Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,401-2,450 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Shannon, see you're being more open, and so getting this much better. You still believe in god, because you are certain that he's there, and that's great, I'm happy for you that you have such faith. cs, however, has actually stated that for him belief in god is a default state (his exact words), and that its essentially a good stop gap until someone provides a better answer (me paraphrasing). So, though you will see science provide answers, and put them under the heading of gods works (I'm guessing, correct me if I'm wrong) being explained by science, cs seems to be saying that god is something in the gaps in our understanding and knowledge, which, we have pointed out, therefore means that god is getting smaller and smaller. It is this stance that cs is taking that is being addressed when Shaun uses the phrase "With a track record like that, religion seems a poor horse to back in any race." ie, if you're going to bow to science, and reject religious explanations once science shows how it works, then why back religion in the first place?

[[deleted user]]

Yes, I understand the argument cs made, I think. And, I do understand why Shaun said what he did. Indeed. I just wanted to share a different perspective with regard to belief and why some believers have faith. You're not wrong. :)

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, see you're being more open, and so getting this much better. You still believe in god, because you are certain that he's there, and that's great, I'm happy for you that you have such faith..."

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "What was religions answer, as to what caused earthquakes?"

Do you dispute the statement? Have you an example of when science and religion clashed and it turned out religion was right a..."

If you want to check back you will find that I did not use the word 'default' first I just agreed that is was ok to use it. Yes I believe in a god and you can say it's my default setting, It does not have to be an either or, between science and the belief in god. Religion to me (not Hazel) is seperate.

You say a stop gap, but science is still in it's infancy this stop gap would be thousands of years, so I would have a long wait.

I can't help it if folks here have a problem seperating religion and god and yes I know some say that is not possible, but then nothing is possible until it's possible. And for my it is.

You previously said that you were a Pagan and you have managed to seperate this from science.

[Shaun]

Still waiting for a straight answer, CS.

Do you dispute the statement that "Every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question, and that question has been resolved it has *always* been resolved in favour of science."

As for belief in god being a default setting - are you suggesting that a group of children raised with no religious input whatsoever would automatically know that there is a supreme deity that they should be worshiping? Or what?

[Hazel]

cs, I said I used to be pagan, I'm not anymore. I did manage to separate it from science, you're correct, as what happened was that it caused a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, and in the end science and rationality won, and I dropped beliefs that had no use in the real world.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs, I said I used to be pagan, I'm not anymore. I did manage to separate it from science, you're correct, as what happened was that it caused a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, and in the en..."

But on that assumption there always a possibility that the 'lady is for changing, again'.

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "Still waiting for a straight answer, CS.

Do you dispute the statement that "Every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question, and that question has been resolved it has *..."

Where did that statement come from?

Do I dispute the statement, yes I think I do, unless you can list all the questions you are talking about.

I have already said that I can differentiate between God and religion as you do science and religion. So I do not necessarily disagree with you on the examples you gave, but when you talk about religion which of the 20 or do you want me to answer for?

The 'default' thing was my view, I can't speak for any groups of children.

[Travis]

differentiating god from religion is not at all comparable to differentiating science from religion.

Science and religion are two distinct things.

god and religion, that's like saying I can differentiate between bread and sandwiches.

I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think your statement works.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "Do I dispute the statement, yes I think I do."

Well, go ahead then. Show us one example of when a conflict in proposed explanations between science and religion has been resolved in favour of religion.

Just one. I don't mind which religion.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "But on that assumption there always a possibility that the 'lady is for changing, again'. "

Yes, almost every atheist will state that they are open to having their mind changed - on the production of evidence. Got any?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "differentiating god from religion is not at all comparable to differentiating science from religion.

Science and religion are two distinct things.

god and religion, that's like saying I can diffe..."

It does. Even if the Earl had not invented sandwiches you would still have bread.

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Do I dispute the statement, yes I think I do."

Well, go ahead then. Show us one example of when a conflict in proposed explanations between science and religion has been resolved in fa..."

You don't get it. I am not believing in religion I am believing in god. So what if science showed how earthquakes happen; what religion is disputing science on earthquakes? Or are you going way back in history to make a point?

