That's what us Q guys do.LOL, just realized you Q guys have me all confused, apologies where appropriate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If science is so great why hasn't it solved all of humanitys problems ?
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
I don’t promote scientism, nor do I think scientism actually exists, and the accusers of someone being a follower of scientism, are often baseless, and partly due to the accusers’ science illiteracy or incompetence in science, and partly due to accusers’ wounded (or offended) pride when someone disagree with them.
Plus atheism isn’t the same as secularism.
Atheism only deals with the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity. Atheism is philosophical position.
While secularism, on the other hand, originally related to separation of state & religion, and separation of state laws & religious laws. So secularism have more to do with politics than science.
if you understand the history of secularism, you should know that political leaders from the 18th century Europe and North America, that coincided with the Age of Enlightenment, introduced secularism, the Separation of Church and State.
Secularism wasn’t about promoting sciences. It was about addressing about churches, particularly the Catholic Church, having too much powers and influences over monarchy and government policies, that caused inequality among the nations’ citizens. Depending on which churches the leaders followed, eg Catholic, Protestant or Anglican, the citizens that were in one of those preferred groups, would experience social, political or judicial inequality, have less rights. Secularism was about giving all citizens - equal rights - for example, equal rights to legal representation, freedom to choose whatever religion to follow without discrimination, and freedom of speech.
ideally, secularism, in a secular society, all citizens would have equal rights, like equal to legal protection, the ability to elect their leaders (rights to vote), freedom to be affiliated with religion or not, however the reality is that not equal.
For instance, in the United States, only white men, have all the rights, not women, not black Americans and Asians. It took decades before each of these groups gain the rights to vote. Plus, a new class war, that divided the rich and those of the middle classes and the poor. Sure, today, all citizens have the rights to legal representation, but rich men and women could platoon of lawyers, and often win through war of attrition.
Secularism have more to with the society as a whole, ideally about equal rights, politically, socially & judiciously, not about elevating science.
And btw, Massimo2002. If scientism is another religion, then if I am following your (absurd) logic, then I’d presume that “all religions” are bad.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
What all of humanity’s problems have religions solved?
Neither Christianity, nor Islam, solve the problem of slavery. For centuries, both religions not only condoned slavery, Christian and Muslims slave traders have gotten rich from it.
They were the ones that promoted equal rights for women - such as the ability of free speech or freedom to vote or the freedom to be educated. Both Christianity & Islam have the patriarchal background, where men have all the powers & privilege. Even now, some women are treated as subordinates in politically, socially, judiciously and even at home, among family, some sects still promote this inequality.
Science have no powers over individual equality, nor enacting government policies. You are simply misinforming us, with your own warped view on science.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
It's not that you don't achieve it. It's the fact that people are able to do it, and that those qualities exist in the first place, and people take it for granted that it just happens. Those qualities have existence and can be cultivated on a spiritual path. It's hardly accidental nor purely incidental. It's not explained by things like mass, charge, spin, nor force.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Science gives tangible real results like the computer and keyboard you use. So what has religion done?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Is the thread title a serious question, or is it just trolling?
This sounds suspiciously like, "Only those being led by the spirit can understand the Bible".
I don't think so. There is no leading required. Science is a fact- and process-oriented discipline, and it is necessary to understand how it works, and what is a fact. It is a fact, for example, that all objects with mass, if dropped on this planet, will fall at a known acceleration directly towards the centre of the planet. Knowing that, Newton was able to apply the scientific process to derive his magnum opus Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).
And I use Newton as an example for the simple reason that Newton was very much a theist, but did not need religion, the spirit, or God to develop that work. Just an understaning of science.
Not sure what you mean by that. All I was doing was pointing out that the reasoning you're using here is circular:
You're assuming the the author of the OP doesn't have any understanding of scientisim (or rather science since you seem to be conflating with two), because if he did he wouldn't believe what he does he would believe what you do.
How is that different from, "You just don't believe the Bible because you don't understand it, because in order to understand it you would have to believe it"?
Except that we're not talking about science, we're talking about scientism. Not the same thing.
Google AI overview: "Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the only way to understand the world and reality".
Science, as you say, is ". . . a fact- and process-oriented discipline".
