Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 12,401-12,450 of 12,463

[Jamnjazzz]

Virginia wrote: "Science is not a perfect practice. They don't only do experiments in which they know the outcome."

In true scientific research no outcome is ever known. There are always variables and as much as we may think we know an outcome it may not turn out the way we expect no matter how high the probability. So someone wants to jam a bunch of energy in a small space to"...see what happens". Yup That's Science!!! That is the scientific method. Only by performing experiments can we know what possible outcome may happen and then by looking into the underlying scientific principles and mathematics of the experiments can we hope to make a 'guess' at what actually did happen. If we do this enough we may have enough of an idea to be able to use this technology to do something useful.

Religion is predicated on assigning responsibility for anything we cannot seem to understand with a cursory glance to some unknown and fictional power and on what someone said many eons ago while we try to find truth in the fiction of ancient writings (bible, torah, koran, etc...). Anything that relies on attributing cause and power to metaphysics is utter bullshit.

[Gary]

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

Yes because those people did not tell us how to use those bombs. The main reason the bombs were researched in the first place was because of a war brought about by those who thought their leaders were on a divine mission to unite the world behind their nations and their (unscientific) beliefs.

Yes I prefer the people that produce powerful (and dangerous) tools, because those tools have saved billions of lives and given humanity longer lives and lower mortality than ever in history.

I would not prefer the type of people who would tell me to actually use those tools to kill those who believed in the "wrong" mythology.

[Travis]

Carol wrote: "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 glasse..."

I am always serious when it comes to coffee.

[Mickey]

Travis wrote: "I am always serious when it comes to coffee"

Then get a French Press, a coffee grinder and good quality beans.
K-Cup coffee maker?

Anyways, I will take the technology and the threat of mass destruction. Rather than some religous person telling me everyday, oh your going to hell if you do this and don't do that. Like telling me I am going to hell for sleeping in on sundays.

[Chris]

Wow... love all the comments. Look... I cannot overlook the positive things faith-based people do in the world. I just like to label mythology and superstition for what it is. Humans can decide for themselves the best way to manage their own cultures and the best way(s) to use science and technology. NO DOUBT they'll screw things up regularly. We are basically just animals with a primary adaptation based on learning and language and animals do a lot of fighting and killing. Many of the most horrible things people have done and continue to do to each other and their own environment are done in the name of some god's will. No doubt that many of those who dropped THE bombs on Japan and Germany(Dresden etc.) would have described themselves as upright and moral believers. Slavery and Native American genocide and forced displacement were acts carried out by believers. Someday... maybe... the whole planet will be "ruled" by an accepted code of conduct based on what's best for human societies and the health of the planet. We nowhere near that yet. Religion may be helpful in getting there but is just as likely to an obstacle as well.

[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..."

So, how long are you going to use the computer and internet to tell us all about how science is evil?

In this listing contest, I think I'll put 'irony' on the religious invention side.

[cHriS]

Religion; you can pick and choose which one you want, if any. Science is not going to solve the mystery of life for us, we just don't have the time.

So all we have is our imagination to wonder at it all. We should use it and not let science suppress it.

[Alex]

Impossible question for me. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause of nature and the universe, along with supernatural intervention. There is no one who can truly deny the possibility of any religion. The catholic belief may sound absurd, but there is no way of knowing.

I read an article on the Guardian today about the nature of consciousness, and how we are still so far from the truth. There are two possibilities in this the universe, either that we are alone, or that we are not, and each is equally terrifying and immensely intriguing.

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. It is part of the beauty of the universe, duality, symmetry, ... balance.

With this book I have a new found respect for religion, although I read and pursue scientific inquiries. Assuming the majority of commentators here are not science saturated, I have to tell you, there is an immeasurable amount of information we do not know, and may never comprehend. Religion is the philosophy that fills that void.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Religion; you can pick and choose which one you want, if any. Science is not going to solve the mystery of life for us, we just don't have the time."

You seem to give up so easy, and sound quite lazy. Science has solved many mysteries for us. Mysteries that have then improved our lives, fed, clothed and healed countless people, and then it's also opened up new mysteries to consider, ideas and wonders we would never have seen otherwise.