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "But on that assumption there always a possibility that the 'lady is for changing, again'. "

Yes, almost every atheist will state that they are open to having their mind changed - on the..."

So am I open to having my mind changed, but no one here seems able to do that.


You said science has come up with all the answers so far.... your quote: Every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question, and that question has been resolved it has *always* been resolved in favour of science."

So how is science doing with an alternative to the creator?

[Travis]

religion is claiming earthquakes, as after one some religious leader always pops up and claims god did it because we aren't stoning the gays, or something like that.
and they are attributing global warming ( or why we don't need to do anything about it) to god.

Pretty much all natural disasters religion attributes to god.

[Travis]

The alternative to a creator that science has discovered is 'things happen and those things cause other things to happen'.

also known as the laws of nature/science, physics and 'there is no grand plan, the world is just that big and that scary and we are going to have to be grown ups and learn to deal with it'.

I might be paraphrasing on that last one, as I don't know the technical name for it. Chaos theory maybe?

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "You said science has come up with all the answers so far.... your quote: Every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question, and that question has been resolved it has *always* been resolved in favour of science."

So how is science doing with an alternative to the creator?"

Since that hasn't been resolved, its not relevant to the discussion.

But personally, I'm quite happy with the scientific explanations of The Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution. And given science's track record of success, I see no reason to assume that a supernatural explanation is going to supercede these theories.

[Shaun]

But of course, you *dispute* that idea.

Which means you are counterclaiming that historically, at some point, science and religion were in conflict and it was science that backed down and said "Hey, no, actually you guys are right."

Given that I can provide examples of when the religious backed down and accepted that science was right - and have done so, though admittedly not in any detail - it doesn't seem much to ask for you to provide just one example that backs up your counter-claim.

It's too late to go with the "that's not relevant" defense - you made a counter claim, I'd like to see you back it up with evidence.

If you can.

[Matt]

I was happy with the big bang theory. Not so much anymore. About 3 weeks after it started leaking out of CERN that the chances of finding the Higgs-Boson particle were approaching mathematical impossibility, they announce that they have suddenly found evidence that the particle exists. Rabbits, hats, etc...

I think, in many ways, science has become a religion. Particularly for those who have a lot invested in being right.

[Hazel]

you find it hard to believe that people could start losing hope just before they have a break through?

[Matt]

I find it convenient. Especially since Stephen Hawking was running around saying "I told you so", embarrassing a lot of people.

[Shaun]

Matt wrote: "I was happy with the big bang theory. Not so much anymore. About 3 weeks after it started leaking out of CERN that the chances of finding the Higgs-Boson particle were approaching mathematical impo..."

The difference is that when scientists claim results, they then *expect* others to question that claim, they share their experimental procedures to allow others to investigate that claim, and should their result prove to be non-reproducable, they back down.

Wheras when the religious make a claim, the idea that they should have to defend or provide evidence to back up that claim is considered shocking. how dare people question our religious convictions etc etc.

So, when a scientist publishes a claim to have observed the higgs-bosun, I am much more likely to believe it than when somebody else claims to have seen an angel.

[Matt]

Shaun wrote: "Matt wrote: "I was happy with the big bang theory. Not so much anymore. About 3 weeks after it started leaking out of CERN that the chances of finding the Higgs-Boson particle were approaching math..."

That's a good point, and it's how science should work. But we live in a time where there are scientists who would as soon defend their work by discrediting those who attack it. Priests, in other words.

[Shaun]

Matt wrote: "That's a good point, and it's how science should work. But we live in a time where there are scientists who would as soon defend their work by discrediting those who attack it. Priests, in other words."

Such as?

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "But of course, you *dispute* that idea.

Which means you are counterclaiming that historically, at some point, science and religion were in conflict and it was science that backed down and said "..."

I claim that I believe in a god and that I don't believe that god is connected directly to religion.

I don't understand why I have to provide you with some sort of proof that a religion has won a dispute over science.

I could say that 'Religion' believes in a god, science does not and only about 16% of the worlds population agree with science.

[Travis]

the false equivalency here is that science is being treated as a belief system, which it isn't.
Unless we are working on the 'there's proof, so I believe them' plan.

