I’d like to hear various views on this topic:
Which would you prefer, a world without religion or a world without science?
Please include explanations.
I’m pretty sure that the overwhelming response is going to be a world without religion. That would be my answer anyway.
Albert Einstein (I think) once said…
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
In my opinion, the question is tantamount as to asking “Which would you prefer: air or water?” But I digress…
I’m sort of confused about the question. By “a world without religion,” do you mean a world that is ignorant of the possible existence of God, or a world where there is no God, and therefore no religion? Likewise, “a world without science” could mean an existence where scientific laws don’t apply/are different, or a world where there is no accumulation of knowledge.
If religion exists, is the existence of God implied? If there is no religion, is the nonexistence of God implied?
Depending on the parameters, I would have different answers.
-Soup
What, no medicine? No agriculture? No metallurgy? No engineering?
I’m a moderately religious man, yeah, but I’m damn sure I won’t revert to hunter-gatherer becqause some God wants me to.
I’m impartial on the science and religion thing, because I see them as being totally compatible. However, I’d gladly give up my religion, which I do love, if it would mean I’d never have to see another Southern Baptst again.
Well, if there wasn’t any science, does that mean there would be no scientific laws? And then like, I could walk on water, and float in the air and break the laws of gravity?
Science exists, man.
Ditto!
John? John Lennon is that you?
Imagine there’s no heaven,
It’s easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today…
Wow. Pretty good response for my first post on this particular board!!! The question was purposely vague just to incite interaction, but let’s continue.
Let’s see…
Soup_du_jour: What’s the difference between a world that is ignorant of the existence of God and a world where there is no God? Now, I’m sure it makes a hell of a difference to God (pun intended), but does it make a difference to the world if he indeed doesn’t exist and they are just incapable of conceiving him? To the world, the end result is the same, He’s not there, and what he does do, if He is there, is attributed to something else.
The science part of your interpretation is a bit more tricky. The way I interpret the question is the non-existence of scientific inventions as in the Industrial Revolution. A butter churn can be construed scientific advancement in its time, but it still involves manual labor versus mechanization. I think that scientific laws would exist in this scenario, but the degree of our utilization of them would be drastically reduced.
Kirkland1244/Tsubaki: How are they perfectly compatible?
Homebrew: No I am not he, although I do lean toward Buddhism, much like that verse…
Wow. Pretty good response for my first post on this particular board!!! The question was purposely vague just to incite interaction, but let’s continue.
Let’s see…
Soup_du_jour: What’s the difference between a world that is ignorant of the existence of God and a world where there is no God? Now, I’m sure it makes a hell of a difference to God (pun intended), but does it make a difference to the world if he indeed doesn’t exist and they are just incapable of conceiving him? To the world, the end result is the same, He’s not there, and what he does do, if He is there, is attributed to something else.
The science part of your interpretation is a bit more tricky. The way I interpret the question is the non-existence of scientific inventions as in the Industrial Revolution. A butter churn can be construed scientific advancement in its time, but it still involves manual labor versus mechanization. I think that scientific laws would exist in this scenario, but the degree of our utilization of them would be drastically reduced.
Kirkland1244/Tsubaki: How are they perfectly compatible?
Homebrew: No I am not he, although I do lean toward Buddhism, much like that verse…
I have religious faith, but I have no problem taking that faith and understanding it in the light of scientific facts. I don’t cling to literalism of some book. I don’t treat the voice of scientists as if they are gods, but I don’t expect the Bible to serve as a science text, either.
So far, i’ve seen nothing to make me doubt m faith in God, or question my acceptance of science. The two seem pretty compatible to me.
But, if there was no religion, and a Fundie Christian God existed, we would be screwed, too.
They’re pretty compatible. Most religions encourage learning, and science cannot possibly comment on the existence of God.
Where’s the conflict?
Historically, have most religions encouraged learning? I think not. Maybe learning what they chose to teach, but not learning for the sake of improving your station in life, broadening your horizons and maybe leaving the flock.
