Why is science knowledge not considered more important than religious belief?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

 

[sun rise]

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world?

I don't see a necessary either/or. People should understand how science works and value the process and accept the findings.

And I certainly don't want theological dogma to override and disparage science. To do that is, to me, to assert the arrogant belief that dogma is more important than the truth.

The bipolarity between religion and science is reconciled and transcended in accepting that Divinity is the author of the laws of the universe and to know those laws is to know the beauty and truth of creation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see a necessary either/or. People should understand how science works and value the process and accept the findings.

And I certainly don't want theological dogma to override and disparage science. To do that is, to me, to assert the arrogant belief that dogma is more important than the truth.

The bipolarity between religion and science is reconciled and transcended in accepting that Divinity is the author of the laws of the universe and to know those laws is to know the beauty and truth of creation.

I don't see your last point as being helpful in the slightest -- and in fact, the way that our human nature works make it, in my mind, most unhelpful.

Merely "accepting that Divinity is the author of the laws of the universe" adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to those laws. If you understand those laws, you understand them whether there's a divinity or not, and whether you believe in that divinity or not. The problem arises in supposing that there is such a divinity -- and that IT HAS A PURPOSE. And here is where we will inevitably go wrong, because some human being will "divine" that purpose for us (and some other human will divine it for some others), and we will accept that because we have no way, we suppose, to divine it for ourselves.

And I think that the humanist viewpoint is the answer to that -- we assume that we CAN know right from wrong, that we CAN establish a way forward for ourselves that has a good chance of working, by accepting the principles of reason and the findings of science, and the essential worth of every human person.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The following are words that I painstakingly transcribed from a TV show (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage) by Carl Sagan, aired September 28, 1980 on PBS.


'See that star?”

"You mean that bright red one?” his daughter asks in return

"Yes, it might not be there anymore. It might be gone by now, exploded or something. Its light is still crossing space, just reaching our eyes now. But we don't see it as it is, we see it as it was.”

Many people experience a stirring sense of wonder when they first confront this simple truth. Why? why should it be so compelling. The immense distances to the stars and the galaxies means we see everything in the past. Some as they were before the earth came to be. Telescopes are time machines.

Long ago, when an early galaxy began to pour light out in to the surrounding darkness no witness could have known that billions of years later. Some remote clumps of rock and metal, ice and organic molecules would fall together to form a place that we call earth. And surely nobody could have imagined that life would arise, and thinking beings evolve who would one day capture a fraction of that light and would try to puzzle out what sent it on its way.

We can recognize here a shortcoming, in some circumstances serious, in our ability to understand the world. Characteristically, willie-nilly we seem compelled to project our own nature onto nature. "Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the interposition of a deity," Darwin wrote in his notebook; more humble, and I think truer, to consider himself created from animals.

We're johnny-come-latelys; we live in the cosmic boondocks; we emerged from microbes in muck; Apes are our cousins; our thoughts are not entirely our own, and on top of that we're making a mess of our planet and becoming a danger to ourselves.

The trapdoor beneath our feet swings open. We find ourselves in bottomless free fall. We are lost in a great darkness and there is nobody to send out a search party. Given so harsh a reality, of course we are inclined to shut our eyes and pretend that we are safe and snug at home, that the fall is only a bad dream. If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathize and understand?

We long to be here for a purpose. Even though, despite much self-deception, none is evident. The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for parents to care for us, to forgive us of our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better, by far, to embrace the harsh reality than a reassuring fable.

Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Our common sense intuitions can be mistaken. Our preferences don't count. We do not live in a privileged reference frame. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The future to me is embracing Science in the guidance given in Religion.

It is God that gives us our capacity.

Regards Tony

 

[osgart]

Science is way more important than religion. Subjective knowledge and creativity are on par with science knowledge. Experiencial knowledge is important as well.

Ancient religions have very little to offer. Religion needs a progressive system of self inquiry, criticism, and correction if it is to be valid and relevant again.

 

[Quintessence]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

If this doesn't terrify you, you may not have been paying attention to what humans have done so far with their "incredible technologies." Science itself is pretty benign, I suppose, but technology? Where to even begin with how frequently humans have irresponsibly used technology? Can we start with the fact that humans have abused their technologies to commit planetary scale ecological genocide and usher in a sixth mass extinction event?

A sixth mass extinction event. Planetary scale ecological genocide. And people wonder why I am not even remotely rooting for human space travel? Hah!

I love science. Obviously, considering it was my pursuit in graduate school and my current job includes no small amount of science advocacy. But I am not blind to how its application as technology and its use by humans is, at best, problematic and troubled. I'm also not blind to the fact that we don't need any of it - science and technology both - and did just fine for the vast majority of our evolutionary history without any of the contemporary fancy toys. So yeah, when measuring up whether it is more important to find meaningful answers to life's big questions so one can live the good life versus have science and technology? It's not even a contest, though frankly, the sciences are an extension of the religious impetus, not categorically distinct from it.

 

[Valjean]

Good point. A tribal plains ape with modern technology is like a four year old with matches.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The future to me is embracing Science in the guidance given in Religion.

It is God that gives us our capacity.

