Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Hazel wrote: "no-one has ever lived that long, the book lied to you."But if you re-define a year as a lunar cycle then that equals about 70 years doesn't it...so it's true.
Once the sun god became dominant and the lunar goddess fell into disrepute the times became measured by solar years and not lunar cycles.
Therefore by returning to the worship of La Luna we gain longevity.
I am obviously talking pish though.Carry on...
Oh yes, I forgot about that, of course, you have to factor in what phase of the moon you're born under too, the fuller the moon at the time of your birth, then the longer your life will be.
Hazel wrote: "Oh yes, I forgot about that..."What? That I usually talk pish? ;)
I really think that I would rather live without religion. Religion always over complicates things. Also, if there was only science people would naturally invent a religion because people are always looking for something to believe in.
Maria wrote: "See people did live longer"...
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Oh yes, I forgot about that..."What? That I usually talk pish? ;)"
thats something that never slips my mind :P
but barbar, its so endearing :P
Pandora wrote: "A world of only science would be a cold world and probably wouldn't last long before some scientist experimented too far and ended up destorying the world."Have you visited planet Earth lately? Things have moved on a lot since the middle-ages. From what I've seen, it seems to be the most religious countries that are least likely to have basic things like universal healthcare (surely a clear indication of love and respect?)
Countries which value religion over science seem to have poor human rights records, more people incarcerated, higher death rates, state executions, and state sanctioned torture. I would list examples but some of them are painfully obvious.
Saying a world of only science would be a cold world is wrong, unjustified, clearly cannot be backed-up without resorting to baseless propaganda, and is also a blatantly offensive statement. Comments like that are counter-productive to your case.
but countries which value religion over science have more hope than those that value science
Have you any actual proof of that? As studies show that secular and highly atheist countries, such as the scandanavian countries, not only have lower crime rates, and better healthcare, but also a generally happier population than countries that are highly theistic, such as the US or middle eastern countries.
Maria wrote: "but countries which value religion over science have more hope than those that value science"If I lived in a religious country, I would have much less hope!
Afghanistan is a country that values religion over science. Try being a woman there and then tell us about all that hope they've got.
this popped up on my facebook feed this evening, it made me think of this thread:[image error]
Hazel wrote: "this popped up on my facebook feed this evening, it made me think of this thread:"
Fabulous. I love it.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel wrote: "this popped up on my facebook feed this evening, it made me think of this thread:"
Fabulous. I love it."
Ditto,
It should be the standard response to "id rather live in a world without science i dont like science"
I wonder how the Native American's would have progressed into the 21st century if they had not discovered Christopher Columbus.
Columbus wasn't, in my estimation, a "scientist" ... if that's where you're going.
Yes, he used the technology of the day. Yes, he discovered certain things. Wow, guys, the world isn't flat.
But ....
He was funded by religious fanatics ... and ... in addition to promising to bring back untold riches, he promised to spread Christianity.
Of course, now it occurs to me ....
Are you getting at germ warfare? Not the world is round, yay science thing. You know ... all the the sexually transmitted diseases, etc... his men spread among the native populations ... which darn near decimated them ....
Yes, he used the technology of the day. Yes, he discovered certain things. Wow, guys, the world isn't flat.
But ....
He was funded by religious fanatics ... and ... in addition to promising to bring back untold riches, he promised to spread Christianity.
Of course, now it occurs to me ....
Are you getting at germ warfare? Not the world is round, yay science thing. You know ... all the the sexually transmitted diseases, etc... his men spread among the native populations ... which darn near decimated them ....
Columbus didn't discover that the world is round. That was very well known for a couple of thousand years before he came here. Another white lie schools teach to make our ancestors look stupid, basically obscure the nature of knowledge, for some reason.What he discovered was that Galileo was right about the circumference of the Earth, and that his own theory was wrong. The reason it took 7 years for him to get funding for his voyage was because what he was proposing - that the world is only 20,000 miles around - went against everything science told us about the world we live in. Mostly because he wanted it to be that way. So if anything, he was an anti-scientist.
Shannon wrote: "Columbus wasn't, in my estimation, a "scientist" ... if that's where you're going.Yes, he used the technology of the day. Yes, he discovered certain things. Wow, guys, the world isn't flat.
Bu..."
