Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,901-1,950 of 12,463

[Cheri]

At least science bothers to ask the questions.

And Muslims had some of the richest of science knowledge in the world before Ferdinand & Isabella's Spanish inquistion.

[Shanna]

Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the world and to think very deeply to this universe in order to ke..."

Unless that knowledge contradicts the Qur'aan then knowledge is rejected for faith.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

[Elisa Santos]

Cheri wrote: "At least science bothers to ask the questions.

And Muslims had richest of science knowledge in the world before Ferdinand & Isabella's Spanish inquistion."

I always remember that the best doctors were muslims, arabs as they called them - they were very respected before the creation of the Inquisition and they had an immense amount of knowledge that was later rejected as "heretic " by the Inquisition and was lost, forever.

[Xdyj]

The Alpha Jan wrote: "I am going to say neither if you're talking about an institution. I am more for truth and faith. Institutionalizing truth is science and doing the same for faith is religion. :D"

But imo a scientific community is crucial for training new scientists, foster cooperations and doing peer review.

Zakaria: I agree with you that science and religion are not inherently contradictory, but many religious leaders have overstepped their boundaries and are shamelessly pushing pseudoscience.

[Emma]

a tough question, as it has always been. i am simply agnostic when it comes to religion, so i'm more inclined to say i'd rather live without religion.

but there are always two sides. without religion, there would be no deaths related to all those awful religious-based [terrorist] attacks. then again, without science, there would be no deaths from war, nuclear bombs, etc. so who's to say?

science has helped us in a lot of ways, especially health-wise, but it can also destroy us (ex: creation of fast food restaurants). same goes for religion. religous people can be horrible, and atheists/scientifically-driven people can be amazingly good. i guess i don't have an opinion to offer, just some thought-provoking ideas...

[Old-Barbarossa]

"Whirlwind" wrote: "Academics are better at healthy argument..."

You seem to have gone back and deleted some of your posts...what's that about?
Jeebus, I go away for a wee while and the censors step in.
You note that "The car accident isn't true, the chronic pain isn't true, and Whirlwind isn’t real, and except for the two professions and the education, nothing else is true but the “friend” that was mentioned. I could be a male nurse, and a male librarian, you don't really know. The rest? You don't know that either."
Aye, all very true...but when communicating in the epistolary manner that is posting like this we have to judge people by what they type. If you type structured and sound arguments, or havering bile ridden abuse, then I have to take you at your word and respond based on how you present. Your background or gender is only relevant insofar as it influences the thread/posts and only as much as you let us know.
You have hinted at academic pretensions yet have shown little in the way your posts are presented to back this up. You have bowed to (self?) censorship by removal of some of your posts and therefore shown a lack of commitment to ideas initially expressed.
Was my earlier assessment of troll correct after all? Is that all you're doing here?
Having said that I have enjoyed the banter.
Anyway, I wish the collective known as "whirlwind" all the best in future assimilations.

[Khaalidah]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ~ Einstein

[Old-Barbarossa]

A previous post of mine that no one responded to due to post hogging by someone and the de-railment of the discussion. So if anyone is interested here it is again:
"Aye, it's about how things are used in some respects. It's easy to view things as black/white when we look at the big nasty stuff like religious ritual abuse. It's also easy when we look at atom bombs (or any weapon tech) to say it was the person that used the bomb and no the bomb that was resposible for the carnage.
But...
With more everyday aspects of science it's a bit trickier, science that is interwoven into daily life globally. Pesticides, mining, carbon emitting power plants. Even improved medicines leading to people surviving and living longer, therefore increasing global population, therefore pushing for more food, leading to more deforestation etc.
While there is an increased awareness of trying to ethically source food and to try and do so locally, this is a luxury for people who live in the more affluent countries. If you live somewhere more prone to famine or drought you need food, you will use what you need to use to grow it, you will clear the land to plant.
In many cases the use of science is about the survival of the individual, but also in many instances it is about the exploitation of the masses.
Again I note I am just trying to play devil's advocate here, trying to move things into more morally grey areas where the answers are less obviously partisan. "

[Mark]

Science has started how many wars and killed how many people?

Religion has started how may wars and killed how many people?

Enough said.

