Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 12,301-12,350 of 12,463

[Mary]

Satyan wrote: "The religious doctrines are all written by men .. men wrote these books, they did not fall from the sky or were delivered to the human kind. And that's a fact.
Yet, somehow we let ourselves judge o..."

Satyan wrote: "The religious doctrines are all written by men .. men wrote these books, they did not fall from the sky or were delivered to the human kind. And that's a fact.
Yet, somehow we let ourselves judge o..."

There in lies the rub. The more man progresses in the line of communication, (social network and internet) that science has wonderfully provided us, the less 'well read' and intelligent most of us seem to get. Therefore needing more spiritual guidance rather than looking it up an thinking for ourselves. It's almost a very scary catch 22. The knowledge is there to be found and shared by all who wish to think for themselves yet it's just to hard to take the little time it requires to deduce the truth or lie in it all so many lazily give up and follow. many times to their doom or ours. So ultimately your choice between religion and science was?

[Earl]

It's a mistake that atheists reflexively make. They posit a dialectic with science at one end and religion at the other. Nietzsche pointed out, in a book titled Beyond Good and Evil, the fundamental foolishness of strawmen. Religious people will answer the question one way well atheist will answer it the other. What's the point? The point is that the question is badly constructed. Suppose I was to reframe it and ask "which you prefer to live in a world where there was only science or one in which there was only mythology?"

Such a question was answered in the Eastern thinking many centuries ago. The sages came to understand that humans needed two forms of guidance. The first was how to become a productive member of society while the second was how to perfect themselves as the person that they might become. On one side stood Confucius and on the other the Buddha.

If mythology, rather than religion, is inserted in the question, it becomes more difficult for both atheists and those with religious tendencies. The question then becomes would you rather live in a world where there are only facts or would you prefer to live in a world where there was only imagination? But even that is a false choice. Some of the scientists that I know have the most vivid and active imaginations while some of those I know who are most religious have essentially killed their imagination. Mythologist however are different. Anyone who has read Joseph Campbell knows better. Good mythologists like Campbell and scientists like Einstein bring the ends of the ropes together - facts swimming in an active sea of imagination - and they completely neglect the adolescent question of a choice between two apparent opposites on the basis that no such opposition exists.

[Piotr]

Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

Honestly, I believe that it is more possible that modern world would manage to survive without believes in supernatural powers than without science. Nowadays more and more people are abandoning religion and become atheists for different reasons. Secondly, there is the claim that religion in some way limits scientifical and medical development, convincing believers that such actions are against the God's will.

Of course, I'm aware that there is a lot of people, who manage to connect those two elements in their perception of the world, and they are respect worthy. People, who have their own way of perceiving their religion against stiff rules of religious institutions.

However, if I was to choose between those two elements, I would definitely prefer to stay with science.

[Travis]

Earl wrote: "It's a mistake that atheists reflexively make. They posit a dialectic with science at one end and religion at the other. Nietzsche pointed out, in a book titled Beyond Good and Evil, the fundamenta..."


Why do religions keep claiming imagination as theirs?
It seems a weird idea, since if religion is the word of god, no imagination is needed, but on the science side, imaginative thought would seem to be a necessity.
Yet religion keeps claiming the ability to make stuff up as their own thing...seems a bit telling to me.

the reason I stick with the original wording is I have no problem with faith or myth, but a big one religion.
Put Jesus and allah on the shelf next to Zues and Ganesh and I'm okay with that. Big fan of myths, love reading them.
Tell me, we have to change or ignore laws and science because god said so, and then we have a problem.

When I talk about religion, I don't mean faith, myth or even spirituality, but religion.

[Earl]

Joseph Campbell once observed that the definition of myth is that it is someone else's religion. The truth is that all religions are mythologies and the presumption of omnipotence on a part of one portion of humanity that their beliefs are not mythology but religion is patently ridiculous. As Campbell further observed, the weakness of Western theology is that it attempts to display as mythology as fact. His suggestion was that, when that happens, ossification sets in and the mythology ceases to grow.

