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

[Heyo]

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

Unfortunately it is all of science, the scientific method itself. (Because all of science rests on that and you can't just reject only one field.)

(Well, you can if that field has additional premises that are shaky. And there is controversy within the sciences. It's complicated. I'm talking about the gist, not the specifics.)

 

[stvdv]

Who do you want mapping your future

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

"science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame."
(Religion or Spirituality)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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."

You've heard of something called the human species? That's us.

Think of it this way -- in a pandemic, if only 25% of US refuse to obey the rules for containing it, ALL of US will just have to get used to getting sick and dying at much higher than usual rates. There are, in fact, some things that we really are "all in it together." Management of this planet, and our technologies, seem to me to be a couple of those things.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

For me any way. Science has done nothing to improve my life. Each technology has made the world more dependent on money. Each technology has created harder problems to correct. All this technology has only been created for Power, Wealth and/or longer life for the elite that can afford it. I always argue with my father that humans overall are no better off now than we were as cavemen. Yes we live longer but are more satisfied with that life, are we happier with that live, do we enjoy our family and friends more. Science is all about knowledge of things but religion try's to develop one's spirit. If the individual can live a happy live, a satisfied life with the camaraderie of family and friends how much does that individual need science. See the various different groups of people that shun science today like the Amish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
(Religion or Spirituality)

Now, if you were to go and read that quote by Einstein IN CONTEXT within the essay from which it came, you would see that Einstein absolutely did not mean what you seem to think it means. It is one of the most frequently badly-used quotes (because it is ALWAYS used out-of-context) that there are.

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught

 

[stvdv]

Now, if you were to go and read that quote by Einstein IN CONTEXT within the essay from which it came, you would see that Einstein absolutely did not mean what you seem to think it means. It is one of the most frequently badly-used quotes (because it is ALWAYS used out-of-context) that there are.

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught

Thank you for the article.

When I wrote it, I thought already "something is wrong here", but I was too lazy today to think more.

I copied from internet: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
BUT
The correct quote I meant is "science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame."

THIS of course makes sense
The other makes no sense at all

 

[Quintessence]

Unfortunately it is all of science, the scientific method itself. (Because all of science rests on that and you can't just reject only one field.)

Let's back this up for a moment here, because I think we need to be honest with ourselves about something.

I'm not sure I can find it right now, but I listened to a story on NPR once (or was it the Point of Inquiry podcast? - in any case, it was a reliable source) that took a look at science denialism and how it relates to political parties. The essence of what these researchers found is that whenever sciences conflict with someone's deeply held worldview (aka, religiously-held beliefs) they will selectively reject certain scientific conclusions. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum, though these days Republicans get blamed for that a lot more than Democrats do in the United States.

I mention this to remind ourselves that each of us will accept or reject things based on our foundational assumptions about the world. This isn't unique to things we choose to slap the word "religious" onto (which, as a reminder, is an arbitrary designation grounded in assumptions).

 

[Mock Turtle]

For me any way. Science has done nothing to improve my life. Each technology has made the world more dependent on money. Each technology has created harder problems to correct. All this technology has only been created for Power, Wealth and/or longer life for the elite that can afford it. I always argue with my father that humans overall are no better off now than we were as cavemen. Yes we live longer but are more satisfied with that life, are we happier with that live, do we enjoy our family and friends more. Science is all about knowledge of things but religion try's to develop one's spirit. If the individual can live a happy live, a satisfied life with the camaraderie of family and friends how much does that individual need science. See the various different groups of people that shun science today like the Amish.

So presumably you are living like a caveman and refusing all medical knowledge and assistance when required? How we get the knowledge and/or technology is a bit beyond the reach of most of us, and even if we might have liked this to have been different (fewer billionaires), I'm sure so many of us do appreciate what is now available (mp3s versus scratchy, horrible vinyl, for example), and also we do have choices as to such.

 

[Quintessence]

To add something else that is important to framing the discussion, the story some tell about the sciences being more important than religion is the direct result of the "myth of progress." This mythology started becoming more prevalent during the Enlightenment period and is the driving mythological narrative of many in Western cultures. With respect to the topic of this thread, the myth of progress states that sciences and technologies are an unquestioned good because they assist with "human progress" towards a "more advanced" or "better" state of being. Anything perceived to stand in the way of "progress" is scorned and devalued.

