Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 12,351-12,400 of 12,463

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "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.
..."

I think we are splitting hairs as to whether science is a methodology not an entity. The word 'science' being used here to explain a group of people who will always be looking for answers, but in looking will find more questions which in many cases contradict previous answers.

Science(a group of people)wanting to land humans on mars, and hope to do this in the very near future, and who know they can do this also know that they do not know if they are able to bring them home again. So it may be a one way trip. Any thing else at the moment is pure science fiction.

But you may well be right about killing ourselves first in the next few centuries.

[Dhruv]

I think this is one real toughie. A world without science will be extremely difficult to live with and less wondrous. However, without faith on a deity, such a world would indeed be a boring and monotonous place to live. I don't think I would be able to survive for long in either of the two worlds. Its nice that we don't have to because as Albert Einstein once famously said,"Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." I hope such a choice never arise in my life because I won't be able to choose one over the other.

[Deidre]

Yes I agreew with April I feel that despite what most people think them being complete opposites they actually tie in with each other and support each other.
(although I guess that's only with specific religions not religion as a whole).

[Virginia]

I think science and religion go hand in hand. One cannot be without the other because, at the same time that they go hand in hand, they are the opposite of the other.

[Travis]

How do they go hand in hand?
People keep saying that but I don't understand why.

How do they support each other? Seems to me they work best when they are kept apart.

[Virginia]

Travis wrote: "How do they go hand in hand?
People keep saying that but I don't understand why.

How do they support each other? Seems to me they work best when they are kept apart."

Well, maybe this will help. When I was very young and just beginning to question everything, a man once told me," The bible is not the book of answers. Rather, it is a book of questions."

Religion makes us question things more so than every day life. Without religion, what would have made people question as much as they did, as soon as they did. I mean, yea, eventually people would have questioned things and tried to make life better. But, that is just scratching the surface of science. Religion made us wonder, just what did create us? Why do people choose to believe in something they can't see? Religion challenges science, just as science challenges religion. Science says that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction. For the action of religion, you have science and vice versa :)

[Giansar]

Virginia wrote: "Why do people choose to believe in something they can't see?"
They don't. You cannot choose to believe in something (or not).

[Virginia]

Giansar wrote: "Virginia wrote: "Why do people choose to believe in something they can't see?"
They don't. You cannot choose to believe in something (or not)."

So, they don't choose to believe? they just....do?
I will agree to disagree with you :)

[Mary]

Giansar....I choose not to believe you.

[Heather]

Virginia wrote: "Giansar wrote: "Virginia wrote: "Why do people choose to believe in something they can't see?"
They don't. You cannot choose to believe in something (or not)."

So, they don't choose to believe? th..."

I think what Giansar is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Giansar) is that we do not choose to believe in something we cannot see such as subatomic particles, but rather accept they exist via evidence.

[Virginia]

Heather wrote: "Virginia wrote: "Giansar wrote: "Virginia wrote: "Why do people choose to believe in something they can't see?"
They don't. You cannot choose to believe in something (or not)."

So, they don't choo..."

Well, yes, I could see the comment taking that route lol when I said "choose to believe something they couldn't see" I was referring to believing in a God. A little case of misunderstanding :) no biggy

[Giansar]

Mary wrote: "Giansar....I choose not to believe you."
No, you don't.
You do not believe me because of your false conviction that believing in something is volitional. It is not, which is very easy to prove.

"Virginia wrote: " I was referring to believing in a God."
Tell me: at which point of your life did you choose to believe in God? How did this decision of yours, the choice to believe, come to pass?

[Travis]

Virginia wrote: "Travis wrote: "How do they go hand in hand?
People keep saying that but I don't understand why.

How do they support each other? Seems to me they work best when they are kept apart."

Well, maybe t..."

It is a book of questions, but all the answers are 'god did it'.
That's really as far as religion is willing/able to take it.


You've just given a new bunch of vague statements.
If religion goes away, science still asks questions. Not sure how that equals 'hand in hand', or 'equal but opposites'.
Science does all the work but religion claims equal credit.

If science goes away it's pretty much game over for us, if religion goes away...the universe stays as it is and you get to sleep in on sunday.

[Julia]

Science and reiligion are encompassed within the realm of philosophy so I question whether you could take either away from life. Bit like taking the woof out of dog or the light from the sun- all rather interwoven. Perhaps the hassles with any of these contexts is our own limits we bring to the interpretation of languages of the time, our own experiences (and lack of). Just a thought anyway.