I understand you think you can talk about religion without meaning mythology but I would suggest that that is a strawman. To repeat, all religions are mythologies. You may object to one particular mythology, but throwing out all mythologies in favor of a science which is substantially mythological seems to me like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Travis]

Earl wrote: "Joseph Campbell once observed that the definition of myth is that it is someone else's religion. The truth is that all religions are mythologies and the presumption of omnipotence on a part of one ..."

actually, I agree, all religions are mythologies.
It's the people that think their myth is real and should be on equal footing with science that are the problem.
I'm not against mythology. i'm against the idea of 'god did it' as science.

I'm not for throwing out religion, I just think belief in Thor, Coyote or the flying spaghetti monster does not make you someone I'd want in charge of school science curriculum or making laws.

[Mickey]

Earl wrote: "Joseph Campbell once observed that the definition of myth is that it is someone else's religion. The truth is that all religions are mythologies and the presumption of omnipotence on a part of one ..."

All religions may be based upon mythology, but not all mythologies are religions. Also if some human came up with a fanciful saying does not mean it is true, like Joseph Cambell quote that was listed.

Also you state it is a "mistake" for Atheist to claim that Religion and Science are not at opposite ends of a spectrum. But your example states just that, a religous person would answer one way the "Atheist" will say the opposite (Off course they will).

Your are playing with words and mixing them up, "Athiest with Science", " Religion with Mythology" with a bunch of name droppings. Not all Athiest are Scientist and not all Scientist are Athiest". Same with Religion and Mythology, they are not the same and not interchangeable.

Science and Mythology can get along. Science and Religion probably not. I see mythologies as non fact, fictional stories. People from all backgrounds can enjoy a good fictional story from mythology. "Myth busters" is one of my favorite television shows.

Logic and reasoning is the backbone of all scientific thinking. Religion is not based on reason, but probably based on fear.

As for accusing Athiest of strawman arguments, look in the mirror.

[Earl]

"Science and Mythology can get along. Science and Religion probably not. I see mythologies as non fact, fictional stories. People from all backgrounds can enjoy a good fictional story from mythology. "Myth busters" is one of my favorite television shows."

That's a very interesting set of statements. The distinction you seem to be making between religion and mythology (keeping in mind that I consider them the same) is that both are "non-fact, fictional stories"; the difference being that the proponents of religion take their mythology as fact. But all mythologies are taken as fact in some sense. Whether it is the Navajo, the Samoan or the urban American, they all consider their mythologies as more real than the ones held by people in distant lands.

It is interesting that you consider mythology "a good fictional story". Certainly most people who have studied mythology would disagree with you. Mythologies from ancient time on have been used to describe the human experience of being alive. Rather than being fictional they are metaphorical. The Grimm stories were distilled from ancient mythologies and every one of them contains a lesson of substance about humanness.

You also seem to hold the prejudice that science is a purely fact-based process. That may be because you've had limited contact with scientists. Most of the ones I regularly come in contact with have a strong irrational side. They regularly believe in things they cannot see or touch; dark matter and dark energy being the two that come to mind. They had a mythology about the structure of atoms which was overturned for a new mythology. String theory posits a basic structure of the universe that, because of the limits imposed by the Plank constant, can never be observed. Yet all of these are integrated into scientific theories about the universe, its structure and origin.

I'm not sure what you mean by "playing with words" but I do not relate atheist to science nor do I consider religion as separate from mythology. I consider atheist as anti-mythologists. I believe a human being without an overarching mythology is a ship without a rudder. But there is a saving grace here. Most avowed atheists have actually morphed their atheism into a mythology.

If you're offended by the fact that I've actually read books and taken the time to understand what authors have written on the subject, I would remind you that this is a site dedicated to people who read books.

[Mickey]

Earl wrote: ""Science and Mythology can get along. Science and Religion probably not. I see mythologies as non fact, fictional stories. People from all backgrounds can enjoy a good fictional story from mytholog..."

You need to read closer and get your definitions down. Definition of words are very important and not always the same or bidirectional in meaning.

I stated "Logic and Reasoning is the backbone of scientific thinking". You some how interpret that as "Science is fact based only".