Which still leaves religion out of the argument.

So, scientists are comparable to priests, only if priests start actually showing proof of what they do/study/believe in.
Or use more than one book to back up their claims.

Or if scientists start calling for the death of people that disagree with them.

[Hazel]

sigh, cs, because you said you disputed what shaun said, you should back up that statement. If you cannot, admit it, and concede the point.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "sigh, cs, because you said you disputed what shaun said, you should back up that statement. If you cannot, admit it, and concede the point."
Shaun:Do you dispute the statement that "Every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question, and that question has been resolved it has *..."

I dispute the statement because he was only able to list three things, yet his statement says 'every time'. For me to agree he must list all the examples he has included in 'every time'.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I dispute the statement because he was only able to list three things, yet his statement says 'every time'. For me to agree he must list all the examples he has included in 'every time'. "
Nope, like science all you have to do is come up with one example that contradicts the statement and it would need to be modified.

[cerebus]

Matt wrote: "I was happy with the big bang theory. Not so much anymore. About 3 weeks after it started leaking out of CERN that the chances of finding the Higgs-Boson particle were approaching mathematical impo..."
If they're doing it out of convenience then they're stupid 'cos it will come out. Scientists are generally (not always) careful about announcing results as they know they will be put to the test by plenty of others, who won't hold back if they find the results are unrepeatable. Take a look at the recent 'faster than light neutrino' example....it was only when they could find no other explanation that the original group released their results, and attempts were immediately made to repeat the results....and as it happens they were not repeatable. That's the way science works, and it's the way it will work with the Higgs...and they know that, so they'd have to be pretty stupid to make any announcement that it had been found without carefully checking their own work.

[Shanna]

He at least listed three of an exhaustive list of thousands, Including planetary orbits, the earth is not flat, the earth is not 6000 years old, disease is not the result of god's displeasure but germ theory, that rainbows are the refraction of light through water droplets not a sign of gods blessing, that comets are rocks and ice hurtling through space and not messengers, there are literally thousands more Can you list one? just one?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "The hardest thing for me to understand is this......if we ARE alone in the universe and earth is destroyed......... what was it all about? "
Nothing. It doesn't have to have a meaning.

[cerebus]

Matt wrote: "That's a good point, and it's how science should work. But we live in a time where there are scientists who would as soon defend their work by discrediting those who attack it. Priests, in other words."
But what is important is that the process of science doesn't care if a few scientists behave like that, the process will still prove them right or wrong. Nobody is claiming that scientists are perfect, or omniscient, but that is the beauty of the scientific method, it works despite human involvement.

[Natacha]

I would say I'd rather live without science... but I'm not sure I agree with the term "religion" per se either (as I have issues with organized religion). I do think a balance/input from each is better than completely eradicating one or the other. :)

[cerebus]

Natacha wrote: "I do think a balance/input from each is better than completely eradicating one or the other. :)"
What input/balance do you see religion providing science?

[Natacha]

My point is that people have a right to choose whatever they want to 'explain' the origin/meaning of life, etc, be it religion, science or whatever else. Personally I don't see anything existing that doesn't come from God, so for me, science comes from God.

[Shanna]

I don't really see reality, or it's explanation, as a choice or optional, it is, what it is, regardless of beliefs and wishful thinking.

[Shaun]

Natacha wrote: "I would say I'd rather live without science... but I'm not sure I agree with the term "religion" per se either (as I have issues with organized religion). I do think a balance/input from each is be..."

If we can take the 1800s as being an example of life with religion but not (much) science then you would currently be considered well into middle age, with a life expectance of about 40, and you'd probably have had 4-6 children by now, half of whom would have died.

Still, at least you could pray for them.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "I don't understand why I have to provide you with some sort of proof that a religion has won a dispute over science. "

Because you made that claim, and when you make a claim the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I gave 4 (admittedly simplistic) examples to back up my side without even having to think about it or research it. Shanna kindly provided more. To disprove my statement, you only need 1 example. 1 example from any point in the history of conflict between science and the religious. Come now, one simple example can't be that hard?

cs wrote: "I could say that 'Religion' believes in a god, science does not and only about 16% of the worlds population agree with science. "

You could say that. You'd be wrong, of course, but you are welcome to say it. I'm happy to explain why you are wrong, but I'd rather debate one point at a time and I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim or retract it.

