Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,551-2,600 of 12,463

[Matt]

Cerebus wrote: "Matt wrote: "I guess my point (finally!) is that scientists are, and have been, forced to divorce themselves from considerations of how the results of their work will be used. "
In many cases ethic..."

Panels are one of those things that sound great but usually aren't. I've known many people who have been on panels of different types (not related to pure science, but I'd wager they are all basically the same).

I know people who refuse to be part of any more panels, because they are tired of having their reputation co-opted by the majority opinion when they have no meaningful input. "Bob Jones was on the panel that approved this, and we all know how he feels about it, so they must have really convinced him".

And I know people who still participate all they can, because you can't change a system from outside that system. But they are frustrated all the time.

Most of the time panels are selected and paid for by people with a vested interest in the outcome. And many times the panel itself is nothing more than theater, a stage production designed to legitimize a decision that has already been made. The more money there is at stake, and there is always money at stake now, the more likely it is that somebody has their thumb on the scale.

[Anna]

If all we had was religion, why would we need science to explain things further?

[Hazel]

what do you mean, anna?

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm....

Humans constantly search for knowledge. That's what we do. I can't imagine a time or a situation in which people wouldn't seek to explain things further.

All of us seek explanations for the life we see around us. The other night, I was driving down the road and saw these two beautiful "stars" in the sky. They were so big and bright and amazing. In truth, I did think ... what a beautiful world ... and I thanked God for such a sight ... and continued to pray for some of the people in my life who are horribly sick right now. In addition to that, it occurred to me that those lights just had to be planets. They were too big and bright to be stars. When I got home, I did some research on Google and found they were Venus and Jupiter.

I can't imagine just thinking ... how beautiful and giving thanks for the beauty of the moment. I also can't imagine God wanting me to stop there.

It's my belief that all of us need science in our lives; some of us need both scientific and spiritual answers.

[Hazel]

I agree, there are many people who need spiritual as well as scientific answers. That doesn't mean that the spiritual answers are correct though, but if they make people happy, and they don't hurt anyone because of them, then they can knock themselves out.

[C.C.]

Travis wrote: "'if everything that is explained only as natural the world is less fun.'

Have you looked at the world? How does it being 'only natural' make it less fun?
If the man in the sky goes away, how does ..."

First, don't presume to know anything about me and condescend to me based on your presumptions.

You have placed meaning on my words that is not there, sir. I have no problem appreciating nature; my comment was that purely natural explanations are less fun than fantastical ones. It is more fun to think the magician has made the rabbit disappear than to know that he has hidden it under a false bottom in his hat. It's more fun to think that the seasons change because the god of the underworld tricked a girl into marrying him than to know that the earth rotates at an angle to the sun such that the sun's warmth is greater during certain periods.

And if anyone cannot simply see the world and let it be, it is scientists. These are people who are consumed with knowing how and why nature is as it is.

[Hazel]

when I was about 8, it was fun to think the magician used magic, real magic. Now its far more fun to try and work out how he or she actually pulled the trick off, because magic isn't a satisfactory answer anymore.

The same with the gods, the fantasy element may be fun, and when applied to the right situation, eg story telling, its fun. But when you want to understand the world, then the fantasy isn't a satisfactory answer, and is thus no fun, the reality is much more fun, and the process of finding the answer is fun and ultimately satisfying.

Fantasy has its place, and its not in trying to understand the world.

[Annie]

so easy. with out religion

[Travis]

I have no problem with the fantastic, heck that's why most of my reviews here are fiction, but to look at nature and see it as less than fantastic or fun, to want or need the magician or the gods, that's the part that leaves me scratching my head and 'condescending'.

I know how oxygen and hydrogen molecules make water, that doesn't make the ocean less fantastic.

Love the stories, read the myths, make up stories to entertain your kids, but in the end looking at the world and all that is there and go 'Nope, not enough...needs a man that lives in the sky.' baffles me.

Natures not fun and fantastic? We are standing on the skin of an enormous rock, turning at thousands of miles a minute while falling through space and at any time of day you can get a cup of coffee.