All theories have a presupposition that are beleived to be true (they may be false in reality). These presuppositions are often based on a "belief" in something which all of the "facts" are not there. Science and Religion have their beliefs as a foundation. I define a "Religion" as a "belief" in a God.

Science also have "beliefs" as a presupposition for theories, not using a god as a building block. As time passes some scientific theories will become myths. Like at one time, some scientist believed that the earth was the center of the solar system now a scientific myth (Plotomic vs Copernican systems).

From a pure philosophical point of view, no one can prove nor disprove that a "God" exist. All religions belive that a god exist. Athiest do not believe that a God exist.

Like it is a "Myth" that all truckers are the kings of the road. This an example of not all "Mythologies" are based on a religion. It may be that all religions may be based on mythology. I find very few words are bidirectional in meaning. Religion and Mythology are not bidirectional, but they may have some things in common like both being fictional.

I am not offended by anything, I take everything in stride (well almost anything). I find that people can read the same book and can come off with a different point of view. The bible is one of them, one book and many different interpretations resulting in many different religions. Over time I have come to distrust statements from other authors as facts. I do find many quotes from authors are more of the cynic kind that I do enjoy. The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary

[Earl]

mythology definition: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

[Mickey]

Earl wrote: "mythology definition: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition."

We all have our dictionaries.

Mythology
https://www.wordnik.com/words/mythology
A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

========
You have your beliefs and I have mine. It is about our presuppositions based on our definitions of words on what we each believe is true.

Mythology may contain some aspects of religion or not.

Spiderman is my hero, is he based on a god, does he exist, oh the stories :)

[Mickey]

Huh, just read an article on CNN.com about some myths on D-Day.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/opinion...

Hmm... Nothing about religion

[Travis]

Earl wrote: ""Science and Mythology can get along. Science and Religion probably not. I see mythologies as non fact, fictional stories. People from all backgrounds can enjoy a good fictional story from mytholog..."

So, what's the difference between fictional and metaphorical and why can't a story be both?

Myths are fictional.
Novels can be metaphorical.

Unless I'm mixing up metaphor and allegory...but I think it works either way.

[Earl]

Travis, Thanks for the post. The terms that you mentioned need to be used correctly; otherwise the language turns to silly putty.

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Metaphorical is the adjective derived from the root and anything described using that adjective has to meet the standards of the root definition.

The noun fiction has the following definitions:
1. The class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. Works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. Something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. The act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. An imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

(BTW, I do have a problem with the term “non-fiction” as I have never read one that was not in substantial part fictional under the above definitions) 

An allegory is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Allegories are frequently used in both fiction and mythologies to communicate a hidden meaning. One of my favorite books by Nietzsche has a whole section of allegories.

To complete the set, a simile is a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox

For something to be fictional, it does not need to meet the definition of metaphorical - in fact, as a work of fiction, it can't. It would be like saying the truckers are the king of the road and calling it a myth when it is actually a metaphor.

Words have meanings defined by their definitions. It is also to be expected, I suppose, that someone would then argue that the statement about truckers is part of a mythology but it clearly is not. The definition that Mickey provided above makes that abundantly clear.

Mythologies are at the core definition of a culture or a religion – they define it. Fiction is a literary style.

The real problem comes when an accurate definition of mythology is applied. (A collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.) Thus seen, mythologies are the accumulated wisdom of a culture or religion. Mythology is not an ideology or a theology. The reason that we have these other words is to describe things that are not mythologies but ideologies and theologies.

Following the definitions, myths are not fictional and novels are not a “figure of speech”. Novels can be allegorical.

You asked, “So, what's the difference between fictional and metaphorical and why can’s a story be both?” In fact, they can because a story is neither a metaphor nor, by necessity, fictional. (That’s why we have the word story) But a story can employ either or both.

To go back to the original question, in order for it to make sense the two categories would have to be completely devoid of the characteristics of the other. In terms of Cantor sets, they would neither overlap nor touch at any point. But there are characteristics of religion in science (belief and certainty) and characteristics of science in religion (reliance on source material and knowledge derived by observation.

