrote: "Have you seen this:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
There are ma..."
When people believe that religions are not about hate... You gave a good example of the opposite.
Jack wrote: "God, not religion, is a constant. What other constants are there? Now, Truth, unconditional Love. I choose God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6WaC... Peter and Gordon say it best, "I don..."
I also refuse to live in a world without love and I love science.
Many religions preach hate for those that choose to be different.
Mickey wrote: "I also refuse to live in a world without love and I love science. "Yep. Love doesn't have to come with a sticker price. BTW? LOVE the puppy!!!!
I think we would all benefit to live in a world where we believe in the "human spirit" and expect that we all raise ourselves to the "higher human standards" of tolerance and love of our fellow man, no matter religion or not. Science is part of life, and for some religion is too. So in that regard we should respect all facets of the human experience. We need both.
God is not dead. That's a terrific movie that is out that takes on this debate. Go see it if you are interested in this topic.
Danielle wrote: "Danny wrote: "Have you seen this:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor......" This is an obvious example of intolerance - it was also posted on April's Fools Day, how appropriate.
Henderson wrote: "God is not dead. That's a terrific movie that is out that takes on this debate. Go see it if you are interested in this topic."Well, if he is still alive, then he's either completely indifferent to us or outright hateful.
Travis wrote: "Henderson wrote: "God is not dead. That's a terrific movie that is out that takes on this debate. Go see it if you are interested in this topic."Well, if he is still alive, then he's either com..."
Have you ever read this?
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of The Bible
Hmm... As an atheist: If I found a hot looking very wealthy woman and extremely religious that wanted me and filled my life with absolutely joy. I think I would find religion :)
So is it better to be religious and live in a world of fantasy and be happy "OR" know the truth and be misserable as an atheist?
You can guess my path from the first statement.
Travis wrote: "So, in seeing that tolerance as usual is raining supreme, I am going to pose the very specific question to those folks who feel it necessary to ship Religious folks "off to the moon" and have not o..."Since he wasn't the only one working for civil rights, we most likely would be celebrating someone else's day.
Religion does not have the monopoly on good people who work for good causes.
So, do we now get to pick a bad religious person and demand you defend keeping him?
I bet we could keep this game going for ages.
Also, if you are going to be the avatar of tolerance, you might want to re-think lumping all the non-religious folk into the lunar committee.
Danny wrote: "Travis wrote: "Henderson wrote: "God is not dead. That's a terrific movie that is out that takes on this debate. Go see it if you are interested in this topic."Well, if he is still alive, then ..."
Have not heard of it, but that's a catchy title. I'll have to look for it next time I'm at the library.
It's actually out in theaters right now. Check it out.
i cant emagine life without both.i have issues with religion but i must say that i think its a matter of what one believes in.our idealism of what we grew up with is a challenge in either aspect of our lives and i for once found this book to be an interesting view of what could or could not be depending on our views.
I wonder if there is some middle ground here. Unlikely, I know, but maybe ...If we look at this from the perspective of history, just about every civilization that has ever existed on earth has had both science and religion. We have tried to make sense of the world around us by measurement and experiment (science) and by faith (religion). And sometimes the two get combined together, when measurement and experiment confirms faith.
History also tells us that both science and religion ... um ... evolve. Sorry, but there's no easy way to avoid that word. Scientific theories are knocked over and replaced as new evidence emerges. Religions are superseded so that whole pantheons of gods are confined to the history books. Thor wasn't always an actor with chiselled abs. He was once somebody's actual pray-to, sacrifice-to god.
Religions also change within their skins. The Christianity that we follow now is not the Christianity of Jesus's day.
Right now there is no single world religion. In fact, the religion that you follow is largely determined by where you are born. Now that's what I call a postcode lottery.
I'm afraid that is good news and bad news for both the atheists and the believers. It means that ... drum roll please ...
If history is anything to go by, the religion that you follow will eventually be superseded by something else. Hundreds of years of ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings and Eqyptians believed in their now defunct gods as fervently as you believe in yours.
But before the atheists get too comfortable, let's not forget that just about every civilization has felt the need to have a religion, even if they do change it from time to time. That's an awful lot of people getting it wrong if there is no god, gods, demigods or goddesses.