Scientism isn't a discipline, it's a belief system.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree but many people who practice "Scientism" also believe just about everything is already known by science so any other way to use reason, facts, logic, intuition, and observation are nothing but superstitions. They believe there is only one science and that the cutting edge is the only contender for understanding reality. They believe science will continue to progress and that it will continually and forever support modern consensus opinion.
The belief that science is the only way to organize knowledge and reason, while mistaken, is quite understandable. It's the nature of practitioners to point and scream at heretics like something out of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" that is most problematical. This is so common that science is in a rut. It is stuck in a ditch, if not of its own making, is inevitable because the cart has been placed before the horse.
Well, I guess I assumed that the author isn't aware that scientism isn't science either. This thread is in the "Science and Religion" forum, and if it were an argument between world views (which both scientism and religions are), then I would think a philosophical forum would be more appropriate.
Not only that but the thread itself is titled, "If science is so great why hasn't it solved all of humanitys (sic) problems?" That does, in itself, seem to be an attempt to belitte the value of science.
You have to remember, I'm a Humanist. I don't believe that "science and the scientific method are the only way to understand the world and reality," but I do hold that reason and science are superior to a reliance on an unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable supernatural. And I believe that for the very simple reason that what is untestable and unfalsiable can say anything at all, literally anything at all, and be incapable of being proven wrong. This, in my view, can and does lead far too often to great harm, including convincing credulous people to eschew life-saving medical treatment, for themselves and for their children.
"Religion and science are arguably two of the most powerful drivers in human existence. Many consider them different types of truth and both valid while others try to combine them or reject one for the other. Faith-based rejection of medical care has cost the lives of many children and poses challenges to providers.
"Asser and Swan (1998) reviewed deaths of 172 U.S. children after medical care was withheld on religious grounds from 1975 to 1995. Many of the children died of readily treatable infectious diseases and diabetes. The authors found that 80% of the children would have had at least a 90% likelihood of survival with timely medical care."
Well, we don't have a Science as Religion forum so I can understand why the author put it here.
Still, he clarified the debate topic in his OP. And since scientism is based on certain beliefs in regards to science, I think the title is a legitimate question if seen as directed at the followers of scientcism.
Remember it's an attack on scientism, not science.
No argument there.
Yes, I see that. But I don't hold with "scientism." I do not suppose, even for a moment, that science can provide me foolproof paths to ethical behaviour, nor tell me how to live a life that is worthwhile. For me, those are philosophical questions. Some religions, Buddhism, for instance, are more philosophical than religious in that they also try to answer those questions without resorting to gods or the supernatural. Indeed, even many Christian and Jewish sects and denominations have taken more philosophical than religious stances with respect to morality, ethical behaviour and "good life." Reform Judaism, certainly, and many Protestant Christians, including Episcopalians (Anglicans), Society of Friends (Quakers), United Church of Canada and many others are some of them.
We live in an uncertain world, and there are many, many unanswerable questions. I reject any "-ism" that pretends to have all the answers, including philosophies that make such claims. Human life is one in which we have to answer such difficult questions from when we first begin thinking, until the end of our lives (I'll say nothing about after that, because I don't believe there is an after -- but that's a belief).
Well, just between us, I have all the answers but I'm not allowed to share those with the rest of you guys because then you won't have any reason to keep coming here.
(Shhhhhhh)
I'd like to add something here: I've been working my way through a most interesting topic the last couple of days, by some M. Philosophy grads from Oxford, called "9 Questions Atheists Can't Answer." The questions are:
- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
- Atheists Can’t Answer ‘Why’ Questions
- Atheists Can't Get an ‘Ought’ From An ‘Is’
- How to Explain Sensus Divinitatus
- Why Has Atheism Never Worked on a Civilisational Level?
- Trusting Human Rationality as a Guide to Truth
- Where Do the Laws of Logic Come From?
- What is Consciousness?
- How Atheists Respond to Fine-Tuning
You see, I could start by posing some alternative questions to those in the list above, and title my thesis "Questions theists can't answer." Just a couple, for example:
- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? (Why is there God rather than not-God?)
- Atheists Can’t Answer ‘Why’ Questions (Theists can't think without seeking teleogy.)