Science, not religion, is the closest thing we have to an answer.

[Shanna]

Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the world and to think very deeply to this universe in order to ke..."
Or sit in a classroom with unveiled female students
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/tunisia-isla...

[Yamaç]

Without religion people couldn't be controlled. But also without science people go crazy. There is a balance between them, of course apparently. Religion sticks people together, makes state concept significant. French revolution happened because religion lost its power over society. So they created nationalism. They have the same purpose, they stick people together. When society sticks together, it becomes easier to control them. You can say "Let's do this for you nation!" or "Let's do this for your religion!", "Let's go to Jerusalem, let's make a crusade.", "It's time for jihad, let's kill all non-Muslims." You can say without religion people go crazy, this is the general opinion. But actually, there is no balance between them. Science is much powerful than religion because of its individualism. Individualism leads to a powerful society. Because every individual means a better society. In a world without religion, everything would better. Because a scientific society knows what to do. Then countries will be meaningless.

[Elisa Santos]

To me, and as naive as it sounds, every person should take their personal measure of religion and scinece that fits their lives - since religion is a very particular business, none should cave in to pressures of any kind to believe or not - make it fit your lives and the amount of religion versus cience that you feel it´s ok is what you should follow. Without any type of fanatical behaviour, i honestly think that this can be the right balance between science and religion, in people´s lives.

[Josie]

I think the definition of religion is different for many people, so this question can be read in a variety of ways. What would getting rid of religion mean? Would it mean disposing of belief, or faith, or just of ritual? For some, science is religion. A world without science would be ridiculous, and probably impossible, but I think a world without faith in something would be just as strange. I am not religious; my faith resides in things that can be proven, but that does not mean that the faith isn't there.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Josie wrote: "For some, science is religion..."

I fail to see science as a religion in any way. Please explain...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Zakaria wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Josie wrote: "For some, science is religion..."

I fail to see science as a religion in any way. Please explain..."

Because science only believe in material things. Science ..."

Eh?
I think we have very different definitions of science and religion.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Zakaria wrote: "Exactly..."
Eh?
Do you use definitions made up by yourself then, as they seem far removed from any understanding of the terms as described in standard reference works...
Please explain your reference points and actual definitions.

[Harsh]

though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of society, one gives identity and the other truth of entities... so both are important for me.

[Shanna]

Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of society, one gives identity and the other truth..."

Which does what, identity and truth of entities?
Because science answers both questions without the need for recourse to religion.

[Josie]

I think that science can be like a religion to some people, if it is what they put faith in. Whether or not you agree depends on your definition of religion, I guess. As I said, I'm not religious, so maybe I'm wrong about how far that definition can be stretched.

[Misty]

Believe it or not I think the answer may lie in...a video game. Specifically the Ultima series, wherein an entire religion (or you could speculate it's more a philosophy) is founded upon one person who has mastered the eight virtues. The eight virtues are Honesty, Compassion, Valor, Justice, Sacrifice, Honor, Spirituality, and Humility. Now, forgive me but let me explain this further so I don't seem like a stupid airhead. See, in Ultima four, there is no villain but instead it's a very open-ended game where you have to master the eight virtues and that's how you 'win' the game. Simply put you have to master sacrifice by donating money, master justice by letting no criminal get away, and master compassion by letting any dickhead that attacks you get away. It's a great philosophy that pretty much the entire world begins to follow and it almost becomes a utopia because of it, and essentially you are the messiah of that philosophy, so it's technically a religion. Now in the sequel, right after you've mastered the supposedly ultimately good ideal religion, it becomes corrupt and sadistic. Like instead of donating to charity you have to sacrifice half your income or have no income at all, or fight to the death or be banished a coward. Suddenly what originally had been a perfect, Utopian ideal way of dealing with things was dark and corrupt, it's a unique twist. Now where am I going with all this? Well, see, originally all that was leading this 'religion' really was you, but you didn't boss anyone around, you just mastered all of the eight virtues. But, in the sequel, someone is set in charge of the religion and suddenly the philosophical ideals are forced on everyone. My main point is religion isn't bad until human corruption gets in the way. And the exact same could be said for science. Original 'scientists' were alchemists, seeking out the elixir of life, immortality, the ultimate culmination of human greediness in a way, desperate clinging to life. And they had no qualms about using test subjects and force feeding them their elixirs, or at the very least risking subjects lives. Even 50 years ago it was still acceptable in a way to use human beings as guinea pigs and make them do shit for the sake of science. Hell, even today you wouldn't believe the stuff that makes it into human trial phases.
Okay so I've gone on and on about essentially nothing, but to answer the question most directly I'd have to say science. I mean true, religion corrupts and has caused killing on a massive scale, but science hands religion the tools to do it most effectively. Not only that but if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't be together as a species, we wouldn't have towns and villages, we'd be a no holds barred every man for himself society. Okay, we don't know that for sure, but still, better safe than sorry.