I propose that science could comment on the existence of God. We may just not know enough yet. Suppose that it is determined that Order (vs Chaos) is the pre-eminent force that operates the Universe. Would that not point out to an intelligence that creates the order and maintains it from desceding into a chaotic state?
What about violence? Which do you think has caused more grief and suffering?
By the way, are you the Soup from Pyroto?
Actually, the Catholic Church was a large if not primary sponsor of science for a long time. The tension between the two is a relatively recent thing. Here are a couple of examples.
Copernicus studied mathematics and optics in Cracow and then was off to Bologna to study cannon law. He was appointed a canon in the cathedral of Frauenburg. It was here under the support of the church where he came up with the idea that the earth spun on its axis and orbited the sun once a year.
Galileo, who did much to confirm and announce Copernicus’ ideas, was rather severely chastised before the Inquisition. But there is more to the story than that. The simple version of the story is simply that the church came down on him for speaking contrary to the church orthodoxy. This doesn’t really get it. Galileo had substantial support in his research from the church. He shared his research and notions with the church and they were in fact well received. At the time, though, he did not have compelling proof of the Copernican system. He was asked by the church to keep it to himself until he firmed up his evidence a bit. He did not do this, and this is where he got into hot water. He was then brought before the Inquisition and make to renounce all his beliefs and writing in that regard. This, done on his knees before his “betters” under the threat of torture and death. It is possible that if Galileo would have continued to work and gather his evidence, he could have published his work with the support of the Church. Once he crossed the Church, though, its heels where dug in, so to speak. It took until our lifetimes for the Church to officially admit Galileo was right.
I think you would have been better off just asking if maybe someday, science may know enough to make educated comment on the existence of God or a god.
Clearly, religion has caused more grief and suffering than any other single cause in recorded history. Nothing to debate here.
I personally lack faith in God. God, as described by Christians, seems particularly far-fetched to me. I will be happy to elaborate on this if desired.
All that said: Renaissance art inspired by religion is a phenomenal contribution to the world. The science supported by religion while science was fairly young is another lasting contribution worthy of praise. But today, if I had to chose between losing religion in society or our methods of learning through science, I would definitely chose to lose religion.
There’s no inherent conflict. Science is concerned with the study and understanding of natural phenomena, religion with developing a way of life based upon ethical values and on beliefs which usually (though not always) include a belief in a supernatural being or power. A world without science, or a world without religion, in these senses would be too horrifying to contemplate. In any event I think such a world is impossible. Human nature drives us both to seek to understand the natural world around us and to reflect upon and adopt values according to which we then seek to regulate our own behaviour; science and religion.
Of course a particular belief held upon religious grounds may conflict with scientific understanding; creationism. Or a particular scientific impulse may conflict with ethical valuew which may well be religiously derived; medical experimentation on umwilling human subjects, for example.
Agreed. On the other hand, science has immeasurably enhanced our ability to inflict suffering and death on one another, and we have been more than willing to make use of our scientific knowledge for this purpose. Both science and religion are capable of being perverted in this way. Indeed, in a world without religion (in its broad sense) there could be no objection to the application of scientific knowledge in this way, and it could not be described as the “perversion” of scientific knowledge. In a world without science, religious maniacs would just have to disembowel one another with their bare hands. Neither prospect particularly appeals to me.
Doesn’t a lot of scientific research require a leap of faith to get it ahead?
And isn’t a lot of religion an attempt to understand why things are, and how they behave?
Granted creationism is crazy, but before humankind knew about atoms etc, a “creator” was one explanation, likewise making humans out of mud.
And magnetism - radioactivity - electricity - these were things that weren’t at all understood when their effects were first perceived. Magnetism must have seemed like “magic” to its first discoverers.
I honestly don’t think you can have one without the other, so I think your question has no satisfactory answer.
hmmm, how exactly does one balance the atrocities of the Crusades(Religion) against the horror of Hiroshima(Science), or the conflict in Northern Ireland(Religion) against Auschwitz(Science(Eugenics)).
OK, so you’re going to say that Science isn’t responsible for those nasties because it was just men using science to do or justify bad things? - the same can be said of the bad things done under the banner of religion.