[C.C.]

Your debate skills need work. You keep avoiding the actual issue by talking about how wonderful nature is (a point on which we agree). However, nature loses nothing by adding in some fun stories about why it is so wonderful.

Let me illustrate: A steak is wonderful. If you have a steak, you don't need anything else. But a baked potato with your steak is better than steak alone, because baked potatoes are great and take nothing away from the steak. If you actually have a point to make, it should be about how a steak alone is better than the same steak plus a potato.

Also, your reductive "man who lives in the sky" is a straw man, and you prove nothing by knocking him down.

Finally, coffee blows.

[Hazel]

I can see where you're coming from CC, but, at the same time, I think it detracts from nature to add fantastical ideas and creatures to it, as Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

If you start adding the fantastical at anything but a fairy tale level, in a fictional way, then it detracts from nature because it distracts from nature.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Cc has us defending reality against whether imaginary fairies make existence better.

[Travis]

Well, if we disagree on religion and coffee than there's no hope. Next you'll tell me that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and I will weep in despair for the human race.

and I like steak and potato, but I can enjoy them, just as they are without having to add magic to explain the steak the potato.

Adding magic potato making elves adds nothing to the steak enjoyment. ( unless you have a slow waiter and need to entertain or reassure a small child at the table with you)

myths are entertaining, but every child is told to let go of the fantasy: tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, monster under the bed. You've gotta grow up and live in the real world...oh wait, the man in the sky...not him, real and we are going to use him to explain the world.

steak and potatoes are great, but if the potato is imaginary, then it makes for a less than satisfactory meal and adds only a bit of entertainment to the steak.

[Hazel]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Cc has us defending reality against whether imaginary fairies make existence better."


personally, no I don't think they do. They make for pretty stories and thats about it.

reality is far more interesting and awe inspiring when you look at how it really works. Whether adding fairies is fun or not is inconsequential, on the grounds that they don't exist, and so add nothing to our actual understanding of the world, or the beauty of it.

[Anna]

I just feel that maybe, if there was only religion, that maybe we'd be able to say God is the reason for everything and we would'nt have to investigate further. WHy do we need to look for answers, rather than accepting God as our answer?

[Matt]

Because God is the answer to the question "Why does everyone die before 50?"

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Well, if we disagree on religion and coffee than there's no hope. Next you'll tell me that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and I will weep in despair for the human race.

and I like steak and p..."

Now, .... I'm truly interested.

Who was the best James Bond? Connery or Daniel Craig?

[C.C.]

I enjoy fantasy, but I can't even imagine a world where Moore was the best Bond.

But coffee is hot, and hot is the devil's temperature.

[Travis]

Connery is the one true Bond.

A couple of the others are good, no matter who plays Bond they will always be compared to Connery.

The Bond question is one of the essential questions by which you can judge a person, I've always found.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Connery inhabited the skin of who Bond is, he's totally the Man. But Craig is effing hot and I'll be watching his movies no matter how crap hoping he takes his shirt off....what were we talking about?

[Shanna]

You're wrong, how can it be when Daniel Craig is clearly hotter, and his story is darker and more meaningful...


:-P

[Travis]

religion, science and the Bond debate all in one place...

this can't end well. It

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "religion, science and the Bond debate all in one place...

this can't end well. It"

Ha, ha, ha...!

(Connery had the voice, accent and eyes. Craig has the body.) ;)

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm.... Now that I think about it, maybe Connery had the smile and Craig has the eyes. How will I ever decide?

[Shanna]

Decisions decisions. mmmm I think Connery got better with age, but Craig daammn

[[deleted user]]

You're right. Connery did get better with age. And, oh, my! That voice. But, you're also right about Craig.

Hmmm....

Sigh ....

Seriously, though, I'm feeling a bit shallow. It can't just be about who is hottest, can it? It has to be about the Bond factor, right? Or, about ... acting ...?

No, I'm still torn.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shanna wrote: "Decisions decisions. mmmm I think Connery got better with age, but Craig daammn"

: D

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

My better 'angel' says Connery because he's best all around. But the 'devil' in me will give it up for Craig....

