A world without science or religion?

[The Duke of Vandals]

If all the fruits of science disapeared today, could we function as a society? Without all our technology and knowledge, we'd be back to the dark ages or worse.

If all the fruits of religion disapeared today, would anyone notice? Aside from the positive changes to the mid east I mean.

Which should we be looking to phase out?

[Fisherking]

If all the fruits of religion disappeared today, would anyone notice? Aside from the positive changes to the mid east I mean.

Huxley entertained this idea in A Brave New World, painting religion as a savage superstition(like many atheists like to do). His imaginary world without religion is not a world I would care to live in.

As religion gradually fades in the minds of those in Europe, Canada and most other developed nations, Huxley's vision of a Brave New World seems not to be the result of the lack of religion.
I too would not like to live in the world Huxley's imagination, with its rigid ideology, restrictions of free speech and lack of toleration, all hallmarks of religion.

What would prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass if all traces of God and religion were removed from society?

[daedalus 2.0]

If all the fruits of religion disappeared today, would anyone notice? Aside from the positive changes to the mid east I mean.

Huxley entertained this idea in A Brave New World, painting religion as a savage superstition(like many atheists like to do). His imaginary world without religion is not a world I would care to live in.

As religion gradually fades in the minds of those in Europe, Canada and most other developed nations, Huxley's vision of a Brave New World seems not to be the result of the lack of religion.
I too would not like to live in the world Huxley's imagination, with its rigid ideology, restrictions of free speech and lack of toleration, all hallmarks of religion.

What would prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass if all traces of God and religion were removed from society?

many things. For example, competing versions of an atheistic future.

But, it is my conviction that Man often finds ways to convince the masses to follow "one big idea" whether it is God or the State. Both have shown to be horrible for many people (ask the Midianites).

An atheistic future could include anything. It could turn into Hero worship and the religious people would simply transfer their innate sense of worshipping something" into worshipping football players or trees.

As long as their is no "Ultimate Source" that can be appealled to in order for leaders to get people to kill other people, then I'd be happier.

That is, Moses and Stalin used the same idea: Something bigger than all of us "requires" you to kill all those people (whether it was the State or God).

This is the animal we are.

[BeHereNow]

Duke If all the fruits of science disapeared today, could we function as a society? Without all our technology and knowledge, we'd be back to the dark ages or worse.

Science vs religion.
Science is a very broad endeavor, including the science of war, chemistry, many more.

Religion on the other hand is a particular kind of philosophy.

Could we have philosophy without religion? Not the world I live in, others might disagree, but this is just a mental excercise.

The benefits of science feed the body, so to speak. It gives us all manner of creature comforts, including longevity.
Philosophy feeds the mind.

Would I rather be comatose, with an active, enquiring, imaginative mind, or a Herculean body, with the mind of imbecile. Give me the coma. Of course, if I had the mind of an imbecile, I probably wouldn’t know it. ‘Ignorance is bliss’, is the saying, but I do not seek that kind of bliss. If I did I would have had a lobotomy long ago.

A society without science and technology. That sounds to me like the Native Americans, including the Inuit, a far cry from the dark ages. I’m not saying the Native Americans had an idyllic life, and that there were no warring tribes, but I would hardly compare their living condition to the dark ages or worse.

It is philosophy that brought us out of the dark ages, leading the way for science of course. They say the weather had a great deal to do with the dark ages, and science can alleviate the difficulties of adverse weather, providing food in unfavorable conditions, and cures for illness, so certainly our creature comforts would have much better then, if we had the science we have now.

A lack of science did not cause the dark ages.
A faulty philosophy in the form of religion did contribute to some of the grief society suffered.

Science has gone astray from time to time. I’m thinking of the death camp medical experiments, and torture for the sake of the material gains of war.

Both Zen and Deism (my personal belief system) lack the trappings of religion, and using a reasonable definition of religion, neither can be considered as such, but they do replace, fulfill the function of religion. This is true of any belief system, including atheism.

The goal of all cognitive persons is bliss, happiness, contentment. Those who disagree may present their case for my consideration.

I do not believe the Inuit people lacked bliss (as a society), and if they did (as individuals), I do not think it was due to a lack of creature comforts.

There are those among us who lack most of the advantages of science, including proper medical treatment, as well as DVD and MP3, and yet they live happy lives.
There are Indigenous Peoples living today, who shun the progress of science. This may be a case of bliss from ignorance. They do not know the wonders of science, so they do not miss them. The complaint of such Natives is not that they are not given enough science, but that they are not allowed to practice their beliefs, their religion. Civilization harms their bliss. Science harms their bliss.

Eventually they will be assimilated into society, and will forget the ways of their grandparents, and with this ignorance, bliss will return.

There are many Native Americans who would gladly return to the days of their forefathers before the Europeans brought their progress and science to them. Those were the happy days. It is science that now cures their plagues such as smallpox, but it was science that gave them such diseases. Science that permitted over crowding in Europe.

So realizing science or religion is a false dilemma , and merely a mental exercise, I say let fate decide which survives, it matters not to me, as long as philosophy remains.

Neither science nor religion add to my bliss.
If my belief system were religion, I’d have to choose religion.
But that's just this one, most would disagree.

[McCulloch]

What would prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass if all traces of God and religion were removed from society?