In spite of the fact that the myth of progress is religious in nature (that is, it is a passionately held belief that orients people's way of life and their view of the world overall), it tends to be especially critical of "religion" and devalue the contributions of "religion" to the notions of progress. I find this tremendously ironic, though not unexpected. Hardcore believers in the myth routinely gloss over the historical contributions of religion to sciences and technologies (or any other human endeavor for that matter). The myth of progress is also a key cornerstone of scientism, or the belief that "science" should be the only measure of what is true or useful (an ironically unscientific narrative).

So to answer why not everybody considers scientific knowledge most sacred? For some, rejection fo the starry-eyed myth of progress is part of it. I know it is for me. Funny enough, my rejection of this myth happened because of studying sciences. Studying biological evolution was the first major crack in the wall for me, because I learned that evolution is not about progress in the sense that many believe it is. I came to the conclusion that "progress" isn't some objectively existing quality of the world, but something humans project onto the world based on their values. I couldn't hold to it anymore after that.

 

[bobhikes]

So presumably you are living like a caveman and refusing all medical knowledge and assistance when required? How we get the knowledge and/or technology is a bit beyond the reach of most of us, and even if we might have liked this to have been different (fewer billionaires), I'm sure so many of us do appreciate what is now available (mp3s versus scratchy, horrible vinyl, for example), and also we do have choices as to such.

I am more of an outdoors person than most, I keep fruit tree's and berries in my yard and I plant a vegetable garden every year which supplies myself and my neighbor's. I also prefer vinyl and cd's and dvd's and have never had an mp3 player.

The point though was from a happiness, satisfying and rewarding life there is not really any difference today than during the caveman's day's. Just because rich nations can put off sickness doesn't help all the poor nations that can't afford it. Just because you can drive a car and go to the local supermarket doesn't make it better for those than can't afford it. Sure if you have money you can use all this great medical and technological advances but how happy does it really make you and are you really more happy, satisfied and rewarded than the rest of the world that can't enjoy it. You know there's a large portion of the world today that lives much worse than the caveman specifically do to all our advances.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for the article.

When I wrote it, I thought already "something is wrong here", but I was too lazy today to think more.

I copied from internet: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
BUT
The correct quote I meant is "science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame."

THIS of course makes sense
The other makes no sense at all

Even with the correction, it is important to realize that Einstein was referring not to Religion (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) but to our capacity to make value judgments without hard-and-fast rules. Science cannot do that -- in that sense, it is indeed blind, because it doesn't have the capacity, in and of itself, to answer whether the creation of the atomic bomb was a "good thing."

But it is also true that religion, when it does not base its value judgments on the facts that at least it knows about, and instead depends upon precedent and scriptural inerrancy, quite often gets it wrong. I point out, for example, that the Old Testament mandates the killing of a daughter who goes a little too far with her boyfriend before getting married. Nothing in the whole Bible actually countermands that. Jesus may have forgiven the prostitute, but he never did the same for any girl just getting it on with the cute boy next door, not that I can find. And since Jesus also claims that absolutely "not a tittle or a jot" of the law will be revoked, then we can say the Bible still mandates killing her.

But we don't do that anymore, do we? We have interposed our own value-making capacities, and simply done away with what we no longer agree with. We have learned, in other words, that sexual experimentation is just the most natural thing in the world, and therefore we don't kill the kids for doing it.

But strict religious thinking is not so forgiving, doesn't make value judgments based on such niceties as "natural." Muslim girls are killed every year for the like. In another thread in General Religious Debates right now the discussion is about a Muslim singer in Nigeria sentenced to death for a song deemed to blaspheme against the Prophet.

My capacity for making value judgments does not ccme from religion, it comes from my appreciation of my own human nature, and yours, and everybody else's -- and valuing it. But I don't claim that I have any more "proof" (in a scientific sense) for my value judgments. I can argue strongly for them, but never prove them in such a way as to convince everybody else.

 

[Heyo]

For me any way. Science has done nothing to improve my life. Each technology has made the world more dependent on money. Each technology has created harder problems to correct. All this technology has only been created for Power, Wealth and/or longer life for the elite that can afford it. I always argue with my father that humans overall are no better off now than we were as cavemen. Yes we live longer but are more satisfied with that life, are we happier with that live, do we enjoy our family and friends more. Science is all about knowledge of things but religion try's to develop one's spirit. If the individual can live a happy live, a satisfied life with the camaraderie of family and friends how much does that individual need science. See the various different groups of people that shun science today like the Amish.