I was meaning, what would the Native American be like now if they had been left alone all these years. With out our religions and our science.
Interesting thought. I bet there must be some alternate history novels out there that touch on this.Though, with other cultures constantly traveling to north America from every side, I don't see how the meeting could be avoided.
I believe that Albert Einstein answer the question well in "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is lame".
message 2677:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Apr 14, 2012 12:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
I'm Native American, half Alaskan through my mother. It is difficult to say. Cultures where food is plentiful and weather difficulties are easy to handle, do not change much. The Americas of that time were, comparatively speaking, resorts. Up north, it is conjected that the natives used to be very numerous with thousands of tribal units, but earlier contacts in the 1500's -1600's with Spanish conquistadors brought disease. There was a lull of some centuries, then the French and English and Dutch started coming, but at that time, they think now the Native American populations had already crashed and was a ghost of its previous civilization. In ALaska, depending where the tribe was, they dug pits in the ground for homes or animal skin or wood shelters, and hunted and fished, which was plentiful. Then the Russians came with slavery, rape and pillage as their only intentions. They wiped out entire peoples in a decade, and we will never know them well. I would have to put the Russians as the worst depredators of all the Americas' natives, with the Spanish next. In the South, the wet heat and jungles made mush of all cloth and leather (the same issues in Africa), but food and comparatively comfortable living made 'progress' a waste of resources same as in the North. Based on current discoveries of tribes living as they did thousands of years ago, I'd say the tech level would have been much slower to develop, as long as the population was low.
Don't know how I feel about this as a philosophical debate topic, but man, if this was a novel, I would read it.anybody got Harry Turtledove's email address?
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I'm Native American, half Alaskan through my mother. It is difficult to say. Cultures where food is plentiful and weather difficulties are easy to handle, do not change much. The Americas of that..."I've seen estimates for the number of natives the Spanish killed on both continents as high as 140 million, not including accidental spread of disease.
If religion hadn't driven the genocide in the Americas then I think trade would have.Cotton, sugar, gold, silver.
The westward expansion in the 19th cent in the US wasn't really driven by religious mania, a lust for land and gold helped spur it on though.
I think it's an unfortunate human characteristic that if someone weaker has stuff wanted by someone with a bigger stick...they take it.
The justification for the action can be religious or the bringing of "civilisation" or whatever they want...greed is what it boils down to though.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "If religion hadn't driven the genocide in the Americas then I think trade would have.
Cotton, sugar, gold, silver.
The westward expansion in the 19th cent in the US wasn't really driven by religi..."
I'm in full agreement. While there have been religious zealots whose purpose was to spread religion to the "heathens" and civilize them, I think greed has been the root cause of much of the destruction humans have wrecked upon other humans, including many of the wars throughout history.
And ... even if we did away with religion ...
Even if something crazy happened and much of our technology was wiped out ...
We'd still have that ... our greed.
Greed has definitely been one of the driving forces in our history.
Cotton, sugar, gold, silver.
The westward expansion in the 19th cent in the US wasn't really driven by religi..."
I'm in full agreement. While there have been religious zealots whose purpose was to spread religion to the "heathens" and civilize them, I think greed has been the root cause of much of the destruction humans have wrecked upon other humans, including many of the wars throughout history.
And ... even if we did away with religion ...
Even if something crazy happened and much of our technology was wiped out ...
We'd still have that ... our greed.
Greed has definitely been one of the driving forces in our history.
"That board with a nail in it may have defeated us, but the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!"
...... I was thinking more along the lines of...... what would the Native American way of life be now if America had just been left until now to be 'discovered'? (I use the word discovered although it was the Native Americans who originally discovered what was to be America).
Its an interesting question, cs, but possibly a moot one, as with the level of technology and exploration we have at this point in time, it would have been impossible for the americas to have remained untainted by western hands.But, as a thought experiment, the likelihood is that you'd be able to draw analogies from tribes in the Amazon who have only recently been discovered.
Religion is a belief system and science is on improving and moving forward at a constant rate. I was brought up in a religion, but thankfully it did not shape the person I am as most religions are bias. Science shows if, how's and why if you want to know and has not started any wars, but science can be an enabler for war. We will never know the answer to everything, so why not just accept that instead of trying to put it in a specific box. I would defiantly have no religion and have science. If you look at most religious believers they usually pick and chose what suits them at the time or they know no better. Being a moral human being is not something you can find in any religion, and if you need a religion to be moral and set your rules for life then fine. Have good morals and respect the opinions of others, how hard is that! You may learn something new.