[Shanna]

Acting factor, Craig. I don't think Connery could act yet when he was Bond.

[[deleted user]]

Like minds, ATCM. I almost went there in my last post, but ....

I have yet to decide which "angel" I'm going to listen to on the Connery vs. Craig debate.

Sigh ...

[cerebus]

C.C. wrote: "However, nature loses nothing by adding in some fun stories about why it is so wonderful. "
Nor does it lose anything by knowing the science behind it. I'm not saying you need the science to find it beautiful, but it would be wrong to say that knowing the science makes it less so, or less than the mythic explanation.
As usual Richard Feynman says it better.

[cerebus]

Anna wrote: "If all we had was religion, why would we need science to explain things further?"
Because without science you wouldn't be able to ask that question on a forum like this.

[cerebus]

First is best.....Lazenby!

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "First is best.....Lazenby!"

Well, now you went and did it, Cerebus. I didn't even know there was a man named Lazenby. Clearly, I'm not as well-versed at all things Bond as I thought ... though I learned something new, which is awesome.

But, now I'm sighing even more and twice as confused. I'll have to find and watch the film to be sure, though.

Sigh....

(What will Hazel think when she sees this in the morning?!)

[Shanna]

Probably Craig :-P

[Travis]

Lazenby!

I tried to warn you this would get ugly...

[[deleted user]]

Ha, ha!! I don't know. Google images has a lovely picture of this Lazenby fellow .. in a kilt!

[Shanna]

She'll probably think we've all gone nuts....

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "She'll probably think we've all gone nuts...."
Gone? I've been nuts since the start of this :)

[[deleted user]]

Nuts? I don't think so. But, I am in a quandary. Google images has 5,001 pictures of Connery in kilts. So, he's definitely back in the running. And, frankly, I almost think he's more dashing in it than Lazenby.

However, when I typed in "Daniel Craig in a kilt" ....

Oh .... Well ....

I only found pictures of Craig in swim trunks.

Sigh....

It's a quandary, I'm telling you!

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

The only thing remarkable about the Lazenby movie was his wife was 'Emma Peel' (the Avengers)who I wanted to be (not Lazenby's wife -ewwww!)

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Nuts? I don't think so. But, I am in a quandary. Google images has 5,001 pictures of Connery in kilts. So, he's definitely back in the running."
"Running in kilts" and "nuts"? Yup, sounds about right :)

[cerebus]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "The only thing remarkable about the Lazenby movie was his wife was 'Emma Peel' (the Avengers)who I wanted to be (not Lazenby's wife -ewwww!)"
To be honest, I haven't seen it, nor too many of the others, for once in this thread I wanted to succumb to the urge to stir :)

[[deleted user]]

Ha, ha, ha!!

[Shanna]

I don't need a kilt the shower scene from Lara Croft... nuff said

[[deleted user]]

Sigh ...

I'd forgotten that scene.

Here I sit, trying desperately to focus on the voices of the actors and all things Celtic (kilts), and I keep getting sidetracked by images of Daniel Craig in swim trunks ... and in showers.

[[deleted user]]

Nope, I've lost the battle.

My vote is for Craig!!

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Ok people. I gotta go and google Craig in his trunks. I've been needing some new wallpaper....

[[deleted user]]

ATCM ... You won't be disappointed!!

Sigh.

(But, in keeping with my ideals and beliefs, I'm sure all the Bonds are quite lovely and had every right to play Bond and give the character a bit of their own persona!)

Having said that, do be sure to Google Craig in his trunks!!

[C.C.]

Cerebus wrote: "First is best.....Lazenby!"

Aside from your absurd opinion, your facts are terrible. Lazenby was the second to play Bond in a Broccoli Bond movie. There was also Barry Nelson in that horrific made-for-tv version. Additionally, Peter Sellers, David Niven, Joanna Pettet, Dahlia Lavi, and Ursula Andress all appeared as Bond before Lazenby.