What if we didn't have religion from the start and accepted science instead?

Answer 1

People have been striving to understand the unknown for all of eternity. Perhaps the basis of some religions were not fanatics, but rather just good story tellers.

Is a cluster of stars in the sky called Taurus really representing a bull, or is it just part of a good story about a bull? Maybe it was just someone telling a bit of BULL!!! Did people really believe that was really a bull?

It turns out that many of the great ancient civilizations including the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Mayans also had excellent scientists. The ancients were able to identify the closest of the planets as being different from the stars, and even describe their orbits around the sun. When I gaze into the night sky, I see stars, but to be able to pick out 5 of them as being planets, without even having a telescope, that seems to be something else.

As early as 500 BC, the Greeks were describing the earth as round, and by the time of Christ, they had a reasonably accurate measurement of the size of the earth.

Many believe that the Mayans had predicted the locations of the planets up until 2012, centuries after their civilization was conquered.

I suppose the problem with "religion" is the blind insistence that their stories are TRUE beyond all reproach, and aren't just good stories of the time.

"First there was Chaos, the vast immeasurable abyss, Outrageous as a sea, dark, wasteful, wild... From the formless confusion of Chaos, brooded over by unbroken darkness came three children; into this shapeless nothing they were thrown. Erebus, which is the unfathomable depth where death dwells and his two sisters, Nyx, or night, and Gaea, the earth. In the whole universe there was nothing else; all was black, empty, silent, endless."

Religions have tried to explain the beginning of time, before recorded history, even before man. And, perhaps the religion needed it to both justify Humanity's place on earth as well as justifying the heritage of the religion itself. The fallacy is that they keep several thousand year old documents as "DOCTRINE", rather than accepting new theories about the early earth, and about evolution.

Keep in mind, though, nobody on earth has ever witnessed the formation of a planet. So, every theory about the formation of the earth is based on our view today of planets that have existed for millions of years.

Religion was always used to explain the unexplainable. We couldn't have had science from the start because science takes careful observation and experimentation over long periods of time. It had to develop slowly- fortunately for all of us, it did!

Answer

Religion was always used to explain the unexplainable. We couldn't have had science from the start because science takes careful observation and experimentation over long periods of time. It had to develop slowly- fortunately for all of us, it did! It has always been there in the background.

Religion on the other hand was grasped at instantly. From the earliest dawn of humankind, fear and awe gave birth to religion. The first time a companion was struck by lightening someone cowered in fear and wondered what he/she could do to appease whatever it was that struck down their companion. It got a strangle hold on humankind back then and has never let go.

Answer

First of all, we need to address what is sadly a widely spread misconception. Science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. Many of history's greatest thinkers (John Bacon, Leonardo DaVinci, and Sir Isaac newton, to name a few) were all influenced by BOTH science AND religion. Many modern scientists are religious, even Christian. Some religious people are atheists and not interested in science (Buddha is not considered an omnipotent deity). Some people believe in God and do not subscribe to any organized religion.

That said, even without religion, some people just wouldn't be interested in math and science. Some people find those boring, no matter what their belief is. Some religious people find science and math fascinating. While a survey showed that most modern U.S. scientists are atheists, it also found that most were atheists who later became scientists, not scientists who later became atheists. An important distinction. It makes sense that people who don't accept the answers and explanations given by religion would turn to science. Also, religious people who turn to science would be looking for a better understanding of what they perceive to be God's creation.

All that said, if we didn't have religion from the start, just science, a few more people throughout the ages would have become scientists, a few less scientific thoughts would have been questioned for religious reasons (admittedly, science and religion have clashed occassionally). By today, we would probably have made a few more giant leaps in scientific discovery and advancement, and many minor ones. But this would have come at the cost of the great number of literary and artistic masterpieces that were overtly inspired by religion. Not to mention the social and humanitarian advancements that were openly made in the name of religion. In my opinion, gaining the Missing Link but losing Dante's Divine Comedy would NOT be worth the trade-off.