Sorry to go on for so long but it is late and I’m not ready to fight the Z-monster. Earl

[Mickey]

Earl wrote: "But there are characteristics of religion in science (belief and certainty) and characteristics of science in religion (reliance on source material and knowledge derived by observation."

Not a true statement!
Belief- is something in which all the facts are not there.
Religion - is a belief that a god exist.

Science and Religion does have the characteristics of Belief.
Science does "not" have the characteristics of a religion (a belief in a God).

It is the connections of the words you use to make a final conclusion is not always correct. This is something I look at carefully, it can lead a person down the wrong path in life.

So many books are out there like the Bible that tell us how we should live our lives. Such books written by the Gurus on the mountain top lead us to nowhere.

Also your statement.
"BTW, I do have a problem with the term “non-fiction” as I have never read one that was not in substantial part fictional under the above definitions".

I take it you never read a good math book. Some of the best books in non-fiction are in that category. Try reading Vector Calculus a very good non-fictional book.

Also the "Trucker" example for mythology came from the Worldbook dictionary.

[Som]

Both needed in this world. We can neither be complete robots nor radical religious fellas (in absolute worlds of either one)...The contemporary essence of existentialism and humanism would be oblivious if one of those is absent; where utopia is neo-dystopia, chaos in order. Although It's an alien world one can't speculate much about while dwelling in this one...But from our rough perspective it'd surely be horrifying!


PS: If I may add, religion arguments/debates have always been the 'ego war' (never to be taken as 'intellect war'. Even Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate was sophomoric at best), no wonder it's the most popular one. Of course never provides an answer, a solution, never changes anyone. Only spews disdain among polar individuals...

[Earl]

Som, Thanks for the comment. I think your point about balance is very valid. The natural implications of any extremism is instability. I also like your observation about the nature of arguments. How does the old saw go? "When it comes to war, amateurs discuss tactics and professionals discuss logistics." There is a similar pattern in the discussions you mentioned. Amateur scientists describe science in a way that is virtually unrecognizable to professional scientists. Amateur theologians do the same when it comes to religion. Amateur scientists describe religion in terms that are useful to them as critics but miss the mark when it comes to understanding the value of what they're criticizing. The same can be said of pseudo-theologians who criticize science without even a fundamental understanding of it.

A friend of mine once observed that science and religion are both human creations. As that they have a great deal in common. They are the product of human thought and a response to a strongly felt set of human needs. I believe it was Eugene O'Neill to once observed that a life based on pretense is untenable but a life without pretense is unlivable. No human society can long exist without a foundational mythology (whether or not that mythology be a religion). But neither can any society exist without the benefits that human efforts like science bring.

[Travis]

Earl wrote: "Som, Thanks for the comment. I think your point about balance is very valid. The natural implications of any extremism is instability. I also like your observation about the nature of arguments. Ho..."

Science is a human creation?
Gotta call BS on that one. What part of science did we create that wasn't already there?
We have created methods of studying science and ways to figure out how different aspects of it interact, but we discover science.

[Silvana]

I think I would rader live in a world without religion than a world withou science. Of course there are good and bad sides of science. Scientific knowledge can be used ethical and moraly wrong but also many wars and harm were made (and still are being made) in name of religion. So, if the human kind can misused science and religion, I think I would rader live in a world with the one which can give us at least a closer sence of reality.

[Earl]

Travis, This thread seems to have morphed into a discussion of the meaning of words and I think that is very important. After all, both authors and readers should know what they mean. This is particularly true for authors since words are the tools they use to ply their craft. I offer the following definition of science:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study

Science develops the tools that we use to study the world as we find it. As an example, the science of optics led to the creation of the microscope. Without it we would have no knowledge of the lifeforms and the structure of reality which a microscope allows us to observe. Humans created the science of physics to study the physical world. We created the science of chemistry to learn more about the substances in that world. We also created philosophy, psychology, mythology and religion to help us understand the experience of being alive as humans. While it is true that, for the most part, we are not the authors of the world as we find it, a major difference between humans and the rest of the life on the planet is something we call science. It has allowed us to theorize about, and in some cases directly view, parts of that world which are inaccessible to the senses we are born with..