Bias and greed will always motivate people in the wrong direction, regardless of religion or science. No amount of religion or science can remove that from a human being except the self!!
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "If religion hadn't driven the genocide in the Americas then I think trade would have.Cotton, sugar, gold, silver.
The westward expansion in the 19th cent in the US wasn't really driven by religi..."
Cortes and Pizarro didn't slaughter for God. They slaughtered because they were animals, and they wanted gold. Pizarro in particular was sent here by his father because he was just too unpleasant to have within 4,000 miles.
Sim wrote: "Religion is a belief system and science is on improving and moving forward at a constant rate. I was brought up in a religion, but thankfully it did not shape the person I am as most religions are..."Science is also a belief system, of sorts, or it can be. Once someone thinks they know something, it can be very difficult to convince them that the are wrong regardless of the evidence you present to them.
It took decades for chaos theory to become widely accepted, over 100 years if you go all the way back to the beginning, because it showed people that almost everything they thought they knew was wrong. Quantum physics was rejected out of hand. The problem wasn't insufficient evidence. The problem was evidence that wasn't sufficient to overcome closely held beliefs.
Science is based on what's observable (and in the case of Higgs-Boson, apparently what's observed to be possibly observable), while the basic premise of most religion is that it is not observable. But when you throw in the fact that people are involved, and they have to acknowledge that they are observing what they are observing, they all have different motivations and perspectives, it's not nearly as cut and dried as it seems.
Hazel wrote: "Its an interesting question, cs, but possibly a moot one, as with the level of technology and exploration we have at this point in time, it would have been impossible for the americas to have remai..."Man I guess is born to explore and conquer. Or is that science that has made him like that?
cs wrote: "...... I was thinking more along the lines of...... what would the Native American way of life be now if America had just been left until now to be 'discovered'? (I use the word discovered alth..."
People had been coming here from Europe for about 1,000 years before Columbus. I mean, coming here and returning home, not settling like those who crossed the land bridge and became what we call natives. There just wasn't much here worth coming for. But Columbus didn't really "discover" anything.
The fall of the Mongol Empire brought Columbus and the others here, since he was looking for an alternate route to India because the Great Silk Road had become too unsafe to use. Gold kept them here. They finally found something that made it worth the trip.
Hmmm....
I'm reminded of something I read with my students this week.
"A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up." -Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird
I think this pertains to just about everything, including things like religion and science.
(Regarding whether or not humans are born explorers or whether or not science makes us that way .... If we were to look at a baby, a toddler, who knows nothing of science (or religion), I think we'd see a born explorer. It's part of what makes us human.)
I'm reminded of something I read with my students this week.
"A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up." -Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird
I think this pertains to just about everything, including things like religion and science.
(Regarding whether or not humans are born explorers or whether or not science makes us that way .... If we were to look at a baby, a toddler, who knows nothing of science (or religion), I think we'd see a born explorer. It's part of what makes us human.)
Darren wrote: "I believe that Albert Einstein answer the question well in "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is lame"."*sigh* here we go again. Please reread the earlier posts in the thread. The constant appeal to authority in the form of this quote from Einstein is getting tired. It has come up repeatedly, and has been dealt with repeatedly. Assuming you don't go back and reread the earlier posts I will summarise for you....Einstein did not believe in god and even if he had, it proves nothing.
Matt wrote: "Science is also a belief system, of sorts, or it can be."I think this is slightly misleading....I don't agree that science can be referred to as a belief system, but I do agree with your observation that people, once invested in an idea, are reluctant to move away from that idea. I think that is a basic fact of human nature though, not a feature of science, and it is the scientific method that allows that inherent bias to eventually be overcome, whereas a belief system such as religion can withstand any amount of evidence to the contrary.
Quantum physics is an excellent example....it's not surprising that it was resisted for as long as it was by as many as it was, it's full of totally counter-intuitive concepts, but the weight of evidence managed to overcome that.
cs wrote: "Man I guess is born to explore and conquer. Or is that science that has made him like that? ""Explore" - that's an important part of science certainly.