[Jamnjazzz]

Julia wrote: "Science and reiligion are encompassed within the realm of philosophy ..."

Umm... Science is encompassed in the realm of philosophy??? Science deals in the observable or measurable qualities and quantities of nature. You may hoist your own philosophy upon scientific data and theories but that does not mean that Science is Philosophy.

There are no overlap between science and religion...science strives to determine and use quantifiable facts to discover the underlying principles and mechanisms that nature functions under....while religion is no more than superstition, based upon what so and so said many, many year ago and twisted and contorted to impose some authority's will on others.

[[deleted user]]

I think "Angels and Demons" explains it all and science and religion confide. One can't be without the other. Science brings us evidence. Religion brings us depth in everything one is doing, together with hope.

[Virginia]

Giansar wrote: "Mary wrote: "Giansar....I choose not to believe you."
No, you don't.
You do not believe me because of your false conviction that believing in something is volitional. It is not, which is very easy ..."

I have not chosen to believe in God, himself. I believe there is a "higher power" or "higher intelligence", but I do not believe it is a man with a white beard sitting in the clouds somewhere like the Bible and the churches would have me believe. There is something out there and I believe that, with religion as a motivator, science may find the answers. However, I am fully aware that the answers may never be found, for that may be the way it was designed to be. :)

[Virginia]

Travis wrote: "Virginia wrote: "Travis wrote: "How do they go hand in hand?
People keep saying that but I don't understand why.

How do they support each other? Seems to me they work best when they are kept apart..."

lol I see your point. All I was saying is that religion gave science a lot of questions to answer :) As far as religion not being able/willing to answer anything beyond "God did it", I think that you are right....to an extent. There are a lot of religions that simply take it as "God did it" but there are also those few religions that have their people dedicate their lives to figuring things out. The Monks learned to become one in body and mind, they can do things science can't even explain yet. That is just one example, again though, those religions are few and far between anymore.

[Virginia]

Julia wrote: "Science and reiligion are encompassed within the realm of philosophy so I question whether you could take either away from life. Bit like taking the woof out of dog or the light from the sun- all ..."

Nicely written :) seems you can put into words what I cannot lol Thank you :)

[Virginia]

Jamnjazzz wrote: "Julia wrote: "Science and reiligion are encompassed within the realm of philosophy ..."

Umm... Science is encompassed in the realm of philosophy??? Science deals in the observable or measurable..."

Science is not a perfect practice. They don't only do experiments in which they know the outcome. They do things that are, in some cases, insane lol This year they are supposed to take a large amount of energy and force it all into one small space, 7 times more energy than anyone has ever tried before. They don't know what the outcome will be, but they do know that it could destroy the planet or more in several different ways, or it could create a wormhole allowing for time travel (which is what they're hoping for), or it could do nothing. They don't know, but they're going to do it anyway. So science, like religion, is not perfect, we just lean toward science more because at least they answer their own riddles instead of making us sit here and wonder.

[Virginia]

Ana wrote: "I think "Angels and Demons" explains it all and science and religion confide. One can't be without the other. Science brings us evidence. Religion brings us depth in everything one is doing, togeth..."

Simply said, thank you :)

[Kelly]

Look at what is happening in the Arab world. This is a world ruler by Religion. I would choose a world ruled by science if that was my only choice. We need both to balance each other.

[Judy]

Wow a great question and one I had never thought about. I think we need both. There are times in your life when you really need somehing to hold on to - GOD. by the same we need science to further our world.This gives me a great question to consider over the the next few weeks

[Giansar]

Virginia wrote: "There is something out there and I believe that, with religion as a motivator, science may find the answers. However, I am fully aware that the answers may never be found, for that may be the way it was designed to be. :)"
I do not question your beliefs. I question the conviction that a lot of religious people have, that believing in God or some other form of higher power is their choice. People seem to think they somehow decided to believe, which is completely untrue. The entire protestant concept of "faith alone" which can save you is highly illogical for this reason because it postulates that God is going to judge and save or condemn you based on something, which is completely out of your hands. That does not seem like a just God to me ;).