[Mickey]

Probably the most important tool to scientist is the Scientific Method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...

[Beatrice Apetrei]

"Science moves the world forward" and it's a nice world indeed, with a lot of murders and accidents, being controlled by the ones that rule over us, no privacy anymore, no true hopes or feelings, no nothing . That's what is going on around us in the present time. Yes, science helps us live an EASIER life, not a better one.
Let's not forget about the fact that many scientific theories that we all thought were correct, are now being contradicted by others and so on.
Science gives you answers that please your curiosity, but is never able to tell you the truth.
What is the truth anyway ?
And about religion : there are a lot of religions, people keep fighting one another only because they THINK they believe in another God, when the truth is that we all pray the same one, He's just called differently. And yes, many horrible things happened especially during the Middle Ages because of religion, but religion and belief are two different things in my opinion.
Religion is important, science is important ? It depends on the person, that's the only argument I allow myself to say. For me religion, or not necessary religion, but faith and belief, are the only ones that define me, without them, I'd be no one (which I am anyway). So I'll answer to this question with "I'd rather live in a world with no religion, no science, but with the knowledge of what we are".

[Travis]

Andreea wrote: ""Science moves the world forward" and it's a nice world indeed, with a lot of murders and accidents, being controlled by the ones that rule over us, no privacy anymore, no true hopes or feelings, n..."

I think a world that has a low faint mortality rate, being able to cook our food, reliable transportation and easy access to books, coffee and pictures of Kate Upton counts as a better world personally.

[Travis]

Earl wrote: "Travis, This thread seems to have morphed into a discussion of the meaning of words and I think that is very important. After all, both authors and readers should know what they mean. This is parti..."

Yes, but science is the stuff that's there, as well as the methods and theories we use.
Before we came up with a law of gravity, it was there. We weren't just floating around.

Science is in the world around us. religion only exists because we thought it up. It happens nowhere else in nature.

We go away and so does religion, while the physical laws of science will still be here.

[Earl]

As I mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to have a productive conversation when individuals use words independent of their accepted definition. I provided a definition of science earlier in the thread. The word clearly refers to a body of knowledge and an assemblage of tools that have proven productive in studying the physical world. The definition makes it very clear that that resulting knowledge is not the physical world but knowledge of the physical world. Being that, it is a human creation.

The problem with someone parting from accepted definitions of words is that the person who makes the journey begins to look like a religious fanatic. "I don't give a damn what the definition is, the word means what I say it means." This is the equivalent of saying, "There is a God and I am he."

The example of gravity is a good place to start. Prior to Newton, humans had considerable knowledge that related to the phenomenon which we now refer to his gravity. But the understanding of that phenomenon was primitive compared to the insights that Newton provided. Still Newton's model of the universe was seriously flawed. It explained some observations and not others. Later on, Einstein advanced a different model to explain the observed phenomenon. It had the advantage of being more useful in explaining some of the observed behavior that eluded Newtonian physics. But even Einstein's model is recognized as having serious limitations.

Modern cosmology deals with such things as dark matter and dark energy. The latter is a candidate for generating an entirely new model to explain behaviors which even Einstein found impossible to explain. Like Strings, neither dark matter nor dark energy has ever been observed. It is entirely possible that they never will be. So far they are simply parts of equations, much like Einstein's universal constant, that are necessary components of a model which better predicts experimental outcomes. (A summary description of what has been referred to earlier in this thread as the Scientific Method.)

The point of all of this is that, by generally accepted definition, science is a body of knowledge derived from the study of the world as we find it. It is a body of knowledge, not the world as we find it. Best described by the actual definition of the word, science is a human creation. If the human race were to suddenly disappear, the phenomena that we observe might still be there but human science would not be.

[Mickey]

Earl wrote: "As I mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to have a productive conversation when individuals use words independent of their accepted definition. I provided a definition of science earlier in the..."