But you'd rather just pick which story you like and stick with it no matter what?

cHriS wrote: "So all we have is our imagination to wonder at it all. We should use it and not let science suppress it. "

Science is all about wonder, it is religion that tries to suppress science so that it does not harm their chosen story. Science has shown us the incredible vastness of the universe and how many other ideas, concepts and scales there are to consider. Meanwhile religion tries to tell us that the entire universe is focused on this one tiny world and run by a man not a lot different in attitude from ourselves.

It takes imagination and intrepidity to do science, and science can and has inspired great art.

The opposite of imagination is a statement like "Science is not going to solve the mystery of life for us, we just don't have the time."

[Gary]

Alex wrote: "mpossible question for me. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause of nature and the universe, along with supernatural intervention."

The concept of "supernatural" is a human deceit. If something "supernatural" actually exists (be it god, faeries or santa) then it would be part of the nature of existence. Therefore, by definition it would be natural, not supernatural.

Alex wrote: "There is no one who can truly deny the possibility of any religion. The catholic belief may sound absurd, but there is no way of knowing."

Actually there is. Any claim can be analysed for the content and it's viability assessed. We can then discard the claims that are too absurd. We do this every day in life, from deciding whether the risk of us dying by stepping outside our door is low enough to ignore, to deciding whether someone speaking to us is telling us the truth or lying for their own or someone else's claim.

The Catholics have actually been doing this for years. Scholars have seen the inconsistencies and paradoxes inherent in their religion. The only difference is that they considered the conclusions more rigid than the evidence. Hence they have tied themselves in philosophical knots to try to have their dogmatic cake and eat it.

So we certainly can discard (rather than 'deny') the Catholic hypothesis based on their own inconsistencies. Even if it was possible that some entity existed that resembled the Catholic tradition enough to have inspired it, it would have to resolve those inconsistencies and therefore would not be exactly the faith that they proclaim.

Alex wrote: "I read an article on the Guardian today about the nature of consciousness, and how we are still so far from the truth. There are two possibilities in this the universe, either that we are alone, or that we are not, and each is equally terrifying and immensely intriguing."

It is also - again - misleading. We are not alone, we have other humans and yet we cannot prove that each other are "consciousnesses" any more than we can prove a whale, a dolphin, a dog, a computer or an alien has it. The question you state has two entirely artificial absolutes intrinsic to it so of course we seem no closer to an answer because any finite progress you make pursuing an infinite is pointless. Fortunately there are no proven infinites so we finite beings can make finite progress and be happy.

Alex wrote: "Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. It is part of the beauty of the universe, duality, symmetry, ... balance. "

Actually you're right there. Science and religion are both attempts to understand the nature of the universe. Both ideas start with a hypothesis to explain some part of reality, often based on evidence and comparison. Both then use logic and reason to expand and apply the ideas. A scientist may apply two metals to a solvent and expect electricity. A Christian may apply a prayer to god (or to an intervening agent such as an angel or Mary) and expect a result.

This is why for a long time religion, philosophy and science were essentially all the same thing. However, religion - particularly with the rise of the absolutist monotheism traditions - increasingly locked down the "thesis" part and discarded evidence and reason that would undermine dogma. Polytheism can easily accept new ideas and evidence because their gods can be finite and flawed, monotheism cannot.

Science eventually developed from these ideas and grew self-critical. Disposing of old ideas that no longer had evidence and replacing them with new refined ideas. Not "right" replacing "wrong", but more like the way a hand drawn sketch can represent a map well enough to find your way around but can still be improved with ever more precisely measured maps.

Alex wrote: "Assuming the majority of commentators here are not science saturated, I have to tell you, there is an immeasurable amount of information we do not know, and may never comprehend. Religion is the philosophy that fills that void. "

That statement is so stacked with fallacies it's hard to begin.

First, everyone here is "science saturated" to an extent as they are using language to communicate concepts via a computer.

"there is an immeasurable amount of information we do not know" Of course there is. If we "knew" it we would have effectively "measured" it. The statement is meaningless. It's also completely misguided. There are an infinite number of potential languages to learn, does this mean it was pointless for you to learn English?