[Hazel]

you've got that the wrong way round, without community we wouldn't have religion.

[Shanna]

@James
Yes you come together as a community first and have some sort of communal consent to have a social structure as complex as a religion. Science doesn't hand tools out, it is a tool in it's self and good or bad use depends on the user.
Do you honestly think that if religion vanished tomorrow you would become a murderer, rapist, and thief, that religion is the only thing that restrains you and others? Because THAT is scary. To form a community which our ancestors did before religion there must have been a general understanding of what was acceptable and good for the community, just because religion hijacked, enshrined and claimed ownership of morality doesn't make it the sole provider. You only have to look at prisoners religious affiliation stats to know that believing doesn't stop offending.

[Josie]

Sue wrote: "I think the mere constant use of the word "religion" for anything else is unfortunate. Why does the world have to be weighed up in terms of this sort of belief at all? Things are real or not real a..."

Yes, religion versus science is totally unnecessary, but I don't think it's possible to stop "weighing" things in terms of belief, because there are, at present, several hypotheses that cannot be proven. When there is not solid proof of something, people are left with the choice as to whether or not they believe the something is true/possible/etc., and their faith is often a big factor in that decision. Some people make those decisions based on a process of logical thought, and others make them based on their belief in something transcendental. The gray area is, I think, made up of people who believe that the process of logical thought is sort of transcendental.

[Harsh]

Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of society, one gives identity and t..."

Science do not tell whether you are Hindu, Muslim or Christian. It does not explain your identity. Religion does not explain the man's explanation to anything. It tells only what has already been explain.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the world and to think very deeply to this universe..."

Shanna, it seems to me that you've made ridicule as opposed to a real substantive point. Care to elaborate? Before you do, might I ask that the elaboration be made based on some understanding of the faith, any faith, as opposed to your take on a skewed politicized article?

[Khaalidah]

Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of society, one gives..."

At no point did Harsh state that science determines ones religion. As a matter of fact, yet again, you create contention without actually making a point. What is it you are trying to say?

[Shanna]

Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of society, one gives..."
I guess not if you only define your identity by your religious affiliation.
To science you are the latest of billion and billions of evolutionarily successful ancestors who managed to pass on their genes before death.
Your identity is
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

then YOU and whatever you care to make of that.
Religion tries to answer that question in relation to a fictional books and a man made deity which is no real reference point at all.

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the world and to think very deeply t..."

my point was to demonstrate that the original poster's point that Islam encourages people to think about the world only goes as far as it doesn't contradict the Qur'aan which of course is not real thinking and the freedom to draw ones own conclusions.

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of soci..."
I never suggested that science determines religion. I asked Harsh to clarify which, he thought, did what? My point was that either way I don't think religion is necessary.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the world and to t..."

This is not true. I am a Muslim and I practice the religion of Islam. There is nothing in science that contradicts Islam. In fact, many of the leading scientists of the past as well as the present are Muslim, and they see no contradiction. I would suggest that perhaps your assertion is based on popular anti-Muslim propaganda and not clear and evident proof. This is fine in a private setting, but when you espouse glaring inaccuracies publicly you run the risk of misleading people as much as you yourself have been mislead.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are t..."

You certainly have the right to feel that way, and I know many people who would. I believe that religion confirms science and that there is there is no way to separate the two. But we all have an opinion, don't we?