[Kim]

Totally get rid of religion. Science all the way people. Science gets such a bad rap from (some) religious people. Where would they be without science? Science used in cars, phones, computers. If they want to be amish fair play to them, but i dont want to live in that world. In a time of crisis i turn to science an facts over myths and faith.

[Heather]

Judy wrote: "Wow a great question and one I had never thought about. I think we need both. There are times in your life when you really need somehing to hold on to - GOD. by the same we need science to furth..."

I would have to disagree with you. When my 23 year old best friend committed suicide, I did not go to a god despite feeling wholly alone and struggling with the fact that I didn't get to say good-bye and will never see him again. Instead, I put my energies into my education, my family, and my friends. I ended up creating a grief support for secularists in my town because there wasn't one for anyone who hadn't lost someone in hospice care so that others don't go through what I did.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I think we are splitting hairs as to whether science is a methodology not an entity. The word 'science' being used here to explain a group of people who will always be looking for answers, but in looking will find more questions which in many cases contradict previous answers."

That is a completely spurious argument. Science is not a group of people any more than a hammer is a group of people that need to hit nails to accomplish their goals.

The assumption that scientists will 'always be looking for answers' is just that, an assumption. It is also highly misleading. For example, we may "always" be making new maps of the Earth as measurements get more accurate and as the Earth develops. The new maps may contradict old maps and indeed the maps may never be 100% accurate, however our maps now are orders of magnitude more precise than ones a few hundred years ago and far more useful.

cHriS wrote: "Science(a group of people)wanting to land humans on mars, and hope to do this in the very near future, and who know they can do this also know that they do not know if they are able to bring them home again. So it may be a one way trip. Any thing else at the moment is pure science fiction."

No. A group of people - supported by some scientists (a group of people) want to send an expedition to Mars. The idea of making it one way is not a scientific limitation, it is an economic and cultural one. It is based on the idea that on Earth in the past humans did not successfully colonise the world by sending people to distant continents and then bringing them back, they did it by going to a distant place and building a home there.

A one way trip to set up a Mars colony is not that much more technologically difficult than sending people their and back. It is just a matter of scale. However, sending people one way will make the project a lot cheaper as you will not need to spend the fuel to send all the fuel there to enable the trip home.

Based on exactly the same technology of a one way trip, but taking more time and money we could instead send automated machines to build facilities including fuel extraction, life support and power and then send a mission there and back to a pre-prepared base. The only limitation on this is more political and economic will than technological.

Of course this is fairly irrelevant to the question at hand unless you were trying to indicate some sort of ethical failing on the specific group of people (not all of science) that are trying to fund a one way mission.

[Ria]

Well, "religion" is created by the people in this planet, to have some sense of belonging in a community with the same ideals and behavior and belief in the same kind of divine power. That's why there are different religions.....some present and some long gone, extinct like paganism. Religion cannot ever be eradicated because of the feeling of insecurity and social belonging residing inside the people, plus it helps them keep their faith in life intact. But religion is good as long as you do only those which I mentioned before, not to be used by a select number of people for forming barriers in other people's life from pursuing what they want. Religion should not be used to create and wage war, or used for opening business in the name of God.
So yes, we should do away with the religion created by those opportunistic individuals and keep the religion which can help people and renew faith and happiness in peoples' lives. On the other hand, the same goes for science. Used badly, it can create havoc. Used for good, it can work miracles as it have all this time since the dawn of civilization. Get rid of the misuse and science is your best buddy!
I guess, we cannot live without either of them. Religion reinforces our faith and purpose and science gives the facts and technology to build our way towards that purpose. So one should harness both of them for good and free the world of their dark aspects. I am a Hindu, but not a blind follower of its rituals and practices. Because I know that Hinduism is not only a religion but an essence of life as my ancestors have lived all this time. I proudly believe in that essence and the way my religion can help me improve my quality of life. On the other hand, I am a medical student, about to be a doctor in two years. I harness all the information needed to treat a person in need to be applied later in my profession. This knowledge will work miracles which we witness in life.
People say doctors are next to God as they save lives. A perfect combination of religion and science. So hey, why not apply it in our lives too? Right?

[Gary]

Ria wrote: "Well, "religion" is created by the people in this planet, to have some sense of belonging in a community with the same ideals and behavior and belief in the same kind of divine power."

Hi Ria

You can have a community with a consensus on ideals, morality and belonging without having to belief in anything divine or supernatural.