"we may never comprehend"
We may never comprehend it, then again we might, does that mean we shouldn't try?

"Religion is the philosophy that fills that void. "

This is a concise statement of the "god of the gaps" fallacy. We don't know what causes thunder so we will attribute it to Thor, until someone learns about the effects of static electricity in the atmosphere. etc.

What you have effectively said is that to you religion is an intellectually dishonest philosophy that allows you to fill any gap in your actual knowledge with the illusion of knowledge. Personally I'd prefer to admit when I don't know something, and often feel excited by the prospect of learning something new.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Religion; you can pick and choose which one you want, if any. Science is not going to solve the mystery of life for us, we just don't have the time.

So all we have is our imagination to wonder at ..."

If religion is real stuff why does it keep claiming imagination?
If it is giving you all the answers imagination isn't needed.

If science doesn't have all the answers and is trying to figure it out, shouldn't they get imagination?

[Travis]

Alex wrote: "Impossible question for me. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause of nature and the universe, along with supernatural intervention. There is no one who can truly deny the possibility of..."

The 'we are either alone...' quote originally came from the sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke.

and the void religion fills is 'god did it' and then science comes along and says 'actually, this is how it works'.
So, religion is just a bookmark to mark the places where we don't know stuff until science gets around to it?
Hardly feels like an equal partnership.

[[deleted user]]

Pandora wrote: "I agree respect and love are most important. Back to the original question if I had to choose between science and religon. Agnostic though I am I think I would choose religon. Religon gets a bad..."

Religion is not respect and love. Faith is respect and love. Religion is brutal, bloody war, ruthless political conflict and crushing, oppressive conflicts for power. Look at the wars between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin; look at the violence in the 2001 Gujarat Hindu-Muslim riots in India; look at the battles between the Catholic Inquisition and the Knights Templar ... A world of only science would be cold, and dark, and scheming, and ruthless, but its wars would be cold wars on technology and advancement; religion's wars would be on God. Faith has respect and love, not religion. Religion has been a major force of reform in society, perhaps more than science, but its reformation hasn't just been about love and respect; it has been about ruthless conflicts, cunning leaders and dark histories of bloody battles and fearsome vengeance, betrayal and death. Religions blame "blasphemers", but death in the name of God is ruthless violation of law. Though I am agnostic, I must agree that faith is a powerful force. A secularist faith prevailing over the world is supported by science; faith in God ... As the camerlengo said, science's God may not influence us as religion's God does, but religion's God influences us with war. Science's God influences us with more faith, however fractional it is compared to religion.

[[deleted user]]

Religion is an important force in society; it has reshaped and reforged the Earth in its powerful flames of faith ... but these flames have been ushered by the apocalyptic wrath of war over God. Science's world will be brutally cold, shadowy, grim and dark (look at Maximilian Kohler), yet its cold wars and cryptic signs of shady darkness enveloping the cosmos are not nearly as threatening as that darkness being replaced by the salty taste of human blood dripping off the edge of religion's sword. Faith is powerful, religion is darker. Religions should unite to become a powerful force of faith.

[Catskill]

A world with one united religion is even scarier to me. Shiver. An inescapable worldwide prison of conscience. A remake of the Dark Ages under the Catholic Church, Mexico under the Aztecs or the brutal Islamic Caliphate extending over the entire globe? YIKES

[Gary]

Tejas wrote: "Faith is respect and love."

I would not agree. Faith is a form of arrogance disguised as humility. What is faith but believing in some concept no matter what evidence, logic or reason challenges that faith. That means that the faithful person has a firm belief that their convictions are more 'true' than reality itself.

Faith exists outside of religion too, usually destructively. Faith in political ideologies and economic models cause great problems for the world as a whole. The only difference between political ideology and religion is that the supernatural and mythological elements of religion provide insulation against reality that is much harder to challenge than other ideologies.

Respect is completely alien to faith because to properly respect someone you must be able to at least consider their opinion may be more valid than your own. You cannot do that if you have faith (practically by definition).