It is not one of my goals in life to make it easy on those that I disagree with. The English language is a human creation. The Symbolic words we give that represent nature is a human creation. But the laws of nature are not human creations.

No where in the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Method" refers the word "science" as a human creation. The first sentence of the article:

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

They use the term "acquiring" new knowledge, not creating new knowledge. Science is also about "Discovery" or "Discovering" something new.

Science is "acquiring" new knowledge.

Engineers/Inventors and Artist do "Create" new machines / objects based on new knowledge.

One can patent an idea or an invention with most governments. One cannot patent a law of nature or a discovery with most governments.

I have no doubt, that I am dealing with a very strong minded Idealist as they are very hard to change as they base much of the life on intuition over reason. As I am a Rational, only logic and reasoning will change my thought patterns.

Adding: even by the rules list by your definition of science does not use the word - Creation.

[Ian]

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

Developed by who Mickey? Your whole argument falls apart unless you are suggesting that God created the scientific method. That would make you a theologian. You seem to refer to material that clearly describes the scientific method as a human creation. Who else could it be?

"Science is "acquiring" new knowledge."

Science is a noun not a verb. I had assumed that you knew the difference and the function of each. Besides, that is not what the article said.

“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”

Then you make a statement that insults every person who believes that the essence of human communication is collaborative.

"It is not one of my goals in life to make it easy on those that I disagree with. The English language is a human creation."

So you see this as some sort of combat - a zero sum game? What a waste! Just a mindless game of gotcha. At least you seem to allow that the word 'science' is a human creation.

Finally, you make a statement that is astounding.

"No where (By the way, the word is nowhere)in the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Method" refers the word "science" as a human creation." Clearly grammar is not your strong point.

This is sophomoric drivel. Let’s take a look at the article you refer to.

“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”

So this scientific method - the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge - was developed by who? Martians? God? It’s pretty clear from the balance of the article that the scientific method was developed by humans.

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Who exactly developed this method and who has been pursuing it since the seventeenth century? Are you suggesting that it is a creation of some god and has not changed since the seventeenth century?

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

Other methods of acquiring knowledge? By whom? Are we back to the Martians again or are we talking about other methods of acquiring knowledge developed by humans? And did humans develop these other methods but not the scientific method?

The balance of the article describes how the scientific method is pursued. Mickey has contended that it does not indicate that the scientific method is a human creation. Here’s the link to the article and I urge everybody who is interested in this thread to read it and make their own judgment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientif... Personally I think he has his head jammed up a posterior orifice.

One thing is clear from some of the comments in this thread. There are people for whom science is an alternative god - an alternative religion but a religion nevertheless. They worship it uncritically just as followers of other religions do their gods. For those people, the original question that started this thread might be rewritten as, "which god do you prefer to worship, religion or science"?

[Jacob]

Personally I feel it's an inarguable question to pose. We label everything in our lives in one way or another. We look at how life grows, what happens when we mix two or more chemicals together; we wonder how better to understand the effect of humans on the environment or the environment on the animal kingdom and call that "Science".
We think about life after death - whether anything actually exists or if this is all we get. We realize as we are about to perform a certain act that perhaps it's not the best choice we could make and maybe it helps us to change our mind on what we do. We experience something unique in our lives that seems unexplainable and we call this "religion".
Each of these exists within our world and our lives and is as valid as the other. When you read the first book of the Bible you find that science existed way back at the beginning, even before anyone labeled it as such or understood how any of it worked, and yet even though no one knew what it was, science was still there. Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict with one another. They get that way only when people decide they must adhere to one over the other, but that's simply not so. Science and religion both exist and simply are. Man did not invent science or religion, but simply realized each of their existences within the world and began to utilize and prioritize them within their lives so that some placed a greater emphasis upon one and some on the other. Accept them as such and learn to live with them as two halves of a whole and life is much easier and better lived.

[Mickey]

Ian wrote: ""The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

Developed by who Mickey? Your whole argument..."

I am an Atheist.
Second, I find the insults humorous in a creative way :)

Between lines of insults, you do have some interestings points. Yes I will say the Scientific method is a human creation.

However, let me ask a few questions.