The very presence of multiple religions and mythologies would seem to indicate that belief in divinity is not consistent across societies while community, belonging and morality is.

Ria wrote: "That's why there are different religions.....some present and some long gone, extinct like paganism."

Actually their are a lot of neo-pagans, Asatru etc. who would be offended by that comment.

Ria wrote: "Religion cannot ever be eradicated because of the feeling of insecurity and social belonging residing inside the people, plus it helps them keep their faith in life intact."

Why are some societies more religious than others unless those feelings of social belonging and security can be gained without religion?

How exactly does a religion promote a "faith in life" when most religions treat life as a secondary consideration to some variation of an eternal afterlife?

Ria wrote: "But religion is good as long as you do only those which I mentioned before, not to be used by a select number of people for forming barriers in other people's life from pursuing what they want."

That unfortunately cannot be done with Monotheistic religion though. If you truly believe that there is only one truth, one way and one supreme master, then how can you accept people choosing different paths?

Ria wrote: "Religion should not be used to create and wage war, or used for opening business in the name of God."

Religion is rarely used to 'create war', however it is a difference between groups of people that is usually absolutely non-negotiable thanks to the very basis of what 'faith' is. It is also almost universally regarded as more important than life itself, hence why martyrdom and dying in the name of religion is so easy and if you can kill yourself easily in the name of religion, how easy is it to excuse killing those you are told threaten the eternal souls of your loved ones by their beliefs or even presence?

If religion didn't help instigate and prolong wars it would be useless to those people who are said to "abuse" it to create wars. It also seems blind to the idea that some of these people honestly believe and have perfect faith in the idea that their Master demands everyone submits or dies just like they have done.

Ria wrote: "So yes, we should do away with the religion created by those opportunistic individuals and keep the religion which can help people and renew faith and happiness in peoples' lives."

Religion is not created by opportunistic individuals, though it is often wielded by them. For example Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator, but during the Gulf War he deliberately tried to provoke Israel into attacking him because he knew that would cause many Muslims to join his side. If religion did not make people so willing to fight those that believe (even slightly) different from themselves then people like him would not be able to manipulate it.

Why is "faith" even a good thing? Faith is just trust that is taken to extremes so that any failure of that trust is blamed on something other than the subject of that trust.

Why do we need religion to be happy? It demonstrably makes many people unhappy, ashamed, fearful, oppressed and dead. Believing that everyone gets an afterlife where the balance is restored - the wicked are punished, the good are rewarded, the rich impoverished and the poor have plenty - simply gives people an excuse to allow injustice to remain unopposed in our daily lives. Even worse it means that many wicked people think they can atone for evil not by helping the people wronged, but by apologising to a supernatural and conveniently invisible third party.

Ria wrote: "On the other hand, the same goes for science. Used badly, it can create havoc. Used for good, it can work miracles as it have all this time since the dawn of civilization. Get rid of the misuse and science is your best buddy!"

Science is indeed a tool, but scientific methodology can be applied to society and morality too.

Ria wrote: "I guess, we cannot live without either of them."

I beg to differ. I can happily live without religion, however at the moment it is still pervasive enough that I cannot avoid it. Yet its influence has waned in certain parts of the world significantly.

Ria wrote: "Religion reinforces our faith and purpose and science gives the facts and technology to build our way towards that purpose."

Unfortunately, with many religions particularly the Western Monotheistic Authoritarian religions religion tries to impose "facts" on us. Many of which science can or has disproven. For example the Abrahamic attitude toward sex and homosexuals in particular claim that in fact homosexuality is unnatural (disproven by science) and often adherents claim that it places children in danger (disproven by science) and it leads to other dangerous sexual practices (disproven by science).

Ria wrote: "So one should harness both of them for good and free the world of their dark aspects."

Science is a methodology or a tool. It has no more dark side than a knife that can cut bread or stab an innocent. Science can inform ethics and morality but you have to choose to use it.

Religion - specifically the belief in unproven supernatural entities of some kind - is the placing of ones own convictions above that of others outside said religion and often above evidence, science and even morality.

Ria wrote: "I am a Hindu, but not a blind follower of its rituals and practices. Because I know that Hinduism is not only a religion but an essence of life as my ancestors have lived all this time."

