Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?

[Nerthus]

What world would you rather live in? Do we need a balance, or is one more important than the other?

 

[savagewind]

Would I rather live in a world without the study of the natural world or in a world without the study of gods/gods. Uh, let me think about that one for 1 1000's of a second. A world without the study of god/god would be just fine imo. I shall choose that one.

 

[Treks]

If I had to choose it would be a world without religion. We will survive without religion, but science is important, i.e. medicine and technology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Neither is quite avoidable IMO, but science is all-out necessary, while religion is so to speak easily rebuilt as needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obviously, I'd do without science.
Without religion, there'd be no religiousforums.com!

 

[sojourner]

Would you rather live in a world without food or without water?

 

[BruceDLimber]

I insist on both because BOTH are important!

Bruce

 

[Vouthon]

I would be pushed, if I had to choose, to make do with a world without "religion", so long as there was a still force with which to check the progress of science and ensure that it stays within humanitarian bounds. At its best science is the enlightenment, well-being, increased livelihood, life-span and progression of the human species. At worst, with the light of a perverted science, it can become used to demean human life - such as with the science, however contrived and fallacious at points, of the Nazi regime which conducted experiments on human beings without any shred of a moral conscience or sense of the dignity of man.

Charlie Chaplin said it best, and most eloquently, in his 1940 comedy film with a serious message at the end, The Great Dictator (a fictionalized parody of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich):

We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in:
machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. ​

Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.​

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all...​

Let us fight for a new world, a decent world... ​

Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. ​

In my honest opinion though science and religion [or at least secular, spiritual or moral philosophy] complement each other, need one another, feed off one another.

Science on its own is not enough, without some form of humanizing, transcendent system of enlightened moral guidance and humanitarianism.

I believe in what Blessed Pope John Paul II said beautifully in his 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

So in essence, despite what I said at the beginning, I think that both science and religion are essential features of human civilisation.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, let's consider the following here for a moment. Which of these two is the new kid on the block? Which of these two did our ancestors get along quite well without for tens of thousands of years?

Religiosity - the drive to pursue truth, meaning, and purpose in life - is a fundamental part of being human. Science - a method of inquiry grounded in empirical naturalism - is not. Or rather, science is a specific manifestation of the drive of religiosity that is not and has not been necessary for the vast majority of human existence. Organized religion (what most people seem to think when they hear 'religion' nowadays) is a specific manifestation of that drive as well, and also is not and has not been necessary for much of human history.

So once again, I suppose the answer really depends on exactly how "science" and "religion" are being defined. Darned semantics.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

I think the answer is obvious.

I'd rather live in a world without religion. There is a very dark side to religion that rears its head every once in a while, in various forums such as a Crusade here, an Inquisition there, a Jihad here, and a beheading there.

There is none of this with science.

 

[savagewind]

I think the answer is obvious.

I'd rather live in a world without religion. There is a very dark side to religion that rears its head every once in a while, in various forums such as a Crusade here, an Inquisition there, a Jihad here, and a beheading there.

There is none of this with science.

How do you believe there is no dark side with science? What about nuclear winter? What about antimatter accidents?

 

[Vouthon]

There is none of this with science.

Uhhh, eugenics? The monster study? The Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?

In the 1970s South Africa’s apartheid army forced white lesbian and gay soldiers to undergo ‘sex-change’ operations involving chemical castration, electric shock and gruesome experiments. Was that science at the disposal of human goodness?

The monster study went as follows. In 1939 scientists belittled, bullied and verbally abused a group of orphaned children for every speech imperfection and told them that they were stutterers. Many of these normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered psychological trauma and speech impediments for the rest of their lives.

All in the name of science and the "greater good"? No matter that these innocent kids' lives were permanently damaged?

The University of Iowa publicly apologized for this in 2001. Needless to say science is at the disposal of men. It is morally neutral and can be used for human happiness or suffering.

I could mention many more examples from history of the darker side of scientific experiments and study.

 

[Penumbra]

I'd be dead in a world without science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is none of this with science.

The No True Scotsman fallacy meets an ignorance of history.​

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you believe there is no dark side with science? What about nuclear winter? What about antimatter accidents?

Which antimatter accidents?

 

[YmirGF]

As long as emotional needs are met, I'd be happy to toss religion on the scrap heap of abandoned ideals.


"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - u know who.

 

[savagewind]

Which antimatter accidents?

I do not know and don't want to know. Do you?

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't get the point. Do you think ignorance is some sort of defense from danger?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science is far more important than religion. We would have a far far more difficult time without scientific discovery and it's application.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Neither..I dont view it as Science vs Religion.