So where does this leave us? I suppose the OP question is an unrealistic choice. I don't think we can have a society without religion or science. We seem to need both. And whether there is or is not a god, we almost certainly don't understand him/it/her. That would be like an ant trying to understand a space shuttle. But huge numbers of us seem to feel the need to believe in something.
In the ultimate analysis (and checking my insurance against death by lightning bolt) perhaps it does not matter whether god exists or not. We seem to need a shared concept of goodness which can unite us and give us a code to live by. That concept of goodness could come from some supernatural being or it could just come from each of us. It's how it makes us act and feel that matters, not where it comes from.
There - I may just have alienated everyone on both sides of the argument. Sorry about that.
Albert Einstein said it best "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.".But if I had to answer I would say religion cause no religion doesn't mean no spirituality. I do not follow any religion but do have my own spiritual beliefs.
The basis of all religions is LOVE. If everybody could live by that basis we wouldn't need religion, and that's when we would find Him, Her, It or whatever you believe is up there that we can't see.
Will wrote: "I wonder if there is some middle ground here. Unlikely, I know, but maybe ...If we look at this from the perspective of history, just about every civilization that has ever existed on earth has h..."
you can relax, you haven't alienated me.
I'm sure that's a load off your mind.
You have a lot of good points and believe me, I would be more than happy to leave the religious folk alone, if they would give me the same consideration.
I don't have a problem with people believing in something, it's when they decide we all have to follow/believe/do things according to their rules.
I'd be more than happy to meet in the middle, or agree to disagree, but then people decide we have change the law or are allowed to treat people badly, because 'god said so'.
That's one of the Dawkins arguments, isn't it? That religion can be positively harmful because mankind makes laws in its name, persecutes people with different views and makes laws that non-believers might not agree with.And I suppose it's hard to argue that some religions do bad things some of the time. Just as some non-religious beliefs can also cause similar harm, such as patriotism or allegiance to a particular football club.
But on the whole why can't religious folk and atheists co-exist? Folk keep trying to sell us stuff all the time, whether it is double glazing, naughty pictures on the internet or their particular beliefs (political, religious or otherwise). Simply say "no thanks, I've already got one" and the problem usually goes away.
And - in the west at least - it seems that just as many laws are made for non-religious reasons as for religious ones. Unless David "road-to-Damascus" Cameron gets really serious about his "Britain is a Christian country" stuff, which appears to be mostly the latest bright idea dreamt up by a spin doctor.
Personally, I DESPISE anything beyond the most fundamental science (i.e. medicine, agriculture, etc). to be more precise, I feel very strongly that most of the technology that has emerged over my lifetime is leading to a very rapid downfall of society in general. We need religion to maintain a sense of morality and responsibility toward one another - we cannot survive as a species without this.
So, as often happens on GoodReads, I have been misconstrued. The scientific method, a new way of looking at the world, was invented in the second millennium of the common era in western europe.That's what I meant, not that there weren't scientific-y things before then. There were great minds before then too, who taught parts of what later became the scientific method, like empiricism. Aristotle is a great example.
But what we now understand to be the scientific method is something rather new.
I think that is true.
science and evidence based practice all the way.
If there was no religion, there was no science.
Patricia wrote: "Personally, I DESPISE anything beyond the most fundamental science (i.e. medicine, agriculture, etc). to be more precise, I feel very strongly that most of the technology that has emerged over my ..."except, religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
Morality and responsibility exist outside of religion.
and some groups and people claiming to be religious have acted in some pretty immoral and unpleasant ways.
Maryam wrote: "If there was no religion, there was no science."I'm going to need further explanation on that one.
Maryam wrote: "If there was no religion, there was no science."Nonsense.
Travis wrote: "Patricia wrote: "Personally, I DESPISE anything beyond the most fundamental science (i.e. medicine, agriculture, etc). to be more precise, I feel very strongly that most of the technology that has..."I agree with you, Travis that the so-called religious have not acted like religious. Why would I want to be like them. You can be good and moral without a god!
Maryam wrote: "If there was no religion, there was no science."I think I partly agree. Most religions come about because a civilization wants to do one or more of these things:
1. Provide a moral code - a set of rules to live by.
2. Change something that the civilization or individual is afraid of, such as disease, crops failing or death.
3. Achieve something that the civilization wants, such as success in battle, good fortune, fertility, wealth, life after death.