Now I can both appreciate and understand that. I am a Celt culturally. I know many Celtic rituals and practices. I choose to try to exemplify Celtic ideals of honour, veracity and courage. The difference is that this is my culture. I don't need to believe in mythical beings to take the best parts of the culture, and because of this I don't believe in any being that could compel me to indulge in the worst parts.

Ria wrote: "People say doctors are next to God as they save lives. A perfect combination of religion and science. So hey, why not apply it in our lives too? Right? "

What part does religion play? Would you only heal a person because you believe a supernatural being desires it, or without religion would you see a fellow being in pain or dying and want to help?

Religion has caused many to eschew science for healing, leading to their own deaths and even that of their children, and many of these people feel justified that they placed faith in their particular supernatural entity over that of their own child's life.

How does a doctors belief in the supernatural make them a better doctor? Would they really let people suffer and die if they didn't believe their gods would reward them?

[Virginia]

Giansar wrote: "Virginia wrote: "There is something out there and I believe that, with religion as a motivator, science may find the answers. However, I am fully aware that the answers may never be found, for that..."

I believe we all judge ourselves. Whether there is an "afterlife" no one will know until, of course, they can't tell anyone else about it. But, if there happens to be something after this, then it isn't another being(s) that determine our fate. I believe we determine our fate by the things we do day in and day out. However, though I have "religious" beliefs, a lot of my beliefs are based off of science and then, what science cannot explain, I take and figure out on my own. Life is an adventure puzzle lol Have fun, but be a good person.

[Gary]

Virginia wrote: "I believe we all judge ourselves."

In a way I think you're right. Humans have evolved as a social species and part of that development is the intrinsic sense of fairness, shame and outrage that allows that society to form. (It may seem counter-intuitive since you may assume that evolution would favour selfish behaviour however a community of mutually supportive individuals can raise the average survival chances of its members much higher than any individual could do alone.) Many of the social apes also show similar rudimentary ethical behaviour.

So we judge ourselves as social animals and that judgement is reinforced by the community we are part of. Experiments have shown that even the apes show behaviour where an individual is willing to make sacrifices in order to ensure another individual is punished for unfairness or selfishness.

Ironically it may be our development of language and abstract concepts that has allowed these advantageous traits to be harnessed by various religions to impose authority on us.

Virginia wrote: "Whether there is an "afterlife" no one will know until, of course, they can't tell anyone else about it. But, if there happens to be something after this, then it isn't another being(s) that determine our fate."

The entire concept of an afterlife is quite comprehensible when you realise that their is an understandable gap in our imaginations. Being dead (or even completely unconscious) is a state of not experiencing anything. Therefore it is obviously impossible to imagine a experiencing a state of non-experience. People sometimes compare death as similar to sleeping or unconsciousness, but the only true experience we have of them is waking up (into REM sleep or consciousness) afterwards. Something more difficult to do with death. Obviously this means that it is impossible for us to really imagine the experience of us not existing and therefore not experiencing which is why an afterlife is easy to imagine even though some cultures tend to be less concerned about a beforelife.

Pascal's Wager famously gave the idea of it being a good idea to believe in God just in case there was an afterlife. A completely fallacious argument because there are many different Gods posited by different religions and many of them proclaim that they are the only true way, so the chances of you picking the right god and the right way to please them is minimal. It also attributes no value to this life and working to improve it for oneself and for ones community.

Virginia wrote: "what science cannot explain, I take and figure out on my own."

I always find it strange when people talk about what science 'cannot' explain. If something is unknown then how can you know if science cannot eventually explain it? If you know it enough to make the claim that it is unexplainable then surely you then have just provided an explanation?

Certainly there are many things that science cannot explain yet, and each scientific discovery shows new mysteries to explore, but that does not mean that the exploration is futile or that discovery.

There is a huge difference between "science cannot explain" and "science hasn't managed to explain - yet."

Virginia wrote: "Life is an adventure puzzle lol Have fun, but be a good person. "

Agreed. Why be a good person though? Personally I am a social animal who has evolved to want to be supportive of others and desire to live in a society where people will be supportive of me. I don't need the selfish bribery of paradise in a subsequent life to make me act good, nor do I need the threat of punishment in hell to feel shame if I fail to act as well as I would hope. I am rather suspicious, and somewhat concerned, about anyone who implies that without constant supervision by their invisible master that people (presumably including themselves) would not feel bad about theft, murder or rape.

