<p>what is more important, knowing how to live or knowing why?</p>
<p>Why do people equate religion with morality? (If that was indeed your intention when you used the “/” to separate the two words.)</p>
<p>well i’m saying morality is the secular version of religion</p>
<p>but if you want to define it differently that’s cool</p>
<p>you know what i mean 
the question was going to be science vs religion but there are nonreligious people so i want it to apply to them too</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason to separate the two. Science and morality closely tied together, and they are both equally important, at least to me.</p>
<p>On the subject of religion v.s. science, however, I would have to choose science. Science allows us to better understand the universe and move forward (technologically-wise) while religion is grounded in mysticism and the unknowable. Religion and science are perfectly compatible for most people, though, so it’s a good thing that society doesn’t have to choose.</p>
<p>So are you implying that people who do not follow religious paths are immoral? Or just amoral?</p>
<p>my ideas of morality are grounded in science, so it’s sort of a moot point.</p>
<p>but honestly i’m muchhh more about the “why things are” than “how things ought to be.” that’s a lot more interesting to me. so hmm i guess the question was answerable despite the overlap.</p>
<p>I think that religion is there to protect ordinary humans. To let them develop into honest, polite, moral individuals, with purpose and drive. Without religion, america would be a hellhole. It’s there to deceive people and console them in times of trouble and despair. that’s why religion is important, to mentally convince the poor, the needy, the worthless, that they are actually worthwhile and have potential in life, even if the statistical odds of such a thing happening is nil.
Otherwise, science is definitely more important, imho.
maybe its just my burning passion to learn why I live. to solve unsolvable problems. to gain knowledge. just thinking about string theory and quantum physics and 11 dimensions and the theory of everything just makes me high on life.
i just love learning new stuff, figuring out puzzles. it seems like the perfect reason why we live. to learn about ourselves, to use our minds and bodies to their potential, to research, further mankind and humanity’s knowledge of everything. to always question everything and have an open mind. etc.</p>
<p>Errr, religion usually encompasses a bunch of different things, but it tends to be regarded as some sort of reverence for some particular “supernatural” entities, and so does not have anything directly to do with morality, at all, really (though it sometimes tries to erect a silly moral arbiter, and fails). You can define it any which way you like, but the topic cannot be explored until a more coherent definition is given, so whatevs. Something like theism lands squarely in metaphysics and is entirely distinct from epistemology (where science falls) and morality (within the realm of ethics – though it’s really quite synonymous with the term). If you take religion to be something like “the self-contained bodies of knowledge derived through revelation or faith” then it certainly does butt heads with science, as it would be an epistemological position (whereas science is grounded in empiricism and things like parsimony, falsifability, consistency, reliability, etc.) If that’s the question, then <a href=“http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg[/url]”>http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg</a>, whereas faith is… completely and entirely useless, from an epistemological perspective.</p>
![http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg[/url]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>So, “religion” aside, I find epistemology to be the more interesting branch over ethics, but I suppose that that’s because I believe that I’m too well versed in ethics, whereas I’m only partially done with my study of epistemology. Really but a personal preference, that’s all.</p>
<p>edit – Lol, in what way are the questions “why does phenomenon x occur” and “how does phenomenon x occur” in any way different? Does the first imply conscious intent, or something? They seems downright equivalent, to me.</p>
<p>Oh, and secular societies tend to rate far higher in any number of variables than religious ones, so it’s not like religion is necessary or useful as a “safety blanket” in the modern world any more…</p>
<p>Morality without religion is far superior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hell yes, religion as satiating propoganda</p>
<p>Like an opiate?</p>
<p>this reminds me of a calvin and hobbes strip</p>
<p>calvin: religion is the opiate of the masses. what does that mean, hobbes?
tv: it means karl marx hadn’t seen nothing yet…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The opiate of the masses</p>
<p>oh hey look hi above poster</p>