4. Explain the world around us.
For centuries the study of religion was largely indistinguishable from science. If you believe that everything around you is created by a god or gods then studying the world is a way of understanding your gods and coincidentally of advancing science. Religions evolve as better understanding makes some of their teachings obsolete.
So in a sense without religion there would have been no science. Both were based on observation followed by hypothesis.
The split between religion and science largely happened when we started writing our religions down - and then not allowing them to change, or only change very slowly. That's why few religions have much to say about modern problems such as over-population, the environment and technology.
The world could definitely do without religion, its just another thing that divides us as people.People can have and be taught morals without the stories about a mythologic "person, being" what ever.
I don't get the fascination with the bible either, I've read some pretty awful passages in there.
Altough I made a flipant remark about 'without religion there'd be no science' I still don't buy into the idea.Will argues that observation and a need to explain led to both; implying that from the religious need science bloomed and that because they were inseprable there was no distinction. I think that's being a little ungenerous to our ancestors.
Sure, they didn't know what or how things worked. They built up a pantheon of gods to explain things... But I do not believe that the ancient Greeks couldn't tell the difference between the two - you don't build steam engine toys for fairs by not understanding the basic pronciples and they of course knew that the planets revolved around the sun, the world was round and alos had a rudementary understanding of atoms.
All thought up by them from observations and reasoning, but not attributed to gods or religion.
To believe that these things would not have been possible without religion is not a reasonable arguement because we can all look around and observe.
Are we saying that only religious/religion can observe the world? No.
I would agree that since religion has been written down it's become less able to change.
But ultimately I do not think that the modern world needs organised religion. Morals are not the perogative of religion.
what i think is that it's depend on how we define and believe in religion, then we would surely understand that religion is the way to thanks god for science
Rob - I think you are looking at this from a very modern perspective and not how our ancestors would have perceived the question.We currently have a clear gap between science and religion. Some people look for ways to reconcile the two, but on the whole most would say that there is a divergence. You can choose a scientific or a religious explanation of several different things, such as the afterlife or creation.
But if we look at the writings and beliefs of ancient civilizations we can see that their point of view was quite different. They used gods and demigods as their way of explaining the unexplained. When there was a storm, the thunder and lightning was Thor hammering on his anvil. Science was not separate from religion. For people who took religion as a self evident fact, science is simply a way of understanding your god/gods a little better.
Let's not forget that religious belief was far more universal than it is now. If it was considered heresy not to believe, the few non-believers would keep very quiet. Where we now have a world of doubt and debate, many previous civilizations had near 100% adherence to faith.
This was particular so for the educated classes in civilizations where education is provided by the church or priests. For much of English history, the only way to get something written down was to ask a monk to do it for you. The only way that you would learn to read or write would be if someone religious taught you.
That is why there were at least two seismic events when scientific observation clashed with accepted religious beliefs. One happened when Galileo showed that the earth was not round, that it was not the centre of the universe, that there were other planets and that they had moons.
The other biggie happened when Darwin published his theory of evolution, showing that the world was not created in six days and that man was not plonked onto the world looking exactly like he does now.
Up until those two events, science and religion were largely inseparable. Science was mostly seen as a way of understanding a world made by god or gods.
Am I saying that only the religious can observe the world? No, of course I am not. What I am saying is that most if not all of our early scientists were religious - because just about every educated person was at the time when they were living. The idea that it is okay to be not religious is a very recent phenomenon.
But frankly does it matter? Much of western thinking and learning is based on the ancient Greeks who were convinced that a family of gods lived on the top of Mount Olympus. Very few people believe in those gods now, but that doesn't mean that the rest of ancient Greek learning is somehow wrong.
Will, your points are well made, and i don't have an issue with them. But I think they support the postion I find myself believing in and that is, that religion had it's place in a society that had little grasp on the 'real' workings of the universe. It held the social high ground and controlled social order. As time has gone by I think the need for an organised religion has deminished.
I have no problem with people that wish to believe in god. That's fine.
But I do feel that the organised religions we still have, have way too much influence. In Britain it's built into the fabric of our government. It's time those connections were broken.