Is a Discovery the same as a Creation?
Is creating a new machine is the same as a discovery?

I can see how a new machine is a human creation, like the telescope is a human creation. But is finding a new planet with a telescope in the solar system a creation or discovery?

Is the Scientific Method that leads to new knowledge a creation or a discovery?

[Jacob]

Mickey wrote: "Is a Discovery the same as a Creation?
Is creating a new machine is the same as a discovery?

I can see how a new machine is a human creation, like the telescope is a human creation. But is finding a new planet with a telescope in the solar system a creation or discovery?

Is the Scientific Processes that leads to new knowledge a creation? "

Creation infers the one creating is making something altogether new. What you brought out in each of your examples is discovery or innovation. Discovery is recognizing that something exists, though it may not have been known previously. Innovation is taking what is already there and building something different from what we already have. I have yet to find anyone in all of human history who has "created" anything, even artists, who may form something out of clay or marble or paint something on a canvas, or even inventors who might figure out how to build something that will benefit mankind, such as Eli Whitney with the cotton gin, but it is not a creation, merely their interpretation and representation of what already exists or their taking the materials at hand and crafting them into something beautiful or useful.

[Mickey]

Jacob wrote: "Personally I feel it's an inarguable question to pose. We label everything in our lives in one way or another. We look at how life grows, what happens when we mix two or more chemicals together; we..."

I agree with getting along as in tolerate. But Science and Religion are getting further apart. I think the split started with Charles Darwin's discoveries. I could easily live without religion.

[Jacob]

Mickey wrote: "But Science and Religion are getting further apart."


Science and religion are not getting further apart, only man's understanding and usage or practice of them. If man were to step back and do nothing, science and religion would remain the same throughout time. If anything is getting further apart it is only because man does not understand the reality of science and religion and fails to utilize them together properly.

[Mickey]

Jacob wrote: "Creation infers the one creating is making something altogether new. What you brought out in each of your examples is discovery or innovation. Discovery is recognizing that something exists, though it may not have been known previously."

A new point of view. Something I will have to think about.

[Rob]

Travis wrote: "Earl wrote: "Joseph Campbell once observed that the definition of myth is that it is someone else's religion. The truth is that all religions are mythologies and the presumption of omnipotence on a..."

Totally agree with you Travis.

[Suge]

I'm not much for religion, I prefer science but I think it's important to have spirituality too.

[Travis]

Jacob wrote: "Mickey wrote: "But Science and Religion are getting further apart."


Science and religion are not getting further apart, only man's understanding and usage or practice of them. If man were to step..."

If man were to do nothing, religion wouldn't exist.

[Travis]

Ian wrote: ""The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

Developed by who Mickey? Your whole argument..."

I don't see how accepting the stuff in the world that exists counts as a religion.
If I prefer science, it's because it has given me a reason to.

[Travis]

Earl wrote: "As I mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to have a productive conversation when individuals use words independent of their accepted definition. I provided a definition of science earlier in the..."


Well, by adding 'human' in front of 'science', aren't you also playing around with terms and definitions?

[Hadi]

I really like the question in this discussion. No one can ever deny that science and religion are both very essential. Science lets you know what is actually happening around you. It gives an explanation to the things that you always wonder about, why do things fall? Why does it rain? What makes water boil? How does iron become rusty? Science answers all of those questions.

On the other hand, religion answers the abstract questions in life, just as philosophy tries to. It also grants people an organized life, by the means of religious rules.. People, in their natural instincts, really need religions. Think of all ancient people; the first human knew nothing in life, yet, he tends to worship some gods.. In fact, this human used to worship those gods because he was facing some strange things he couldn't explain, like fire or wind, etc. As he doesn't know the secret to these incidents he was facing, he believed there is some supernatural power.. So that's the old perspective of religion. However, as science develops today, and as some think it is supposed to erase religions, it is actually proving it! The ultimate precision in most aspects of life, found in nature, in human bodies, cells, atoms,.. And the amazement drawn by the great universe, leads the human mind, that there MUST be a power that organized these things.