[Natacha]

I could indeed pray for them. No one can ever pray enough, thanks for reminding me :) FYI, death is a part life, which we will all experience someday. The difference is how people view death--which in most cases is in a VERY negative light.

What I find interesting is how much anti-religion/faith people in this forum seem to be. Just because things were a certain way in the 1800's doesn't mean that they would be the same today. Clearly, if anything it seems I am more open-minded being a person of faith here than others who seem so quick to dismiss faith as a way of life. If people can openly favor science over religion, then I can openly favor religion over science without needing to explain my views. Sad that people associate not believing in a higher power with being "modern" or even scientific. Not every scientific person is that way.

[Shanna]

Of course thing aren't the same in the 1800's than today but we have science to thank for it.
The computer your using, science,
the electricity to your home, science,
Medicine you may use, science,
much of the food you eat and especially quantity you get, science,
your car, your tv dvd's, mp3 player all science so don't wish it away.

[Shaun]

Natacha wrote: "If people can openly favor science over religion, then I can openly favor religion over science without needing to explain my views."

I'm not saying that, given that both science and religion are available, you shouldn't have as much personal faith as you choose, since that doesn't stop you from also benefiting from the marvels of science.

But the thread is entitled "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?" - You chose "without science", I was merely giving you an example of what that would be like.

Natacha wrote: "Just because things were a certain way in the 1800's doesn't mean that they would be the same today."

Without science, what do you think would have stopped people dying at 40, or reduced the massive infant mortality rates? Or brought electricity - and the internet - into our homes? I'm genuinely curious about how you think things might have changed.

[Natacha]

I'm not pretending to know how things might have changed. Different time periods had their own lifestyles and I believe that's for a reason, but am I necessarily assuming that life during the time of Jesus, or any other time periods, was by default HORRIBLE just because there wasn't internet and the electricity? No way! Perhaps in some ways life might have been better because things were simpler and people had different priorities. I chose religion (even though I prefer the word spirituality) because I am assuming religion would focus on one's relationship with God which for me surpasses all these other 'great things' we now have, including technology. These things are great, but do not and will never compare to the relationship to my Creator, and I would not want to live in a world where no one believes or accepts the concept of a higher power. Things like mortality rates occur during all time periods, regardless of advancement in technology. But again, the way I view death is intricately linked to my faith, which only brings me back to my original answer.

[Natacha]

What the church did with Christianity might indeed be the worst thing, but what individuals have--and will continue to do--using His name is not to be confused with Jesus himself. Jesus is about love, and if people have an issue with someone teaching about loving God and thy neighbor as thyself--which were Jesus' essential teachings--then I really am at a loss for words.

[Shanna]

Natacha wrote: "I'm not pretending to know how things might have changed. Different time periods had their own lifestyles and I believe that's for a reason, but am I necessarily assuming that life during the time ..."

Of course we all die the majority of us just don't do it by 40 nowadays. Of course they had different priorities just surviving unless you wealthy, all your time was concerned with simply feeding, clothing and housing yourself, scraping by.
You know there a countries now, like Sweden, where the majority of the population is atheist and they have the lowest crime rates, brilliant health, education and welfare systems all this without god and those countries with the highest rates of theism (the US being one and Afghanistan another) with high crime rates and awful health, welfare and education with god I know what I'd pick...

[Shanna]

Natacha wrote: "What the church did with Christianity might indeed be the worst thing, but what individuals have--and will continue to do--using His name is not to be confused with Jesus himself. Jesus is about lo..."
Those were not his exclusive teachings the concept of the golden rule(Greek sage Pittacus 600yrs BC "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." among many ) pre-dates Jesus. With Jesus came the concept of hell, forced conversion (Matthew 22 21:28), the condoning of slavery hardly a doctrine of love

[Natacha]

I didn't say they were the only, I said those were the essential teachings. I'm not sure I believe the other stuff about forced conversion; that is not what Jesus would teach as it goes against free will. The bible was after all translated and written by men, so it is possible that things could have been lost in translation or are not meant to be interpreted literally, but rather spiritually (which is a big issue with any religious text, not just with the bible). I'm well aware bout Nordic countries seeing as I was born and raised in Belgium. As for those countries however, I doubt they will be 'atheist' for long as they have large and growing immigrant communities, most notably Muslim. I agree that they may have a more efficient government and benefits than other countries offer, but just because its population choses to be atheist doesn't mean that God ceases to exist... A government can be good to its people regardless of it being religious or not; I never argued that fact. But assuming that all atheist countries would be like Sweden by default is a fallacy as well.