[Giansar]

Gary wrote: "Experiments have shown that even the apes show behaviour where an individual is willing to make sacrifices in order to ensure another individual is punished for unfairness or selfishness."
It would be very weird if we were to punish people for selfish behavior because all our volitional behavior is 100% selfish.

[Lauren]

Personally, i would rather live in a world without Religion. I understand the concept of faith and having a higher calling, or having the feeling of purpose, divinity and destiny however i don't believe, especially in such a modern society, that it is a useful concept any longer.

I believe that science is our forefront; it is progression; it essentially is the essence of society, however religion brings the moral predilections, the social expectations and the basic human needs/wants/desires into check. Additionally, Religion, as Pandora stated, also gives the world its 'beauty'. Even though i adore science and am highly logically minded if science was the be all and end all, i believe that life itself would loose its fragility; its beauty and for the most part its enjoyment. There is only so much that science can explain.

I respect Religion, even thought i don't practice anything myself, however i do enjoy conversations with the more 'faithful' of my friends in regards to religion v science topics. However the moment that religion or science start to infiltrate and overpower opinions that's where i have a problem.

[Gary]

Hi Lauren, your statement didn't seem to be internally consistent.

Lauren wrote: "Personally, i would rather live in a world without Religion. I understand the concept of faith and having a higher calling, or having the feeling of purpose, divinity and destiny however i don't believe, especially in such a modern society, that it is a useful concept any longer."

I agree with it all. I even agree with the idea of feeling that one has a 'higher calling' and realised, when I matured, how dangerous that arrogance could be.

However you then say;

Lauren wrote: "however religion brings the moral predilections, the social expectations and the basic human needs/wants/desires into check."

Apart from being wrong, this means that twinned with your initial statement you are implying that moral, social and basic desires no longer need checking?

Religion is not the source of morality as can be shown by a quick analysis of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic laws of Leviticus in Abrahamic tradition. Not only do the Ten Commandments not include many crimes (such as rape) it is also mostly dedicated to preservation of the authority of the religion. The Mosaic laws then go on to tell you exactly when (and often) the only good commandments (thou shalt not kill, steal, envy) can be put aside to kill, take, or enslave when told to.

Some other religions have a different set of moral imperatives but very few religions (especially authoritarian monotheism) actually teach morality. To teach morality you don't just give rules from 'on high' - you teach what is right from wrong and why.

Morality, justice and law are societal based - not religious - though religion does a good job of using these features of society to propagate and maintain itself. However as we have seen over the last two thousand years in the west morality can evolve and improve, unlike commandments written in stone. Slavery, misogyny, censorship of ideas etc. are all things condoned by the "morals" of many religions but have started to erode as social morality and awaremness has eclipsed religion.

Lauren wrote: "Additionally, Religion, as Pandora stated, also gives the world its 'beauty'."

An oft repeated and never substantiated claim of religious people. Again from your initial statement of the irrelevance of religion this seems to undermine your own initial point.

Moreover, how does religion "give" the world it's beauty? Certainly religious iconography can be beautiful but it is not the only source of beauty. My daughter is beautiful, if I believed in magical beings and ancient gods would she be more so? Since I don't believe should I not find her beautiful at all. Some of the literature and imagery of the Bible and the Apocrypha is beautiful, but then so is that from Tolkien's works or Shakespeare. Do I have to believe in them to enjoy them as art? Millions of paintings and thousands of movies have been made about mythological and imaginary figures. Do they require religion or imagination.

I was trained as an astrophysicist and I have seen the beautiful symmetry of equations, the dazzling pictures produced by fractal algorithms and the mind boggling vistas of nebulae, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Why does believing that it's all magically popped into existence by an entity suspiciously similar to humans in outlook necessary to appreciate its beauty?

Lauren wrote: "Even though i adore science and am highly logically minded if science was the be all and end all, i believe that life itself would loose its fragility; its beauty and for the most part its enjoyment."

Really? Again this conflicts with your opening statement. You say you don't believe, but now you are claiming that without belief life would lose it's enjoyment.

First, science is not the "be all and end all" because science is a method of gaining knowledge, not knowledge itself. What it is however is a rational and objective way of acquiring real knowledge rather than being irrational and egocentric.

