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

[Deeje]

It has been shown to you multiple times.

What has been shown to me multiple times.....? You mean I missed the real solid evidence for single celled organisms transforming into dinosaurs? Dang!

But I guess it wasn't in a form that is equivalent to a good science education. I offer to give you one. (Did that to others here, maybe even to you before?) If you accept and don't drop out you'll understand and accept the ToE like everyone who got an education.

You know what's funny? You did offer that once before and then never brought it up again, so I thought you'd run away.....

BTW, not everyone whose had a science education accepts evolution.

What have you got to show me?......I'm all ears. But please do not give me anything you can't prove...OK? If you can't prove it, its not a fact.....its a "belief".....I have my own beliefs...thanks.

 

[Piculet]

From those organs. There is nothing more to it. Anything beyond that is needless speculation.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea.

Many long years amd ages of behaviors becoming genetically ingrained

which individual fish first learned, due to genetic reasons, that it can use electricity as a weapon? It wasn't a behaviour before the first one(s) did it. Did they have the organs for it randomly for ages and then one day the fish realized they work? Or did they always try to use electricity as a weapon and then one day they developed these organs and their attempts finally succeeded?

Incorrect. Reflexes are learned. Instincts are innate. We begin sucking before we have a chance to learn anything.

No. There are different kinds of reflexes.
http://faculty.collin.edu/cdoumen/2401/2401Lab/Reflexes.pdf

Who says ot has to have a purpose?

The evolution theory kind of implies that. They always want to explain this happens because of that. Do you suggest the evolution is random?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In other words, you have absolutely no idea.

I just explained. Giving you an answer doesn't mean I have no idea.

which individual fish first learned, due to genetic reasons, that it can use electricity as a weapon? It wasn't a behaviour before the first one(s) did it. Did they have the organs for it randomly for ages and then one day the fish realized they work? Or did they always try to use electricity as a weapon and then one day they developed these organs and their attempts finally succeeded?

You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable in the field, such as a marine biologist. I don't know the complete history of the electric eel as its not my area.

No. There are different kinds of reflexes.

True. They are all learned. Instincts are innate behaviors that are not learned. They are not interchangeable.

The evolution theory kind of implies that.

Nope.

Do you suggest the evolution is random?

More or less.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Greetings. I meant the us from this statement:

"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."
​

Given that a person's knowledge of anything is individual I am trying to understand who you are defining as the "us" that fits into your above statement. So called "religious" people or both religious and non-religious people. Or possible the "us" of members on RF or just the ones on the forum who hold by certain views?

Also, you saying that the "us" you are refering to take issue with a particular discipline of science, all disciplines from competant sources, or just "bro science" i.e. people on the net claiming to represent science who themselves have never learned it or done it from valid sources?

I am talking about humans in general. It is easier, when doing that, to say "us" than to keep saying "humans in general," and given that both me and my audience are members of that group, it is an apt usage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Well said.

Ad for the answer to the thread question: because in many cases, science is a threat to religious beliefs, or at least perceived as such.

And for many religious folks, upholding their traditions are more important then actually being justified in their beliefs.
They don't care about what is actually true. They only care about what feels comfortable.

 

[Piculet]

True. They are all learned.

I literally linked a whole document explaining that not all reflexes are learned and more. Sucking the thumb, for a baby, is a reflex. I thought you studied this stuff.

Instincts are inborn complex patterns of behavior that exist in most members of the species, and should be distinguished from reflexes, which are simple responses of an organism to a specific stimulus, such as the contraction of the pupil in response to bright light or the spasmodic movement of the lower leg when the knee is tapped.
Instinct - Wikipedia

 

[Piculet]

I am talking about humans in general. It is easier, when doing that, to say "us" than to keep saying "humans in general," and given that both me and my audience are members of that group, it is an apt usage.

I thought it sounded pretentious since I know how much you loath us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I thought it sounded pretentious since I know how much you loath us.

You might consider retracting that statement, as it is most insulting. I am a Humanist -- I value every human person.

For you to say that is equivalent to me saying that "I know you spit in the Prophet's face." Please note that I have never implied such a thing.

 

[Kenny]

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.

I think this statement is too broad of a statement.

First I would hold that in reference to science we, as a human race, know very little as compared to all the science that is out there. So, if anything, a better statement would be no-one knows much of anything at all about science (as compared to what still is unknown)

The amount of things where science conflicts with religious beliefs is so minimal as basically to be inconsequential.

 

[chinu]

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.

I am replacing the word "Science" with "Religion" and "Religion" with "Science" of what you wrote.

Religion is hard, really hard. It takes hard effort to understand the principles and formulas. Religion is precise. You have to get the answer right or you will fail.
Science is an excuse for the lazy and less gifted who can't or won't understand religion. 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.

Correct this ?

 

[ppp]

The amount of things where science conflicts with religious beliefs is so minimal as basically to be inconsequential.