Love is also alien to faith because with faith you have proclaimed your own convictions as more important than anyone else, therefore your love is already restricted to people like yourself. Is it any wonder that those that proclaim that 'god is love' tend to also treat people different to their own outlook in a hateful manner. The entire concept of "love the sinner but hate the sin" is a blatant example of loving only those things in people that fit our convictions, but hating those parts that make them different.

Tejas wrote: "A world of only science would be cold, and dark, and scheming, and ruthless, but its wars would be cold wars on technology and advancement;"

Why? For a start saying "only" science is misleading. Science is a tool that allows us to seek knowledge while minimising the distortion of knowledge by our own convictions, egos and perspective. Art, literature and philosophy are not alien to science, and in fact often the methodologies of science can compliment each greatly.

More importantly though, science is a tool. If you want a cold world of dark scheming then you could use science to that end, however if you want a world of beauty, plenty and peace, you can use it to that end too. The fruit of science has given us agriculture, civilisation and art. Yes it has given us weapons as well but science does not require us to wield them. What causes war is two things, the first is a conflict over resources, the second a conflict over ideologies. Science has already given the human race resources unheard of compared to any other species on Earth. Science also provides ways to discard ideologies for the actual truth divorced of our egos. We just need to grow up and acquire some humility.

Tejas wrote: "I must agree that faith is a powerful force."

Agreed. It is a powerful force, it does not mean it has intrinsic worth.

Tejas wrote: "A secularist faith prevailing over the world is supported by science; .... Science's God influences us with more faith, however fractional it is compared to religion. "

It is ironic that most theists treat their religion as science, as can be seen when you ask them why they believe for most often they will proclaim the 'logic' of their faith and the 'evidence' of their scripture or personal revelation. Meanwhile they treat science as an opposing religion, as if it also operates on 'faith'.

Science has no 'god', nor does it have a clergy. Science is based on trust, not faith. This seems a tiny difference, but it is actually profound. Doubt destroys faith, but qualifies trust. Science is meant to operate with doubt, and no idea is sacred enough not to warrant criticism. This is not to say that all ideas are equally valid for trust requires respect, faith requires ego. The difference between "I trust that you will not betray me, I could be wrong but I assess you are worth the risk" and "I have faith that you will never betray me and I know I cannot be wrong".

A secularist "faith" would not be truly secularist. For example Soviet Communism does not abjure faith, instead it supplants faith in Religion with faith in Political Ideology. An irony that many Evangelical Americans would probably be appalled by when they learn that Communists too attacked the idea of Evolution as they believed it to be "the Science of Capitalism".

Tejas wrote: "Religions should unite to become a powerful force of faith."

This (fortunately for humanity) is unlikely to happen because religions cannot unite, they can only conquer. Religions are by their nature divergent, while science is convergent. This is because their can be many ideas, but only one mutual reality. Just look at the schisms in Christianity and Islam. The only times religion has united is when it has suppressed the competition, usually violently, and it only maintains that unity while it can suppress divergent ideas. If the terrifying day comes that one religion unites the world then their will be only the converted and the dead.

[Giansar]

Gary wrote: "This (fortunately for humanity) is unlikely to happen because religions cannot unite, they can only conquer."
Maybe we should roll our Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions back to paganism. Majority of pagan beliefs were not exclusive. A Christian then can have a talk with a Muslim that would go like that: "You worship whom? Allah? And who is he? And what can he do for me if I pray to him? Alright, he seems like a nice enough chap. My god gives me eternal happiness and stuff but is a little vague about virgins so this Allah of yours seems like a nice addition. I'll worship him. Again, how many times a day and what direction?"

[Imran]

a world without religion.

[Travis]

Catskill wrote: "A world with one united religion is even scarier to me. Shiver. An inescapable worldwide prison of conscience. A remake of the Dark Ages under the Catholic Church, Mexico under the Aztecs or the br..."

Plus the fighting that would break out to decide which religion gets to 'unite' us.
That's not happening by vote, that's gonna be some seriously frightening bloodshed.

[Asma]

I've just completed reading a good many of the comments since I last used GOODREADS (a long time ago), and I am even more convinced now than I was before. I am very happy that I live within a system that allows for both belief in God AND also acknowledges science. I never knew "things" could be so confusing for some people.