Life would not lose it's fragility if you used science instead of religion to appreciate it. In fact it gains fragility. Most religions treat this life as a place to be obedient and subservient while hopeful for a reward and fearful of a punishment in an eternal life to come.

Science would currently support that this life is our only one. This means all life is that much more fragile and precious. Instead of spending time grovelling in the hope of a personal reward after death, we should be working to make this world as happy and as just for as many people as possible.

Lauren wrote: "There is only so much that science can explain. "

Like what?

This is an assumption - and a fairly egocentric one at that. How can we know what science can eventually explain without actually completing all possible scientific research? Just because we personally cannot imagine science explaining something how can we arrogantly proclaim that this could never be known? Particularly with the advances we have seen just in the last century.

In the end though, what does the statement even mean? Even if we believed the rather presumptive supposition that "science cannot explain everything", that does not automatically follow that religion is required to "fill in the gap". What other explanations are you suggesting other than science? Remember science is not just lab coats and microscopes, science is any intellectually rigorous rational means of enquiry that endeavours to produce independently verifiable results.

It should be noted that many religious people tend to treat their religion as science. They believe that it is rational, they obviously have sufficient evidence (via upbringing, scripture or 'personal revelation') to believe themselves, and most often they strongly believe that their results are reproducible in others if they follow the same path. The only thing they lack that would make it scientific is a willingness to critique the thesis and to accept evidence that shows it must be modified or discarded.

Those same religious people often then treat science as a rival 'religion'. Instead of claiming non-theists as 'faithless' they usually attack by claiming that their acceptance of science over religion is just another belief, and often allude to the scientific community as a homogeneous priesthood making pronouncements from 'on high'.

I find it ironic that the criticism of a scientific outlook is to see the worst flaws of their own religion (faith and authoritarianism) reflected back at them.

Lauren wrote: "I respect Religion"

I don't (obviously). I respect religious people (in fact all people regardless) but religion is the exercise of faith over reason and I do not respect ideas that need to be protected from critique. (This goes for ideologies based equally on faith but are not classically religious, for example certain political, social and economic ideologies).

Lauren wrote: "However the moment that religion or science start to infiltrate and overpower opinions that's where i have a problem. "

So where do you form opinions from then? Generally speaking you have the choice between forming an opinion based on evidence and rationality or an opinion based on personal prejudice and/or cultural authority.

Properly done science cannot "infiltrate and overpower" opinion, science is just a way of getting information to check an opinion against reality. Meanwhile religions entire purpose is to impose a specific set of dogmatic opinions upon its adherents (and more often than not to ensure that non-adherents are either converted or subjected to the same opinions).

For example a lot of Christian sects have been fighting the legalisation of homosexual marriage across the US and Europe. They don't demand this simply for Christians, they want homosexual marriage outlawed for any member of those societies, whether they are Christian or not. Science has not imposed an 'opinion' on the debate, however when Christians have made claims that homosexuality is unnatural, or unusually dangerous to health or mental state, or a danger to the safety of children, science allows us to objectively look at the evidence for such assertions and dismiss them if they are unsupported (which they were).

[Gary]

Giansar wrote: "It would be very weird if we were to punish people for selfish behavior because all our volitional behavior is 100% selfish. "

Indeed, which is why the social apes don't punish specifically selfish behaviour, they punish behaviour that is deleterious to the community. This is done because often the individual seeks short term personal advantage at the expense of their community, which essentially means at the expense of their long term advantage. Meanwhile, altruistic behaviour is often rewarded because reciprocative altruism gives a communal advantage to the whole social unit.

This is in essence a scientific reason for the so-called "Golden Rule" to have intrinsic value. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", why? Because if you do it then others will feel they can reciprocate - or continue to reciprocate - and an alliance of individuals that do not have to spend time and resources protecting themselves from each other will be more prosperous and strong than a collection of defensive individuals.

[Giansar]

A can fully agree Gary. I just wouldn't call it altruism because altruism at its origins is something opposite to egoism. We can't aim at getting rid of our egoism because it's not possible.
But anyway, it's just semantics.

[Gary]

Semantics maybe, but sometimes the Devil's in the details (if you'll excuse the reference).

Realising that good and evil, altruism and selfishness are all relative is a good start to our ethical education and development. Many religious people never seem to see this step. They say that without God to punish you why would you have any morals at all? The simple answer is that they haven't realised that morality isn't about laws, it's about mutual advantage.