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells us to look at the..."
As a Muslim how old do you think the world is? The article I linked concerned medical students walking out of a class teaching evolution (did you see what the link was before accusing me of misleading people? for the record I'm not anti-muslim I'm anti-religion), do you as a Muslim believe in evolution?

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on....."

Science doesn't need religious confirmation any more than a microscope does, science is a tool for discovery. And the two have been separate and at odds for centuries. Science does nothing to confirm religion and refutes many of its teachings.

[Harsh]

Khaalidah wrote: "Harsh wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Harsh wrote: "though it is a controversial topic to some extent but I think at times religion gives some topic for science to work on... so both are the pillars of soci..."

I am trying to say that religion is important when we see from one point of view and science is important from other point of view. There is no point in comparing them. These two are the pillars on which a society stands.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'aan" God tells..."
As a Muslim, I don't even pretend to guess how old the world is. Ideas such as the Big Bang theory and even evolution to a degree are not refuted by Islam. We simply believe that if there was a Big Bang, (which is actually eluded to in the Qur'an) God created that. As for evolution, yes, we believe in evolution to a degree, but in the totality of the Darwin sense, not so much.

[Khaalidah]

Sue wrote: ""Khaalidah wrote: I practice the religion of Islam. There is nothing in science that contradicts Islam."

That may well be, but why feel there is a need to follow a "religion" of any kind? I can be..."

My need to follow a religion is as natural for me as breath. I didn't grow up in a religious home and converted to the religion on my own more than 20years ago. I am a science major by profession. I live by seeking proof/evidence as it guides my daily practice in most all things.
I believe that people can live honestly, kindly, decently without faith, but I don't see the need to separate them. For me, science and faith are inseparable.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Einstein

[Harsh]

Zakaria wrote: "Not only society but humanity as a whole. I do not think any human being would be able to live his life without believing in something, be it a religion or a scientific theory. Well, in general som..."

That may well be, but why feel there is a need to follow a "religion" of any ki..."

wow I would like to go with Einstein as the quotes seem so much of the same thought that I tried to put in first place. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Xdyj]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Deemah wrote: "We as Muslims cannot have " Faith" without "knowledge "..in several pages in our holy book " The Qur'..."

What do you mean exactly by "the Darwin sense"?

I don't think I "believe in" science the same way as some religious people "believe in" their religions. I do think that the scientific method is the most effective and reliable way towards truth, but not all questions in life are about truth. There are also questions about whether or not something is fair or just or beautiful, which in my opinion need something else to answer, although for me the "something else" is not derived directly from any organized religion.

Of course we can ask why people would think something is fair or just or beautiful and build various models to explain it, but imo this would be a different question.

And I don't quite care about what a scientist said unless it's about his/her own field or on some professional issues.

[Khaalidah]

By "Darwin sense" I am specifically referencing the idea that mankind rose from apes. While I know that we are genetically similar/related, I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenitors.
Whether or not you believe in science the same way religious people do...well, how do you know? Have you compared your brand of science to that of all other religious people? But, really, that is neither here nor there.
Fairness and beauty are strictly subjective concepts so...
As for whether or not you "care" about what a scientist said, to each his/her own. Good for you.

[Hazel]

can I ask how you can say something eminantly sensible as " I know that we are genetically similar/related", and then ruin that with "I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenitors". The two sentances contradict each other. We have a common ancestor, that was an ape, from which we descended, and from which other modern apes are descended, how is that so hard to comprehend or accept?

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "By "Darwin sense" I am specifically referencing the idea that mankind rose from apes. While I know that we are genetically similar/related, I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenito..."

So you don't believe 2:65-66?

[Khaalidah]

Hazel wrote: "can I ask how you can say something eminantly sensible as " I know that we are genetically similar/related", and then ruin that with "I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenitors". Th..."

I don't see the contradiction.
I have no problem with comprehension, but acceptance is another thing altogether.
Allow me to remind you that this is a discussion, the focus of which is intended to learn the opinion of different people. I have mine, and you have yours. I'm certainly not trying to convert, or bring anyone else around to my way of viewing things. I am simply stating my personal belief, which remains that science and religion are two halves of the same coin and can not exist without the other.
By suggesting that my comprehension is flawed is not only insulting, but does nothing toward making your point. So much for comprehension and acceptance, eh?