It's consequential to us humans. Religion is in constant conflict with biology - from reproduction to psychology to medical treatments to sexuality to evolution. Some of the most consequential human issues. Religion is in constant conflict with paleontology, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and physics. It is consequential AF.

 

[Heyo]

I am replacing the word "Science" with "Religion" and "Religion" with "Science" of what you wrote.


Correct this ?

Ridiculous. Do you have formulas in your holy book?

 

[Kenny]

It's consequential to us humans. Religion is in constant conflict with biology - from reproduction to psychology to medical treatments to sexuality to evolution. Some of the most consequential human issues. Religion is in constant conflict with paleontology, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and physics. It is consequential AF.

I don't see it that way.

Sometimes even scientists have had problems with other scientists.

And there many Christians who have no problems with that list.

Can you find some? Always. But you can find way out scientists two...

Haeckel's fraudulent embryos were continued to be taught YEARS after it was shown to be false.

 

[ppp]

I don't see it that way.

[shrug] Never the less. All that you have to do is to go to sites like Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, JW org or any of their thousands of kin to see direct attacks on all branches of science. 44% of the US populace are fundamentalists most of whom are strongly anti-biology. If you don't see that you are not looking.

 

[Kenny]

[shrug] Never the less. All that you have to do is to go to sites like Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, JW org or any of their thousands of kin to see direct attacks on all branches of science. 44% of the US populace are fundamentalists most of whom are strongly anti-biology. If you don't see that you are not looking.

so we will ignore when science doesn't correct science and just close our eyes

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News

but forget that... just look at answers in genesis.

I think a great man said "take out the log in your eyes before you take out the splinter in someone else's eye" (paraphrased)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

my future looks way brighter than your future at their hands

Nope. Same earth, same future. You will live until you die, and then sleep forever. Until then, you will be subjected to the same pandemic, and the same global warming, for example.

you have no power to stop them.

No less than you.

both sides of this issue require "beliefs" because neither side can "prove" their case.

I only need to convince myself that my set of beliefs is superior to religious thinking, not you. It is proven to me.

They can evaluate the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

Then at least one is wrong, and it's always religion. In every case where there is a discrepancy, religion is wrong.

True science does not fight with scripture

Science is indifferent to scripture and religion. It often contradicts religious beliefs. What you are calling true science is that science which doesn't contradict your religious beliefs. Your scriptures are not the standard for what science is good. Science that works is good science, even if it contradicts your faith-based beliefs to the contrary.

Your world is based on science which is instrumental in ruining everything you value

No, it's not. Science ruins nothing. You're conflating government and industry with science. Government and industry can use science to ill effect, but science bears no responsibility for eliciting physical truth.

But religion has ruined much, and is always a threat to what I value.

Don't you find that a bit embarrassing ?

Science using indefinite language? No. Embarrassing would be if they were as dogmatic as religion.

If you were ever struck by lightening and had your religious beliefs erased, from that clearer perspective, you would be embarrassed that you ever held them like a sleepwalker awakening in the streets to find that he is naked.

You mean I missed the real solid evidence for single celled organisms transforming into dinosaurs?

Yep. You missed all of the evidence for biological evolution. Blame your faith-based confirmation bias, which allows no contradictory evidence ever to be seen as such. This is why you cannot evaluate evidence. You'd have to see it first, and you'd have to know and be able to successfully apply the rules of reasoning.

And although you continually claim that there is no proof for this or that that is established scientific fact, that's true for you, not me. You referred above to coming to different conclusions about the same evidence as if all conclusions were equally valuable. They are not. Your

please do not give me anything you can't prove

Nothing can be proved to you without your cooperation. One cannot teach a person that which he has a stake in disbelieving, You are too vested in your religious beliefs to allow yourself to see disproof of them, so you don't. Your faith-based confirmation bias shields you from evidence and reason, and we have nothing else to offer, and thus no way to reach you.

One needs a receptive student willing and able to dispassionately review evidence and its attendant argument, to be able to understand if the reasoning is fallacy-free and the conclusion sound, and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument properly understood.

When dealing with a person who uses faith rather than reason and evidence to decide what is true about the world, there is no burden of proof, a phrase which assumes that this is the relationship between the prover and potential provee. If it's not, there is no need to bother trying. There is no hope of success.

So, nothing needs to be proved to you.

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.

The discrepancies can also be rectified by disregarding religion. If there is no god, there is nothing transcendent about by adding one.

Religion adds nothing to the pursuit of scientific truth (I'd say any kind of truth, but this is enough for present purposes), nor does it add anything or play any essential part in the experience of beauty, which atheists do regularly.

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.

I agree completely. Adding a god to anything adds nothing of value, especially scientific pronouncements, which is why there is no god needed in any scientific theory, and adding one ad hoc gives it no additional explanatory or predictive power

Religion needs a progressive system of self inquiry, criticism, and correction if it is to be valid and relevant again.

