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

[Deeje]

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

And those four year olds are ruling your world, running amok with serious technology, and setting all life on a course to extinction. Oh happy day....

I am thankful that they are not ruling my world. At least my future looks way brighter than your future at their hands....and you have no power to stop them.

The ones governing your world cannot guarantee that you will even have a future....the one governing mine explains what will happen to the four year olds, and how the world will end up being the kind of place he first envisaged. I like how that ends.

Not all religious beliefs are good or soundly based.....but not all science is either.

Man is prone to creating monsters that he cannot destroy.......so whose world will we end up with at the end of the day? Will science prove to be more powerful than God?...we'll have to wait and see I guess....

 

[Deeje]

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.

But would that not apply equally to both sides?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Clean energy == totally possible. Free A.I == possible.

More powerful? Good question.

It is a runaway train. I don't think a sentient AI is inevitable this century, however I think we will see cyborgs which could be used in nearly the same way. That will be good and bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Now just for fun. Please as this is about premises and thus proof, prove the bold one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Because there is no evidence in favor of science being more important than religion?

Or rather because the consideration is subjective and thus moral, about being useful and thus is not science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Now I want evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Now I want evidence.

The evidence is our mind.

True science will not be found and our true potential can not be developed until we find our unity. Science requires consultation and consultation works best when minds are united in a common purpose.

Regards Tony

 

[Mock Turtle]

Because there is no evidence in favor of science being more important than religion?

Or rather because the consideration is subjective and thus moral, about being useful and thus is not science.

Apart from the evidence of the last few hundred years, where progress has been made in virtually all areas? And where we can hardly put this down to religions since they have hardly changed.

I would suggest, as per @Heyo, that science doesn't tend to have the kudos for many because it is hard to understand science. It takes work, especially much thinking, to understand any science subject - I know this just from a technology aspect, and I suspect that if I had studied science rather than engineering it would have been harder (and engineering isn't easy). And it just seems to be the way of things that people, in general, are more likely to choose the easier options.

But science is what it is, just as religions are, and I don't see a quarrel unless any particular religious belief tries to undermine any decent science evidence - because 'it was written'.

 

[Valjean]

And those four year olds are ruling your world, running amok with serious technology, and setting all life on a course to extinction. Oh happy day....

I am thankful that they are not ruling my world. At least my future looks way brighter than your future at their hands....and you have no power to stop them.

The plains apes with modern technology are ruling -- and ruining -- both our worlds.

 

[Heyo]

Now just for fun. Please as this is about premises and thus proof, prove the bold one.

Your reading comprehension fails you again. The word "should" clearly indicates that the bold sentence is an opinion not a statement of fact. You may ask for clarification or further arguments but not for proof or evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your reading comprehension fails you again. The word "should" clearly indicates that the bold sentence is an opinion not a statement of fact. You may ask for clarification or further arguments but not for proof or evidence.

Please explain this sentence of yours: "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."

 

[Heyo]

But would that not apply equally to both sides?

Sure. Scientists talking about religion should show their knowledge as well as believers should show their knowledge of science.
Which favours scientists just a bit because it is easyer to learn about religion than about science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. Scientists talking about religion should show their knowledge as well as believers should show their knowledge of science.
Which favours scientists just a bit because it is easyer to learn about religion than about science.

Evidence or opinion?

 

[Heyo]

Please explain this sentence of yours: "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."

I think it would make for much more fruitful conversations if the interlocutors had an established, common base. Many conversations, especially science criticism, are due to misunderstandings (frequently wilful). E.g. YEC don't know and don't want to know biology. They have a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own facts. Thus, it should be mandatory to differentiate statements of fact from statements of opinion. It would make discussions so much easier.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it would make for much more fruitful conversations if the interlocutors had an established, common base. Many conversations, especially science criticism, are due to misunderstandings (frequently wilful). E.g. YEC don't know and don't want to know biology. They have a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own facts. Thus, it should be mandatory to differentiate statements of fact from statements of opinion. It would make discussions so much easier.

That is your opinion and not a fact. I am of another opinion.

 

[Heyo]

Evidence or opinion?

Opinion with a strong backing of evidence. Just look at the word count of the typical creation story and that of scientific studies about the same matter.

 

[Heyo]

That is your opinion and not a fact. I am of another opinion.

Which is perfectly fine. You have a right to your own opinion. Would you like to explain how you came to that opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is perfectly fine. You have a right to your own opinion. Would you like to explain how you came to that opinion?

Well, it is backed up by the fact, that we can't reduce the universe down to just hard physical facts. The evidence is that we both have opinions and can get away with it.
The closed I can get, is non-reductive physicalism, where you can understand the mental as caused by the physical, but you can't reduce it down to being purely physical.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just which fields of science are in conflict with religious thought, that you think will substantially inhibit future technologies?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Just which fields of science are in conflict with religious thought, that you think will substantially inhibit future technologies?

May I turn your question a bit and ask. Why do not people see that to much science and technology will make human beings dumb, and we will forget how we use our brain.
Children of today already struggle with using their mind in schools because everything happens on computer. They don't need to think anymore.

In spiritual teaching no technology is needed because everything happens within our own mind( mind in not in the brain by the way) , that give access to other dimensions