Some people say there are no answers for everything...this is true. Because our knowledge is limited, there will always be something that escapes US. But to know that there is a Being that IS Omniscient helps me to understand what and why I don't understand some things.

It is nice to know that I can turn to the blessing of scientific knowledge as well as that which goes beyond its scope. Anyone can see that science has its limitations.

One other thing I noticed was that people who are against religion, and happy in a world without it, feel that way because they have experienced "religion" through one experience and then tend to base all religions on that one experience.

Seek knowledge. This answers the questions and puts the heart at rest.

[Heather]

I take a bit of objection to your last statement, Asma. It is not that we haven't searched. I myself have looked at the tenets of several religions and own as many religious texts. My heart as you put it is at rest. I do not feel the need for a deity the way you do.

[Brian]

a world without religion....

[Will]

There are several hugely sweeping statements in your last post, Asma.

We don't know everything ... yet. This does not mean that there has to be a supreme being or that we will never know everything. That is flawed logic. We know more about our world today than we did yesterday, and it is science that is increasing our knowledge, not faith.

"Anyone can see that science has limitations." Um ... what limitations? Science is about gathering data and drawing conclusions from that data. Faith is about believing in something when there is no firm evidence.

People who are against religion have experienced religion through only one experience? That has to be the most sweeping statement I have heard in a long time. People can become "against religion" for many different reasons and as a result of many different experiences.

Seek knowledge. But seek it without jumping to conclusions, making sweeping statements or relying on flawed logic.

[cHriS]

The only correct view is the one from the top of the fence. If you are on either side of that fence you have no relevant opinion.

[Ken]

I guess the names are just a coincidence....

[Will]

Jerome wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "As the English speaking world is nominally Christian, why are the days of the week named after Germanic pagan gods? The months changed their names to the Roman ones we use no..."

They only became Anglo-Saxon names as Christianity spread to the Anglo Saxon countries. Prior to that we had names like Wulfstan and Ethelred. Names that we think are Anglo Saxon (eg John, Paul, Peter) actually came from Hebrew, Roman or Greek.

For some reason, Judas didn't catch on...

[Walker]

As newer facts are discovered and methods for testing, it is becoming so clear that they are one.

[Narendrāditya Nalwa]

The problem with religions is that their bases are "beliefs". The basis of science is "knowledge".

That's why the West has this science vs. religion conflict. Hindus never have it, because Dharma = Science

[cHriS]

God and religion. You can have one without the other.

[Aakash]

I must say this topic makes for a good essay. I believe religion sets certain norms and boundaries in individual's life and in society and can easily act as a cohesive force to bind us as a group. The foundation of our society, to a great extent is religion and world would just become too cold without it.

[David]

This is a false dilemma, but science is more important. People can lead ethical lives without religion. Without science we would have no vaccines, antibiotics, computers or cell phones.

[Crow]

I know I’m late, but I just have to say my view on this matter.

Many people here say it’s impossible to live without both, but I have to disagree. Religion does not equal faith. You cannot take faith away from people. That’s just impossible. But you can take away religion. Religion on its own is full of hatred and negative emotions; full of restrictions and rules that, many times, don’t even make sense. People argue about whose God is the real and only one, whose religion is the right one to follow. There’s only hatred coming from religion. Faith is what makes people become close to each other, love, and find the meaning of life.
I’m not religious. But I’m not an atheist either. I believe in a higher being that manages the world and universe itself. I believe there is some kind of life after death. And I’m content. I don’t have the name for the “being”. I just believe. There is nothing and no one telling me how I should believe, and how I should live my life so I would be a "good believer". I don’t feel the need to hate on anyone. I don’t feel the need to tell people my faith is better than theirs. I don’t refuse other people beliefs as the wrong ones.
Religion has always caused only problems in the world. You could see it in the past and you can see it now. What’s important is the faith. If religion wouldn’t exist, people would not feel the need to fight for it. The “holy books” would not exist, and there would be no fanatics who get the whole point of it wrong and kill people in the name of their so called God. World would be at least a little bit less crazy.
So yes, I would choose the world without religion.