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "By "Darwin sense" I am specifically referencing the idea that mankind rose from apes. While I know that we are genetically similar/related, I don't believe that they were necessa..."

Are you kidding me?
Do I believe it? Certainly.
With that out of the way, I suggest that when you try to debate with someone of a different faith using their own religious texts, you know and understand what you're reading first, that way we don't get caught up in futile debates you're not equipped to have. Mind you, that was certainly not intended to be a swipe at your intelligence. I'm simply saying that taken out of context, any statement in the world can be imbued with any kind of meaning, and in the course of this particular discussion, I can assert, you've got it wrong.

[Shanna]

I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage because it suggests that humans are descended from apes (or that apes are descended from humans) at least those who don't keep the sabbath ie; jews, christians ect... Or are you suggesting that only non-muslims are sub-human and a primate, what about new converts is their "Primate-ness" removed on conversion?
At the moment the discussion with you at least has evolved to this point of evolution and I'm asking you defend your assertion that they (religion and science) are two halves of a whole and that you accept evolution (and that somehow despite our genetic links humans arrived fully formed as the only animal on this planet to escape evolution?) when clearly on many points they are not compatible and are extremely contradictory.

[Shanna]

How so? the passage seems pretty clear to me?

(2:65) And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!(2:66) And We made it an example to their own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God-fearing.

[Hazel]

Khaalidah wrote: "Hazel wrote: "can I ask how you can say something eminantly sensible as " I know that we are genetically similar/related", and then ruin that with "I don't believe that they were necessarily our pr..."

I'm actually not basing what I said on opinion, it is scientific fact, with lots of evidence to back it up, that we are descended from an ape ancestor that we share with modern wild apes. Maybe its you who are not equipped to have this debate, as your opinion is not based on supported facts. Not that i am swiping at your intelligence either, just maybe suggesting you're reading the wrong books.

As for claiming you can accept that humans and apes are related, but not that they share a common ancestor, that is analogous to me telling you that I accept that you and your third cousin twice removed are related, but that I refuse to accept that you share a commen ancestor. Just take the same idea as you and your cousin sharing grandparents, and add a few extra generations over about 8 million years, and you have the same thing with modern humans and modern apes.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage because it suggests that humans are descended fro..."

Please note that my comment about "comprehension" was made in response to Hazel, not you. You are Shanna, right?

Do I believe in my holy book? To reiterate, my answer is yes.

The verse in question does not suggest that humans descend from apes (back to my point about understanding the text you quote before trying to use it as an argument). Simply, the passage says that those who do not follow the command of God will be as apes...ie. regarded as being in the same position as apes. In a word, "low".

Hmmm. Defend my assertions? Since you mentioned comprehension, why can't you comprehend that this is what I believe? I don't have to defend that.

[Xdyj]

Khaalidah wrote: "By "Darwin sense" I am specifically referencing the idea that mankind rose from apes. While I know that we are genetically similar/related, I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenito..."

Unlike religion imo there is a general consent on what the scientific method is, though according to your comment it has yet to be shared by everyone. What I wanted to say is that I do not want to compare science and religion and say which is better or replace one with another because I think they are too different in nature, and sorry that part is meant to be a responce to a previous post by Zakaria which mentioned science as an alternative to religion hence reduced it to only a faith, which I don't quite agree.

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "How so? the passage seems pretty clear to me?

(2:65) And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!(2:66) And We made it an example to th..."
Not as clear as you think, apparently.

Actually, if you were to understand this passage literally, then one would believe that upon disobedience these people would be transformed into apes, and NOT what you're trying to insinuate, that it suggests that we descend from apes.
But, since it would be ludicrous to take the absolute literal interpretation, let me explain. Simply, the passage says that those who do not follow the command of God will be as apes...ie. regarded as being in the same position/caliber as apes. In a word, "low".

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage because it suggests that humans ar..."

Oh so it's just a passage demonstrating god's intolerance and hatred of non-muslims, and as he is our ultimate role model, the guide for our own feelings on the matter, thanks for clearing that up.

Actually no if you make assertions based on your beliefs in a public forum be prepared to defend them gone are the days when religious beliefs are sacred, respected and unquestioned.