A child has to be ordered to take it's medicine, or bribed by making it taste sweet. An adult is meant to be aware and responsible enough to understand that the bitter taste or inconvenience of the medicine is to their eventual benefit (and potentially to others too).

Religion enforces morality in almost an identical manner, by bribing us with the favour of, or terrifying us with the threat of the retribution of, a quasi-parental divine figure. Unfortunately the legacy of this is more like an abusive parent who still tries to enforce old prejudices and bigotry on their offspring. Though many of the children do manage to take the best of the teaching and try to rise above the worst, there are still plenty who end up perpetuating them.

So I hope for a time when society is mature enough to realise that laws, altruism and kindness are for our own mutual benefit, not a way to appease the wrath of "our father who art in heaven"...

[Mwanamali]

Is neither an acceptable answer? I like the faith my religion gives me and I like the answers science provides for me. If that isn't acceptable, I'd rather live in a world without religion. There would be no more conflict and no more doctrines to whatever spirituality we intend to pursue.

[John]

They serve the same purpose in that they both try to explain the world but science seeks to really know master the world whereas religion seems to want to make us quail in ignorance before gods might. Since there is no god, we quail in ignorance before nothing. Which do you think I prefer? The poster before me said that without religion there wouldn't be love in the world, that's silly, love is within us and has nothing to do with religion. I would separate religion from philosophy. We have had so many great agnostic thinkers who point the way to a good and moral life, Buddha among them. He needed no organized religion, no god.

[Catskill]

Well, you cannot live in a world without "science" since that's just the observation and study of what is. But we could all live just fine in a world without religion, a construct invented by people to explain natural phenomena before they were understood factually, or worse, to subjugate and impose roles and behaviors on people--some very destructive. Religion always seems to favor the (usually) men who set themselves up in charge of it.

[Catskill]

Gary wrote: "They say that without God to punish you why would you have any morals at all?"

Exactly my problem with religious people who decry non-religious as lacking morals, even though they do great works of charity and kindness. Refusing food bank donations from athiests, e.g. A person who lives morally and righteously WITHOUT the threat of afterlife retribution is far more admirable than one who does so only out of fear of punishment, in my opinion.

[Travis]

Catskill wrote: "Gary wrote: "They say that without God to punish you why would you have any morals at all?"

Exactly my problem with religious people who decry non-religious as lacking morals, even though they do..."

Yeah, I always get a bit creeped out by the idea that if religion went away, all the formerly religious folk would go on some huge kill/rape/drug-binge/ puppy kicking spree, as it was just the idea of a man in the sky that was keeping them under control.

[cHriS]

Nothing to do with science or religion. It's to do with the questions ..... how and why are we here and where do we go.

Religion thinks that there is a higher power and science thinks it is the higher power.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Religion thinks that there is a higher power and science thinks it is the higher power."

Wrong. Religions generally claim the existence of different - often mutually exclusive - higher powers, while science does not "think there is a higher power or not", however if a higher power exists then science would seek to eventually uncover and confirm this 'truth'.

cHriS wrote: "It's to do with the questions ..... how and why are we here and where do we go"

Science seeks to answer those questions using reason, evidence and humility. Each religion claims to know the answers already, which vary from religion to religion.

[Chris]

no religion please...

[Carol]

Chris wrote: "no religion please..."You prefer the people who brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs?

[Travis]

Carol wrote: "Chris wrote: "no religion please..."You prefer the people who brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs?"

and the polio vaccine, eye glasses, dvds, the space program, the k-cup coffee maker and the computer you are typing on.

[Carol]

Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "Chris wrote: "no religion please..."You prefer the people who brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs?"

and the polio vaccine, eye glasses, dvds, the space program, the k-cup coffee..."All of which I could do without except the polio vaccine. And don't forget Zyklon B and Agent Orange

[Travis]

Carol wrote: "Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "Chris wrote: "no religion please..."You prefer the people who brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs?"

and the polio vaccine, eye glasses, dvds, the space program, t..."

You could do without a k-cup coffee maker...?
Forget religion, that's a world view I cannot comprehend.

[Carol]

Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "Chris wrote: "no religion please..."You prefer the people who brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs?"

and the polio vaccine, eye glasses, dvds, the sp..."

Yes I don't have one and I almost fell off my chair laughing when you mentioned it. Are you serious?