[Ken]

Based on your comments, some people would call you Christian.

[Crow]

That would actually insult me a bit, to be honest. As I said, I don't like religions. I've never been in a church, never prayed, never read or even tried to read the bible or anything like that. I don't believe this higher being created us, humans (big bang is the real deal for me), or that there is haven/hell. Sins do not exist for me. I have no idea what Christianity is about - or any of the religions in that matter.

I should have probably called it differently, not a higher being. It's more like this higher "force", or something like that. The force I imagine does not care for humans as other religions do. It manages the world and the universe itself.

I'm not good at explaining things, as my mother tongue is not English. Morever, explaining something you don't really know is hard even in my native language.

[Ken]

No disrespect intended Alice. A thousand apologies.

[Crow]

No worries. I just wanted to make it clear, as placing my faith under a certain religion always makes me uncomfortable ^.^

[Deb]

Alice wrote: "I know I’m late, but I just have to say my view on this matter.

Many people here say it’s impossible to live without both, but I have to disagree. Religion does not equal faith. You cannot take f..."

LIKE

Organised religion and faith should never be confused. They can occur simultaneously, but are not synonymous.

[Sandeep]

I doesn't matter whether I'm atheist or not but I would prefers a world without religion because the speed with which science and technology progress it can automatically create a new and effective ways to unite people on the basis of some logical thinking,interest rather than some religious thinking which we cannot defined logically. People tend to believe because of its past stories and the culture that people have adopted around them.

[Pet]

In the middle of battling inoperable Cancer, it‘s become clear to me that while science keeps my body going and my hope is science might one day cure this illness forever. It is Faith and family that keeps me sane and gets me up for another day of fighting. So I can honestly say we can live in a world without organized religion, but not without science and faith.

[Asha]

If I had no choice but to choose, I would choose a world without science. Having said that, I believe we need both and I don't want one without the other. The more I know about science the more I believe in God. When I occasionally watch programmes on NatGeo Wild or Discovery Science, I believe even more. When religion or science are used to do bad things, it's because people choose to do wrong.

[Giansar]

@Asha - which one is the scientific God that science makes you believe in more? I hope it's not L. Ron Hubbard ;).

[Travis]

People announcing they would choose religion over science using their computer just amuses me too much to debate the idea further.

[Ken]

Travis wrote: "People announcing they would choose religion over science using their computer just amuses me too much to debate the idea further."

Good point

[Daniel]

I would certainly choose science. The last time religion was chosen over science were the Dark Ages. Science gives us so many wonderful things while religion gives us nothing.

[Ilos Libris]

Organized religion is useless. Keep faith, you don't need religion for that and science. A lot of today's problems would go away if we could manage that.

[Ria]

Even scientists seek spiritual fulfillment. So if religion fulfills their faith then that's ok. I'm a doctor so I love and believe in science, it makes us empowered. Faith encourages us to keep us going that tomorrow will be better. The killer one that only does harm and no good is organised religion.

[Danny]

Spiritual fulfillment is NOT religions. Religions are organised mind-slavers.

Scientists at least tries to find a truth if not THE truth. We can't say so for the so-called "believers".

[Travis]

So, what's an example of spiritualism that isn't connected to a religion of some kind?

I keep hearing the 'I'm spiritual, but not religious' thing and find it puzzling.

[Ken]

I recommend, Faith versus Fact by Jerry Coyne

[Ria]

Travis, I'm spiritual means I am connected to this world with a force bigger than me. Scientifically, that's true too. Energy has never been lost in this universe, it only gets converted and the flow of energy from one form to another is what keeps the world going. Whole ecosystems run on this principle of exchange of energy. That makes me spiritual and connected to this world, that I'm not a separate entity from nature is what keeps me going. I think I matter because I can contribute and am same with this universe, not because I am different.

Organized religion just transfers the control of this flow of energy in the hand of an imaginary supreme being. Science says that is probably NOT true, which I believe too. The universe is perfectly capable of running on its own, it doesn't need a creator or a destroyer. So no I'm not religious, but I believe in the force and energy of the universe. To me, that energy is the supreme entity in itself. :)