The Amish don't shun science, they shun technology. They often get mixed together because you can't have technology without science but you can have science without technology. (But who would want that?)
You are right that technology didn't really bring humanity much further but it helped a bit and if we ever get to have a second enlightenment, we'd be happy to have the tech.

 

[Heyo]

The point though was from a happiness, satisfying and rewarding life there is not really any difference today than during the caveman's day's.

Who do you think is more happy, a living human or a dead human?

 

[McBell]

But would that not apply equally to both sides?

Yes.
Which is what is so aggravating about beliefs being presented as though it is fact.

Or people who try to argue against something they obviously know nothing about.

Or people who blindly parrot what they like and ignore that which they dislike.

And it does not matter their religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Nor does any group have a monopoly on it.

 

[McBell]

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

You seem to be unable to differentiate between opinion and fact.

That is a huge problem with the world today.
Far to many people like yourself who do not know the difference.

 

[McBell]

Well, it is backed up by the fact, that we can't reduce the universe down to just hard physical facts.

Now you merely need to establish that this opinion of your yours is, in fact, a fact.
You merely declaring it a fact does not make it a fact.

The evidence is that we both have opinions and can get away with it.

Except that this evidence is merely evidence of differing opinions...

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.

Philosophy is nice in that being completely opinion, you can make whatever declaration you like and there is no need to demonstrate said declaration is even based upon reality.

Of course, being that reality is typically disputed amoungst philosophers helps support their bold empty claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to be unable to differentiate between opinion and fact.

That is a huge problem with the world today.
Far to many people like yourself who do not know the difference.

Well, in fact facts are a subset of opinions, because all assumptions about facts are unprovable assumptions.
The idea from philosophy there are a special kind of beliefs, when are really not beliefs don't hold up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you merely need to establish that this opinion of your yours is, in fact, a fact.
You merely declaring it a fact does not make it a fact.


Except that this evidence is merely evidence of differing opinions...


Philosophy is nice in that being completely opinion, you can make whatever declaration you like and there is no need to demonstrate said declaration is even based upon reality.

Of course, being that reality is typically disputed amoungst philosophers helps support their bold empty claims.

And you can't demonstrate what reality is any more that I can.
But yes, like most people I treat some of my beliefs/opinions as facts.

 

[stvdv]

Even with the correction, it is important to realize that Einstein was referring not to Religion (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) but to our capacity to make value judgments without hard-and-fast rules.

I realize this, hence I put in round brackets (religion or spirituality). And spirituality is for me to follow Sathya(Truth), Dharma(Righteousness)

Science cannot do that -- in that sense, it is indeed blind, because it doesn't have the capacity, in and of itself, to answer whether the creation of the atomic bomb was a "good thing."

Good example with the atomic bomb in relation to Albert Einstein, science, religion/spirituality

• Albert Einstein was famously a pacifist, but he signed a letter to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939 urging him to develop the atomic bomb.
• Einstein and other leading scientists said they were concerned that Nazi Germany could use nuclear energy to build an “extremely powerful bombs of a new type” that could destroy entire ports.
• The letter helped pave the way for the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed an estimated 200,000 people and effectively ended World War II.
• While Einstein later said he felt he had no choice but to encourage the US to develop the technology, he called the letter his “one great mistake in my life,” having learned that Germany was never close to developing atomic bombs.

But it is also true that religion, when it does not base its value judgments on the facts that at least it knows about, and instead depends upon precedent and scriptural inerrancy, quite often gets it wrong.

Why does RF gives an error on the word "inerrancy"

Not all Scriptures claim inerrancy. I don't trust those that claim this. My Scripture declares "Even if God tells you to do something and your conscience says "no", then don't follow what God tells you to do". Conscience is a mix of experience, common sense, knowledge and can be enhanced by following truth/righteousness and meditation/silence. No need to believe in "God" or in heaven/hell for this.

 

[stvdv]

I point out, for example, that the Old Testament mandates the killing of a daughter who goes a little too far with her boyfriend before getting married

Bible says something like: God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of every man; and man is the head of woman.

IF man is head of family and the head of the woman THEN the man should be hold accountable (so killed) not the woman.
This is clearly written by men, and clearly they were hypocritical about it. The man is the head, so he should control himself