I'm sure that theists and monarchists would have asked a similar question about removing traced of God and monarchy from the US Constitution.
Humans do not want to live under tyranny. Humans do not thrive under tyranny. Humans do not tolerate tyranny for very long.
A recognition of pluralism, toleration, human rights and secularism will prevent Huxley's vision from coming true. God has nothing to do with it. In fact, certain perceptions of God's will would contribute to it.

[Cathar1950]

What would prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass if all traces of God and religion were removed from society?

I'm sure that theists and monarchists would have asked a similar question about removing traced of God and monarchy from the US Constitution.
Humans do not want to live under tyranny. Humans do not thrive under tyranny. Humans do not tolerate tyranny for very long.
A recognition of pluralism, toleration, human rights and secularism will prevent Huxley's vision from coming true. God has nothing to do with it. In fact, certain perceptions of God's will would contribute to it.

I hope you are right but it seems tyrants do thrive under tyranny.
So do many others or it wouldn't work as well as it does.
But all tyrants fall. I tend to think something is evil because it brings about its own demise or it wouldn't be seen as evil. Even what is called evil is not usually evil to those that prosper as it is usualy a means to some end.
I think we would create the gods all over again because we can.
We may call it something else, even call it reason, maybe even Logos.
Maybe we would worship the singularity and celebrate the many expressions and its expressions. It seems with our need to create culture and meaning will always push us to adapt just to survive and hopefully prosper.

Even the Inuit have language, meaning and culture. They have many words for snow. I wonder what they call yellow snow?

[McCulloch]

I hope you are right but it seems tyrants do thrive under tyranny.
So do many others or it wouldn't work as well as it does.
But all tyrants fall.

I refer more to the idea of the consent of the governed as outlined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. No tyrant can maintain his tyranny without the consent of at least a significant number of those under his rule. If you piss too many people off too much, then they will not continue to subject themselves to your rule.
Humans will throw off the yoke, if it is too much for too many of them.

[Cathar1950]

I hope you are right but it seems tyrants do thrive under tyranny.
So do many others or it wouldn't work as well as it does.
But all tyrants fall.

I refer more to the idea of the consent of the governed as outlined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. No tyrant can maintain his tyranny without the consent of at least a significant number of those under his rule. If you piss too many people off too much, then they will not continue to subject themselves to your rule.
Humans will throw off the yoke, if it is too much for too many of them.

I am in complete agreement.
I remember reading a book on how early humans might have kiiled those in the group that showed to much aggression. Our cultures play a role in our evolution where the more social and cooperative flourish.
It is our shared meanings that give us an advantage.
I remember a book I used in a comparative religion class where God was defined as that which is of ultimate value to us. With this in mind maybe we will never get rid of religion as such because we seem to be valuing creatures.
Maybe it is the models of religion that needs changed and will eventually let us grow more towards our own ideals.
But then again our evolution could very well end up in failure as a species do to our limitations or even some calamity.

[Rathpig]

But then again our evolution could very well end up in failure as a species do to our limitations or even some calamity.

This is a very real area that science must address and religion tends to ignore or celebrate.

The evangelical "fundamentalist" versions of Christianity in the United States often glorify the eventual failure of the species in an effort to elevate their ideology. I have always found this a strange situation considering that very ideology worships a "perfect" deity. It seems this deity created a species that is doomed to failure save those of a very specific ideological adherence.

Oh well, drink today for tomorrow we will surely die.

[byofrcs]

If all the fruits of religion disappeared today, would anyone notice? Aside from the positive changes to the mid east I mean.

Huxley entertained this idea in A Brave New World, painting religion as a savage superstition(like many atheists like to do). His imaginary world without religion is not a world I would care to live in.

As religion gradually fades in the minds of those in Europe, Canada and most other developed nations, Huxley's vision of a Brave New World seems not to be the result of the lack of religion.
I too would not like to live in the world Huxley's imagination, with its rigid ideology, restrictions of free speech and lack of toleration, all hallmarks of religion.

What would prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass if all traces of God and religion were removed from society?

In your question you have an answer: To prevent Huxley's world from coming to pass all traces of God and religion were removed from society.

It is the yoke of a religion in the form of Soma that would enable Huxley's world to exist.

There is no difference between the altered states in the Brave New World and Religious experience. Brave New World denies humanity as much as any God-centric religion.

Brave New World is consumerism and Religions such as Christianity exalt consumerism. Christianity says that all species are for humanity's use except the Tree of Knowledge.

Science say that the Tree of Knowledge is all we have and that those other species are not for our use any more than than we expect to be consumed by other species.

In Brave New World we have totalitarianism. Remove religions and you remove just one more mechanism for such autocratic rule. There are still some people who feel that they are God's representative on Earth or have a divine right to rule but these are , thankfully, far and few between in the secular world.

Power comes from the people up, not God down. After a millenia of rule by divine right humanity has finally thrown off this yoke in many places in the world.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21.

[Greatest I Am]

If all the fruits of science disapeared today, could we function as a society? Without all our technology and knowledge, we'd be back to the dark ages or worse.

If all the fruits of religion disapeared today, would anyone notice? Aside from the positive changes to the mid east I mean.

Which should we be looking to phase out?

Without science and religion we would be bach in the garden of Eden. We rejected it back then and should reject it now. Man without knowledge is not man but cows or sheep. not knowing much of anything.

Regards
DL