Regards Tony

Sorry, Tony, I just don't find that has any meaning for me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

I don't envision a world in which these wonderful things happen. Yes, its possible; but History records that those in power will eventually attempt to suppress all technical knowledge. We are in a special moment in time that is an exception, but eventually only privileged people will have access and then no one. They will hunt down anyone who shows evidence of wielding special technical knowledge, and they will search out hidden caches of books either to destroy or collect them. Currently this is not possible, however in the future it likely will be at some time or another.

Remember that power is fundamentally destructive. You can only get 60% work out of most energy transfers and 80% at the most. What technology does best is explode or destroy or poison. Its terrifying. We won't be allowed to keep it.

In particular if there is ever a global government this will definitely happen.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...unless certain things happen in a specific way. I don't know what the path is.


***edit*** Sorry, I just realized I never answered the OP! .... so getting back on topic...

Science is viewed as a power, like magic or like a skill. We tend to think of society as having different specialties. Science is specialty. If I'm going to be a mason then I don't need it, right? On the other hand religion is not considered a specialty unless you're going into ministry. Anybody can be religious and also be a brick mason. Religion is not like having to learn two specialties or work two jobs, but learning Science is. It takes time, and you need help that often you can't get. If you take science in college they cram it down you at a rate that is intolerable for most people.

I took calc several times and never felt that I was comfortable with it. In later years I've returned and gotten better with it. In school I had so many things going on and not enough support that I felt like I just got shat out the back.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Science needs hope, but hope cant merley be held together by science.

 

[Mitty]

The future to me is embracing Science in the guidance given in Religion.

It is God that gives us our capacity.

Regards Tony

Is that why it took thousands of years for us to discover that Earth is billions of years old and orbits the Sun and is not just a flat immovable disc as described in the bible, and that the universe is not a geocentric tent attached to the circle of the horizon as described in Isaiah 40:22?

 

[sun rise]

I don't see your last point as being helpful in the slightest -- and in fact, the way that our human nature works make it, in my mind, most unhelpful.

Merely "accepting that Divinity is the author of the laws of the universe" adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to those laws. If you understand those laws, you understand them whether there's a divinity or not, and whether you believe in that divinity or not. The problem arises in supposing that there is such a divinity -- and that IT HAS A PURPOSE. And here is where we will inevitably go wrong, because some human being will "divine" that purpose for us (and some other human will divine it for some others), and we will accept that because we have no way, we suppose, to divine it for ourselves.

And I think that the humanist viewpoint is the answer to that -- we assume that we CAN know right from wrong, that we CAN establish a way forward for ourselves that has a good chance of working, by accepting the principles of reason and the findings of science, and the essential worth of every human person.

I'm not asserting that it's a necessary point of view but that for theists, there's no necessary choice.

 

[George-ananda]

Why is science knowledge not considered more important than religious belief?

First they are different fields of knowledge. Secondly, religion is more important because it addresses the issues of the purpose of life and finding happiness.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Science is way more important than religion. Subjective knowledge and creativity are on par with science knowledge. Experiencial knowledge is important as well.

Ancient religions have very little to offer. Religion needs a progressive system of self inquiry, criticism, and correction if it is to be valid and relevant again.

I love knowing how things work, and I love having my questions answered. This was not true for most people in History, and there's no guarantee that it will continue to be true. Technically we can survive without it. Its entirely (and I mean about 70% likely) possible that future societies will fear the spread of technical knowledge, and then religion will be all that is available and possibly the only avenue for logical thought will be philosophical discourse. Its like uh...a post apocalyptic movie but without the apocalypse.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

Having studied various disciplines of science in University and currently working in a hi-tech field where some of the disciplines I learned are used, I have just one question.

"Who is the us and we you are speaking of?"

Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon
"one should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds."

 

[osgart]

I love knowing how things work, and I love having my questions answered. This was not true for most people in History, and there's no guarantee that it will continue to be true. Technically we can survive without it. Its entirely (and I mean about 70% likely) possible that future societies will fear the spread of technical knowledge, and then religion will be all that is available and possibly the only avenue for logical thought will be philosophical discourse. Its like uh...a post apocalyptic movie but without the apocalypse.

A.I. could make life miserable and oppressive. The race for a powerful A.I. is one that the western world must win.

Clean energy and a safe , free A.I. and that post apocalyptic world nightmare may never happen.

What's more powerful, an A.I. that is democratized, or an A.I. under communism? China seems to be way ahead of everyone on it.

Once we start down the road of superintelligence I don't think there is any stopping. Technology is a runaway train.

 

[sayak83]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

Most of science involved with your day to day life is owned by companies through patents. I don't see even a 100% scientifically literate public to be able to control the direction of science and it's techno-economic outcomes in any significant sense other than decisions regarding public funding of basic science research.

 

[Heyo]

Science is hard, really hard. It takes some effort to understand the principles and formulas. Science is precise. You have to get the answer right or you will fail.
Religion is an excuse for the lazy and less gifted who can't or won't understand science. And that excuse is even culturally accepted.
People should have to prove that they understand what they are talking about or forced to admit that their opinion may be based on false premises.