Massimo2002
Active Member
I'm so sick and tired of atheist secular scientism it's just another religion.
-
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
Altfish
Veteran Member
OK, please explain why. What harm am I doing to you?
I'm not trying to tell you what kind of sex life you can have, when you should pray, what you can wear, interfere with women's health, etc., etc.
Science explains our world, it is people who can use this knowledge to perhaps help solve some of the worlds problems.
Perhaps you could also explain how religion has solved 'humanities problems'.
Perhaps if you understood it, even a little...
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Science has solved a lot of problems.
For example, it has solved the problem of delayed communication. Instead of writing us all a letter about how bad and lame science is, you make a thread about it!
Thanks science!
Praise Darwin!
For example, it has solved the problem of delayed communication. Instead of writing us all a letter about how bad and lame science is, you make a thread about it!
Thanks science!
Praise Darwin!
Interesting how you used cutting edge quantum physics and several other scientific disciplines to make that complaint.
You're not exactly wrong, but you're not exactly right. But I want to draw a distinction between two things that is too often overlooked:
I find it important to not conflate science and technology, even though they are often spoken of in the same breath as if they are synonymous. They are not synonymous. With the above understanding, it should be obvious why "science" hasn't solved all of humanity's problems. That's not what science is. Problem-solving (application of knowledge) falls under the auspices of technology, not science. And as different groups of humans have different goals and worldviews, it should be obvious why technology doesn't solve problems either.
Science refers to a method or a body of knowledge. It describes a way of knowing and a way of learning about the world, meaning it can be done for its own sake as an endeavor of human curiosity and learning with no other purpose besides that.
Technology refers to a material or practical application of knowledge. That knowledge can come from any source, including but not limited to sciences. It is goal-driven or intended to meet the needs of a particular set of humans.
I find it important to not conflate science and technology, even though they are often spoken of in the same breath as if they are synonymous. They are not synonymous. With the above understanding, it should be obvious why "science" hasn't solved all of humanity's problems. That's not what science is. Problem-solving (application of knowledge) falls under the auspices of technology, not science. And as different groups of humans have different goals and worldviews, it should be obvious why technology doesn't solve problems either.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So be fair science and scientism is not the same form of philosophy in effect as they in practice differ on how to understand objective in effect.
To add - calling something a "problem" is a subjective assessment and designation projected onto reality by a human. It is a normative judgement rather than an impartial description of that which is the case, as it declares that reality "ought" to be some way other than what it is. The sciences describe things as they are without projecting normative judgements onto reality. It will tell you what is going on - via the framework of the scientific method - but not whether it is what should be going on. The "should" talk falls into the realm of human emotions and values.
When that "should" talk bound up in human emotions and values meets practical implementation, we get technology. Material goods or processes designed to serve a particular need or problem or "should" out there in the world. In a sense, it "solves" a problem some individual identified. So make no mistake, technology does solve problems a given human identifies. The issue is that, again, "problem" is a subjective assessment projected onto reality. Not all other humans are going to agree that this "problem" that was "solved" was a problem to begin with - this "problem" may have been an essential part of their value system and way of life! Solving "problems" - changing reality to conform to your own egoistic vision of it - comes at a cost of someone and something else.
Being very mindful of this is why I hold such disdain for technology, but not science. I look at, for example, the technology of the plow. Sure, it solved the "problem" of being unable to churn the soils of the tallgrass prairie. And by doing so, humans committed ecological genocide nearly wiping an entire ecosystem type from the face of the planet (not cool, yo). Then humans made more technologies to solve "problems" of the now genocided tallgrass prairie - we can't have those "pesky" insects, so let's solve the "problem" by spraying poison all over the land. Oh, and we've got to be more efficient and have yields go up, up, up, so let's solve that "problem" by planting monocultures so there's basically no viable habitat for any living thing other than what we want to harvest on that land. Problem solving my rear...