[Shanna]

Natacha wrote: "I didn't say they were the only, I said those were the essential teachings. I'm not sure I believe the other stuff about forced conversion; that is not what Jesus would teach as it goes against fre..."
If the bible is fallible how do you know what is true and what is mistranslation? By the way I agree with you the bible is the work of man therefore fallible.
Matthew 22 21:28 contains a scene in which a desperate woman whose daughter is ill comes to Jesus looking for help rather than saying "Why yes, here witness the glory of god and go forth and tell the world" No he ignores her until the apostle say the equivalent of "For goodness sake lord can't you do something about the wailing woman" He then proceeds to tell her that he's only here to help God's chosen the jews (racist much?) and that he will not cast the bread of the children to the dogs (nice insult) and then lets her grovel and then only when she promises conversion does he deign to help a child. That is the forced conversion he could have help let her witness his goodness and let it speak for itself instead he ignores, belittles, insults and withholds help until she converts hardly a love thy neighbour moment.
"its population choses to be atheist doesn't mean that God ceases to exist.." I'm assuming from this you have some proof a god exists in the first place?

I agree that you can't assume the nordic countries would be how all potential atheist countries would be, but they are the examples we have and they are all like that, the democratic ones anyway.

[[deleted user]]

I wonder how many people live in Sweden as compared to the United States?

I wonder if the population of Sweden is largely heterogenous or homogenous?

I wonder if all students' scores are included in the mix when Sweden reports how well their students are doing? (I know not all countries include the scores of all children, which skews things. In the US, we include all scores, including those of children with low IQ's and who are in special education. I truly don't know whether or not Sweden includes this information or not.)

I wonder if there are vast differences in the make up of the population, etc... that could account for some of the differences and problems cited ... that have nothing to do with faith or the lack thereof?

Hmmmm.....

I wonder why, when people are horribly ill and have megabucks, I've not heard of them being flown to Sweden in order for Swedish doctors to heal them? (For some reason, I believe I've heard of many people in similar situations being flown to the US.)

I wonder why, when an earthquake or tsunami happens and thousands of lives might be forfeit, I don't hear that Sweden is sending hundreds of people to help, sending technology to help, spending millions and millions of dollars to help?

I wonder if it's true, what I've heard, ... that the United States is one of the most charitable countries in the world? Where does Sweden figure when it comes to helping others, I wonder? How much money do the Swedes spend to stop malaria in Africa, for example? How many of their doctors and nurses routinely go to other countries, on their vacations, to help those less fortunate? I don't have an answer to that question, but I do find myself wondering.

Huh....

I wonder.

[Preetham]

Very hard to choose, guess that is why science should become religion ( not the crap stuff ).

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "I wonder how many people live in Sweden as compared to the United States?

I wonder if the population of Sweden is largely heterogenous or homogenous?

I wonder if all students' scores are included..."

With the influx of muslims to Sweden and their track record for providing asylum for refugees, I'll vote for Heterogenous.
And that's just it for the american health system you need megabucks, I'm not saying America lacks world class facilities I'm saying that American citizens can afford their own system with out mega bucks.
Ummm maybe because you're in America and you hear about American contributions far more loudly than any other country.
An american study
http://www.thelocal.se/37226/20111108/
An american organisation
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiati...

I'm not saying America isn't charitable I'm saying it's a theistic country with a high crime rate, a medical system that costs an arm and a leg and rationalises patient care for the almighty $$$ for it's own citzens, an eduction system that is being corrupted by creationist crap and costs and arm and leg and puts it's students at the end in massive debt.