All that would do is erase it. Religious dicta don't stand up to the light of critical inquiry. They do try to correct some of their errors, as when theists say that they accept the theory of evolution, or begin to call stories once taught as history - the questioning of which would be considered insolent and blasphemous (ask Galileo), and likely resulting in death - allegory or metaphor. A review of what those actually are reveals that biblical myth is neither. It is merely error in a book whose adherents can brook no judgment of error.

So, yeah, religions evolve, but only to the discoveries and other ideas of secular humanist traditions such as science and rational ethics. Religion has no other means of correcting its errors once they are crystallized into writing, such as the biblical moral error of not condemning slavery, rape, or genocide. Christianity has no means to correct that. Only rational ethics, which combines compassion with reason and evidence, can recognize an error in scripture and correct it.

And even though Christians may say that they have accepted scientific evolution, if they still believe that man was made in the image of a god or has a soul implanted in him by that god, then they are not accepting scientific evolution, which requires that evolution be blind and undirected (dysteleological). Nothing is made in any preexisting image.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

religion is more important because it addresses the issues of the purpose of life and finding happiness.

Religion isn't needed for that, and too often, misdirects.The religious people I encounter on these threads are not happier than the irreligious. So what is the importance of something can be successfully disregarded?

I would suggest, as per @Heyo, that science doesn't tend to have the kudos for many because it is hard to understand science.

Of course, one doesn't really need to understand the science to conclude that others must because it works, that it is a valid method of inquiry and its fruits useful, and to benefit from it. No doubt, the people thinking COVID is a hoax and/or won't wear a mask or social dstance, understand no science. But plenty of people who do understand just as little, but they do know who to trust and who to reject.

Science has done nothing to improve my life.

Yes it has. Are you enjoying using the Internet? Did you get polio? Does your house light up at night with the flick of a switch? Do pumps deliver water to your faucet or do you need to drop a bucket in the well and carry it indoors? Do you like driving rather than walking or taking a wagon or carriage? Somehow, you missed all of that.

Science can preserve and prolong life (think antibiotics), preserve or restore function (think eyeglasses), make life healthier, increase the food supply, preserve or restore comfort (think air conditioning), reduce tedium (think electric saws), bring people together (think telephones and airplanes), and make life more interesting (think television).

Science's latest triumph is forensic science, which is not only bringing more people to justice sooner while exonerating the innocent.

I also prefer vinyl and cd's and dvd's and have never had an mp3 player.

So you are benefiting from science. From sound to microphone to electric signals to a recording medium and back again (substitute speaker for microphone), and voila - music without a band or musical instrument. Does that not make your life better?

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.

Science's purpose in not to make your life happier, more satisfying, or more rewarding, although avoiding small pox, for example goes a long way toward facilitating those goals. Science gives you the tools to do that yourself. Science allows us to anticipate outcomes. The rest is up to you.

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.

That's not a defect of science.

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

Big bang theory, evolutionary theory, and plate tectonics contradict Genesis, for example

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.

Because that's wrong. People have forgotten how to use slide rules thanks to hand-held calculators, but no loss there. People well educated in the arts and sciences haven't forgotten how to use their brains, and those that have learned nothing rigorous never knew how in the first place to be able to forget. My wife was just complaining over the telephone that because of spell-check, she's forgotten how to spell. So what if she has spell-check. We just repurpose our grey matter to what it is needed for.

"science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame."

That's a nicety, but I disagree. Science has no need of religion, and religion doesn't benefit from science

science is less comforting than religion

Not to me. Religion offers no comfort.

I see the comfort of religion to be similar to the comfort of a hit from a cigarette in a smoker withdrawing since his last cigarette. Like the cigarette, religion creates and satisfies a need of its own making. If you are raised without either, neither gives you comfort. Or in my case, I quit both over thirty years ago, and now have no need for either, nor am I comforted by either.

What you think is peace is not peace. What you think is not peace might be peace.

Nope. I have no trouble distinguishing between the two. Surprised that you can't.

I thought it sounded pretentious since I know how much you loath us.

You're projecting. The irreligious don't loathe you. But you loathe us. Already, in other threads, you've called us all arrogant and liars. If religions would butt out of our lives, we'd never give them another thought.

 

[Piculet]

The irreligious don't loathe you. But you loathe us. Already, in other threads, you've called us all arrogant and liars. If religions would butt out of our lives, we'd never give them another thought.

I was using you in singular and basing my claim on past discussions with a particular poster.

 

[ppp]

so we will ignore when science doesn't correct science and just close our eyes

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News

but forget that... just look at answers in genesis.

I think a great man said "take out the log in your eyes before you take out the splinter in someone else's eye" (paraphrased)

Even if all that folderol were correct, it would not change the fact that your were grossly incorrect in your claim that religion and science do not conflict in a consequential way. They do.

 

[Kenny]

Even if all that folderol were correct, it would not change the fact that your were grossly incorrect in your claim that religion and science do not conflict in a consequential way. They do.

I guess beauty of the lack thereof is in the eyes of the beholder.