Living in a world without science leads to ignorance.. You might be fooled by some 'extraordinary' things that are simple! But, living in a world without religion explains everything in this seen life, which, logically, will lead you to religion.

I would live in a world of science without religion because I believe, that if I was reborn in that world, never knowing about religion, I would end up respecting that power that this science and this world could not be without. I would end up, in the world of science, to religion.

[Mark]

Western civilization passed through a phase that tried to unify all knowlege under revealed religion, and thus tried to quash all sciientific investigation. Many investigators,e.g.z Copernicus and Galileo, suffered for their discoveries. This lead to a split between science and religion, witbh post-Darwinian thought becoming so brazen as to claim that God had been banished. The fact remains that although God has not overtly revealed all things to mankind, He has nonetheless revealed Himself, even wiithin the last two centuries. Hence, the propositiion is ridiculous, and neither state can be eliminated

[Gary]

Mark wrote: "The fact remains that although God has not overtly revealed all things to mankind, He has nonetheless revealed Himself, even wiithin the last two centuries. Hence, the propositiion is ridiculous, and neither state can be eliminated "

Actually your argument alleges that "God has revealed Himself". If that is true then all religions but one can be eliminated and that religion would no longer require faith, because of said revelation, therefore the existence of God would become science - i.e. arrived at through observation and reason - rather than religion.

However, I think you will find that the majority of people in the world would disagree that your particular God has "revealed" themselves to everyone, be they a theist of a different sect or god, or of the non-theist religions or completely non-theist. Therefore the basis of your attempt to dismiss the argument has no founding.

[-A]

I rather to live in a world without religion

[Fred]

Gary wrote: "Mark wrote: "The fact remains that although God has not overtly revealed all things to mankind, He has nonetheless revealed Himself, even wiithin the last two centuries. Hence, the propositiion is ..."
What an excellent post, Gary.

[Gary]

Thank's Fred. I've been absent a while for a variety of reasons, but I thought I'd check back.

[Travis]

Mark wrote: "Western civilization passed through a phase that tried to unify all knowlege under revealed religion, and thus tried to quash all sciientific investigation. Many investigators,e.g.z Copernicus and ..."

When was this reveal...?
I'm going to need a bit more information than a vague claim that it happened.
I don't think god was banished. It's more like he never showed up for work in the first place.

[Jeffery]

Amen Kenny. Believing in something with no proof does not make any sense to me! Yet, people will die for their belief or jump all over someone who attacks their god is insane!

[Marah]

I can't imagine the life without science or rilegion both of them so important

[Travis]

Jeffery wrote: "Amen Kenny. Believing in something with no proof does not make any sense to me! Yet, people will die for their belief or jump all over someone who attacks their god is insane!"

They will also scold and mock science for not having all the answers.
So, at least religious folk appreciate irony.

[cHriS]

Science has only got about 7 billion years left to come up with answers, then its lights out.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Science has only got about 7 billion years left to come up with answers, then its lights out."

You mean that we have about 7 billion years to come up with answers using science. :-) Science is a methodology not an entity.

Besides that's assuming we don't kill ourselves first in the next few centuries over economic, religious or political beliefs.

Also assuming that we don't leave the Solar system or develop technology making us energy independent of the Sun. (The latter could be developed in as little as fifty years by some estimates, at least for a tiny viable population.) Then we'd have perhaps another 14 billion years.

Of course, we don't know with certainty how long we've really got until we get relativity wedded with quantum physics. We once thought that the Universe would either exist eternally, forever expanding, or it would fall in again in a "big crunch". Latest observations indicate neither. The existence of Dark Energy may suggest that we are not in the "vacuum ground state" as the universes expansion is still accelerating. This could mean that spacetime will eventually annihilate itself in a "Big Rip" where space shreds itself apart somehow (how space can shred itself without having space appear within it is a bit problematic) or (more likely) the vacuum energy will drop to a lower energy state leading to another Big Bang, and potentially the entire universe taking a new form, with new particles and new forces, completely erasing all hints of our current Universe except in slight fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background of the new Cosmos.

Still - you've got to laugh...