When that "should" talk bound up in human emotions and values meets practical implementation, we get technology. Material goods or processes designed to serve a particular need or problem or "should" out there in the world. In a sense, it "solves" a problem some individual identified. So make no mistake, technology does solve problems a given human identifies. The issue is that, again, "problem" is a subjective assessment projected onto reality. Not all other humans are going to agree that this "problem" that was "solved" was a problem to begin with - this "problem" may have been an essential part of their value system and way of life! Solving "problems" - changing reality to conform to your own egoistic vision of it - comes at a cost of someone and something else.
Being very mindful of this is why I hold such disdain for technology, but not science. I look at, for example, the technology of the plow. Sure, it solved the "problem" of being unable to churn the soils of the tallgrass prairie. And by doing so, humans committed ecological genocide nearly wiping an entire ecosystem type from the face of the planet (not cool, yo). Then humans made more technologies to solve "problems" of the now genocided tallgrass prairie - we can't have those "pesky" insects, so let's solve the "problem" by spraying poison all over the land. Oh, and we've got to be more efficient and have yields go up, up, up, so let's solve that "problem" by planting monocultures so there's basically no viable habitat for any living thing other than what we want to harvest on that land. Problem solving my rear...
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
Why hasn't religion? We must be missing something important, here? All the world's problems and all the worlds trouble may not need an all-encompassing solution. We may be in training. Special ops stuff like James Bond or MacGyver.
What did you learn today?
"Well, I learned not to walk across sun scorched sand with nothing under my feet."
What are you gonna do about it?
I don't know ... Avoid the beach, I guess.
A lightbulb comes on.
"I will call them shoes."
Last edited:
Yeah, if God hadn't created all these problems, like floods, earthquakes, cancer, deadly animals and microorganisms, science wouldn't have to work so damn hard for the ungrateful. Of course, science has to solve the problem of irrational brains.
Are you aware that many theists accept, appreciate and even practice science professionally.
Any group may promote science. How they go about that promotion is a reflection on them. As your interpretation and response to a particular group or a groups form of promotion of science is a response of your own. Neither of these determines the validity of any science.
Do you have some legitimate objections or is this just an expression of a general malaise and unrealistic expectation of instant answers and redress?
Last edited:
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think science is wonderful, but not as a way of life to supplant spiritual/religious pursuits. That's probably the frustration you have here. It's with those who want to get rid of the spiritual in favor of critical thinking. Repeatedly being told that spiritual/religious paths are nonsense in favor of a mundane physicalist/materialist worldview is absurd and ridiculous.
Equally absurd and ridiculous are Gods with ultimatums regarding everyone's eternal destination.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
What's the problem, I am enjoying the beauty outside my window and even a football game at the same time. I'm not thinking about how the sun is shining or how I can watch something happening 200 miles away, but if the picture goes away, I will go back to being a scientist to figure out why it isn't working. I can do both, I just don't need to believe in something unknowable to explain the beauty, I just accept and enjoy it.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute, I thought it was the technology was the problem?
potato/potato.
lol nope
Pogo
Well-Known Member
"Being very mindful of this is why I hold such disdain for technology, but not science. I look at, for example, the technology of the plow. Sure, it solved the "problem" of being unable to churn the soils of the tallgrass prairie. And by doing so, humans committed ecological genocide nearly wiping an entire ecosystem type from the face of the planet (not cool, yo). Then humans made more technologies to solve "problems" of the now genocided tallgrass prairie - we can't have those "pesky" insects, so let's solve the "problem" by spraying poison all over the land. Oh, and we've got to be more efficient and have yields go up, up, up, so let's solve that "problem" by planting monocultures so there's basically no viable habitat for any living thing other than what we want to harvest on that land. Problem solving my rear..."
So which one of these is the hack or is the ability to hack the same as the hack itself?
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Why can't humanity solve all its own problems by itself? Why should science do the hard work for an ungrateful species?