- Why Has Atheism Never Worked on a Civilisational Level? (Why has theism never worked on a civilizational level?)
- Trusting Human Rationality as a Guide to Truth (Which religion provides the guide to Truth? Note the capital "T.")
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
The most stupidiest & the most dishonest thing that any creationists can claim, is confuse science with atheism.
Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of any god, nothing more, nothing less.
And atheism is a non-scientific philosophical position on the theological matters, and atheism don’t have anything to do with science, any more than atheism deal with social matters, political matters, moral issues, etc.
Sure, any atheist may work in any field of science if that person has education & experiences/expertise, but so can any theist or agnostic. Being a scientist, like a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, etc are jobs in their respective sciences, but being a theist or atheist or angno, are not job or career positions in science.
Any atheist (like any theist) can also work in non-scientific jobs, like being an accountant, salesperson, musician, artist, historian, carpenter, farmer, fisherman, etc. But neither atheism, nor theism, do not teach accounting, sales, music, art, history, carpentry, farming, fishing, etc.
The only thing about any atheist is they either don’t believe in or lack the belief in, any God’s existence. And the only thing about any theist, is that he or she either believe in a single deity (hence a monotheist), or believe in many deities (hence a polytheist), or worship only one deity among the many deities (hence a henotheist).
Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of any god, nothing more, nothing less.
And atheism is a non-scientific philosophical position on the theological matters, and atheism don’t have anything to do with science, any more than atheism deal with social matters, political matters, moral issues, etc.
Sure, any atheist may work in any field of science if that person has education & experiences/expertise, but so can any theist or agnostic. Being a scientist, like a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, etc are jobs in their respective sciences, but being a theist or atheist or angno, are not job or career positions in science.
Any atheist (like any theist) can also work in non-scientific jobs, like being an accountant, salesperson, musician, artist, historian, carpenter, farmer, fisherman, etc. But neither atheism, nor theism, do not teach accounting, sales, music, art, history, carpentry, farming, fishing, etc.
The only thing about any atheist is they either don’t believe in or lack the belief in, any God’s existence. And the only thing about any theist, is that he or she either believe in a single deity (hence a monotheist), or believe in many deities (hence a polytheist), or worship only one deity among the many deities (hence a henotheist).
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Your logic is a bit like, "If he's such a good brain surgeon, why can't he write a symphony?"
I'm not interested in discussing this "atheist secular scientism" that doesn't exist. I you want to discuss scientific method, I'd love that. Scientific method is:
- observe
- hypothesize
- test
- record data
- analyze and conclude
- publish for peer review
- repeat
It is wonderful that there are many problems that science solves or at least helps. Science has done more in real terms to relieve human suffering than religion in all the years it has existed. But Science makes no claims that it solves all problems, or even that it even can. What you have done here is set up a straw man to knock down.
Augustus
…
Most of humanity's major problems are insoluble as we are irrational animals with limited reason and intelligence and have to share a plabet with billons of others with competing needs and wants.
Those who think science can solve most of our problems are engaging in utopian religious fantasy.
Science and technology can mitigate some problems of course, but then again, they also exacerbate others.
Augustus
…
Nobody has an excessive confidence in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods across all areas of enquiry?
hmmm....
gnostic
The Lost One
I don’t doubt…but I also think others (science illiterates) seemed to think that if science don’t have answers to some fathomable problems, then they should seek in their respective religion.
Except that religions have around 5000 years of history (“history” in the literal sense as in since the inventions of writing, as opposed to prehistory), religions have as much hinder human progress as help them...as you said, humans being human, they exacerbated the problems.
The differences between science and religion, historical-wise, there was never a time when scientists have real political & military powers, whereas religious people have wielded such powers, and that powers have corrupted them.
Scientists may have developed nuclear power for instance, but it were always the political leaders who didn’t understand the science, that ordered the atom bombs to be used Hiroshima & Nagasaki, to end WW2. What I am saying, is that scientists have never dictated government policies, nor led military strategy.
But can you imagine if some Islamic terrorist leaders gain nuclear weapons?
It only happened in fiction, that mad scientists like those in the Bond’s novels & films were megalomaniacs who wanted to either conquer the world or destroy the world.