I must take you up on this though (I love a good arguement), you said, "You can choose a scientific or a religious explanation of several different things, such as the afterlife or creation."
You can choose, but one choice is correct and the other is made up. My arguement for this is simple, there is no evidence on the side of religion. You have hearsay and blind faith and for me that's not enough.
I agree with some of your arguments, but not all. I'm what you might call a religious atheist. I am fairly certain (although not 100%) that there is no white-haired and bearded big bloke in the sky. When you die you die. Evolution not six day creation. Prayer doesn't have an external influence on anything although it certainly does have some psychosomatic effects (but then again so does voodoo).
But I also believe in the importance of - and continuing need for - a sort of religion. We need codes to live by, otherwise we will have anarchy. Religion's value as an explanation of the world may be diminishing but it continues to have a role in establishing standards of good behaviour.
There is far more to religion than hearsay and blind faith, even if there is no supernatural god figure. Early religions were based on observations of the world. If you ate an unclean animal you got sick, therefore you believed that the gods didn't want you to eat unclean animals. This was a nonsense, of course, but it worked. For the wrong reasons, you did the right things.
It's mightily ironic, but I believe that religions have improved over time in a form of Darwinian evolution. Through trial and error, civilizations learned which things "the gods liked" because they worked. It took us a few thousand years but we eventually worked out that sacrificing bulls and goats didn't guarantee a good harvest or that the rains would stop.
If a religion isn't serving its followers well they will first try to change it. The gods weren't impressed with last week's bull sacrifice, so let's try a chicken next week. At some point, you might decide to drop your religion altogether and try a different one.
And that is why we have largely ended up with religions that are based on the idea of "do good things and be nice to each other". Which you have to admit is a lot more enduring and easier to swallow than the concept of sacrificing livestock to make winter end so that the spring will come again and the crops will grow.
No evidence on the side of religion? I have to disagree. There is certainly no reliable evidence for the outward manifestations of religion, such as the power of prayer or miracles. But the one piece of evidence we can't ignore is the fact that just about every successful civilization has had a religion and at any one time, the vast majority of the population of the world believe in some for form of god or gods. That's the bit that Dawkins conveniently ignores.
The answer I think is that successful civilizations need a common code which could be based on an external supernatural figure or could be just a group of people getting together to agree how they are going to get along. The American Declaration of Independence is a good example of this.
One choice is correct and the other is made up? Hmm - no scientist would agree with you on that one. The scientific method works by putting forward a hypothesis and then using data and experiment to test that hypothesis. There is no right or wrong, correct or false, just more or less likely to be true.
So while I certainly prefer evolution over six day creation, I don't know what happened before the big bang and I can't rule out some extra terrestrial intelligence to seed DNA (which could be described as a form of creation). And I have no proof about the existence or otherwise of an afterlife.
In the final analysis, I want to move this away from a polarised argument about science=good +religion=bad or vice versa. Whether we like it or not the world is made up of people who believe and people who don't believe. I don't think we are going to get one side of the argument to slap their collective foreheads and say "d'oh! You are right and we wuz wrong. I can see it now."
What we need to do is find the common ground instead of trying to prove the other side wrong. And that for me means that religions need to continue to evolve. Which, incidentally, is what current church leaders (including the Pope) are beginning to realise too.
Will wrote: "But I also believe in the importance of - and continuing need for - a sort of religion. We need codes to live by, otherwise we will have anarchy. Religion's value as an explanation of the world may be diminishing but it continues to have a role in establishing standards of good behaviour."This is a false statement. One does not need religion to have a code of conduct to live by. One does not need to have religion to have standards of good behavior.
I consider a "good" person is one that benifits the tribe in which one lives within. A "bad" person is one that harms the tribe in which one lives within. I consider "religion" as harm to any tribe unless the religion does not force their rules upon the tribe.
These are my rules that I have created for myself, not a religion. Religion is no longer needed and I consider it an obsolete thing in a modern society.
That's why I call it a "sort of religion" - a set of moral codes that don't need a god. It sounds like you've got one already.Religion is no longer needed? Somewhere between half and three quarters of the world's population would probably disagree with you...
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...
One guy at the end of the movie said "God bless you" ..."
You are correct - it's all about the intent