"Conquer" - comes from religion and the feeling that as a 'true believer' these lands are meant for us and whatever brand of god we believe it...we're doing those heathens a good turn by taking their lands and informing them of the errors of their beliefs. I mean, who could be so stupid to think the sun is a god!?
Cerebus wrote: "Matt wrote: "Science is also a belief system, of sorts, or it can be."I think this is slightly misleading....I don't agree that science can be referred to as a belief system, but I do agree with y..."
Science as a framework for learning is not a belief system. And it does provide a means by which belief can be overturned, which is what really separates it from religion. But we turn the discoveries themselves, and sometimes the fact that the framework exists, into a belief system.
Chaos theory is a better example of the first than quantum physics. Even though everyone knew their measurements were inaccurate, because they had spent their entire careers writing off those inaccuracies, and even though the patterns were undeniable, they still refused to accept it. The things they thought they knew, which were the result of science, had become their belief system.
And those atheists who flatly assert that God does not exist because there is no evidence to support that he/she/it exists are an example of the second. Although it's more fair to say that they are worshipping a misunderstanding of science via a poor grasp of logic. But refusal to believe that anything can exist outside your framework for knowledge makes that framework a belief system.
Matt, its not a refusal to believe anything can exist outside of the framework of knowledge, especially as that framework is constantly under review. Its a rejection of the claim based on a lack of evidence, and the assertion that minds can be changed through a presentation of evidence. Its not a belief system, its a thought process, a subtle yet important difference. If we were to accept the possibility of the existence of god as being an equal consideration to the non-existence of god, then we should be doing the same for absolutely any claim that is n the same position. We should start giving equal credence to all the different gods and goddesses, and to spirits, and dragons, and vampires, and fairies, and splorts. Just because someone has postulated an idea, no matter how old that idea is, no matter how comforting, or tempting it is to want to believe it, is no reason to give it any more credence when there is no evidence for it, and thus no rational reason to believe it exists.
This isn't a belief system, its a logical thought pathway.
1) someone says god exists
2) search for evidence
3) no proof of god is found
4) no reason to assume god exists
not
1) someone says god exists
2) search for evidence
3) no proof of god is found
4) despite this, decide that its as likely to exist as something that we have solid evidence for.
or, even worse
1) someone says god exists
2) simply accept that they are right.
There is a huge difference between saying "I don't believe God exists because there is no evidence to support that assertion" and saying "God does not exist because there is no evidence of his existence". The first is a thought process, exactly as you've described. The second is a logical fallacy, and just as much of a desperate, faith based shot in the dark as belief in any god would be.
If we were to consider the inability to provide proof as an equal consideration to the existence of disproof, we wouldn't have religion or science.
Matt wrote: "And those atheists who flatly assert that God does not exist because there is no evidence to support that he/she/it exists are an example of the second. Although it's more fair to say that they are worshipping a misunderstanding of science via a poor grasp of logic..."So everything should be assumed to exist then? Until proven not to?
That's pish.
It might be arguable using logic or philosophy, but that viewpoint has no practical value. Otherwise we would be assuming Santa, Cthulhu, Thor, unicorns, basillisks etc all have equal validity...and I really don't think they do.
Or am I missing something in your arguement?
Matt wrote: "There is a huge difference between saying "I don't believe God exists because there is no evidence to support that assertion" and saying "God does not exist because there is no evidence of his exis..."thats just an argument of semantics, and I suspect that atheists use both phrases to essentially mean the same thing.
If we were to consider the inability to provide proof as an equal consideration to the existence of disproof, we wouldn't have religion or science..
Is this an attempt at "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument? Because you see, if I spend 20 years of my life searching fro evidence of dragons, and don't find any, then because I have spent so much time searching, that would be considered evidence of the absence of dragons. Science works by falsifying statements, thus absence of evidence is very much evidence of absence.
experimental hypothesis: dragons exist.
null hypothesis: dragons do not exist
method: thoroughly search the world for dragons.
results: no dragons are found,
conclusions: the null hypothesis is supported, the experimental hypothesis is rejected
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
If you stop using your phone for too long then when you do you run the risk of them devouring you."
thats why ill never stop using my phone