Personally, there’s no conflict between religion(or faith) and science; science tells me how long I should boil eggs for; religion tells me I should share them with my hungry neighbour.
Science and religion are both extensions of our natural curiosity; the constant why; they merely answer different types of Why.
Bravo!! Well said sir.
The definition of religion is: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” We’ll come back to that. A world without religion, to horrifying to contemplate? I live in that world every single day. It is in fact exhilarating. It certainly is not impossible. It is possible to have a value and ethics system independent of religion. My personal values and ethics are much better than many of the Christians that I know. I guess you’ll just have to take my word for that. You can even have spirituality without belief in God. It is a powerful thing to stand in awe of the physical universe. It is so much to contemplate. I am so small within it, but included and not alienated. This is not religion though.
It would not be a “scientific” impulse. It would be a human impulse. Someone who would do this is a morally/ethically bankrupt person. This has nothing to do with science per say. Science works just as well for everyone, regard of their motivation or beliefs. I don’t need a belief in God to tell me that it should not be done. Science does not encourage people to do reprehensible things. Science does not discourage it either. Religion, on the other hand, has condoned/demanded horrific deeds many times. And, what is better, the person doing them feels good about it. Hey, it must be good and morally correct, it is what God wants me to do.
Utter nonsense. Religion is created by man. The ethics created in the religion are created by man. Many of the best treatises on morals and ethics are written by non-religious, non-believing men.
Now, I have disagreed with you on the definition of religion. I say you can’t have a religion without the belief in God. But, if I open up my definition like you have done, I guess you could say I do have a religion. But it is not a codified one. It changes and grows every single day. I would not call it a religion.
No.
Maybe “why things are”. How things behave is pretty open to simple observations.
Many religious people would argue that one with you. I fail to see how the knowledge of atoms would sway the argument of a creator away from belief in one.
I don’t see how this sways the argument at all.
It is easily demonstrable that you can have either without the other. In the past there has undisputedly been religion without science. Today, there are vast multitudes of people that demonstrate the converse.
Science does not have a “banner” in the manner of religion. There is no comparison. Any attempt to make that comparison is intellectually dishonest. Auschwitz had about as much to do with science as “intelligent design”.
Clearly, you can have a world that has neither science nor religion. The animals live in this world every day. Animals aren’t big on making value judgements either. We are talking about humans though, today.
Religion (not necessarily the same religion in every example) says:
Murder is bad. If you think it takes God to tell us that, you are selling people short.
Helping a person in need is good. Again, this value is pretty easy to see by a thoughtful human.
Generally screwing over people of different sexual orientations is good. What? Thinking people can do much better by themselves.
Women should be kept ignorant and subservient. Double, what?
Christianity has many abhorrent ideas in it. Fortunately, most people who profess to be Christian do not endorse them. They are in effect picking and choosing the parts of Christianity that works. No where in the Bible does it suggest that a follower should only indulge in parts one finds acceptable and ignore the rest. People arguing that you couldn’t have good morals and ethics without religion make my case for me by their selectively practicing of the “better” parts of their religion. If you can decide for yourself that stoning a disobedient child to death isn’t right anymore, in direct disagreement with your professed faith… well, you can figure out right and wrong with a little thought and a lot less book.
I have a hard time believing that with the information available today…that people still fall for the creation claims that are made in the book of Genisis. I have studied many religions and they all fall short of being anything but mind games…not reality… unless your reality is mind games. This mind game thing…in which ever religion you choose…has been, and is only a stepping stone in our evolutionary path into the future. A world with out religion as we know it, is on the way. Many cant accept this e.g. the drive in some states to have the ten commandments taught, be they good or bad they still come from the evidence that supports the creation thing…( the book of Genisis) and trying to have evolution taken out of the class room. This concious god creator as discribed in the bible does not igsist…unless your into mind games. Our children should be taught to think for themselves, not taught mind games. A world with out religion is very appealling to me and I wish that I could live to see the day when it will arrive,…AND IT WILL…So long to the Gods…your all has beens,(THANK EVOLUTION)…
signed…Angelslantern- from Truthsearchers