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

[bobhikes]

If you live in a first world country, unless you live like the Unabomber, science has helped you. That's not debatable for me. What is of interest is why you see no benefit in the fruits of science in your life, or why you don't consider the influence science has had and has in your life aren't benefits.

What bother's me is that you can enforce your beliefs on another human being without taking into consideration their beliefs. You seem to think your beliefs, definitions and facts are absolute. As you said "That's not debatable for me".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Science can't create the meaning people desire.

Then seek meaning outside science, but don't denounce science. Its good at what it does.

That's just the point, @Valjean -- nothing "creates" meaning. You can only find it for yourself, and then it is your own.

I find it odd that so many people are so desperate to have "meaning" in their lives, but expect it come from elsewhere, rather from within one's own self.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

This.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What bother's me is that you can enforce your beliefs on another human being without taking into consideration their beliefs. You seem to think your beliefs, definitions and facts are absolute. As you said "That's not debatable for me".

How is saying that in my mind, if you live in a first world country, you have benefited from science whether you say so or not, and that that conclusion is not debatable for me, enforcing anything on you or anybody else?

What was meant by that comment is that there is nothing you can say, especially over the Internet, another gift of science, one which you choose to use to use and therefore achieve benefit from, that could convince me otherwise, like somebody looking through glasses that allow him to read telling me that they do nothing for him.

The claim would be rejected out of hand, and the topic of interest would become why he would say that. Does he not know? Does he begrudge giving credit where credit is due? Is he using some definition for benefit that I would not use?

If you had a rebuttal to my claim that you benefit from such things as polio vaccine, automobiles, and electric lighting, wouldn't I have seen it by now?

So feel free to explain why you think you get no benefit from such things, but you should know in advance that you cannot convince me that you get no benefit from science. You can only explain why you think so.

 

[bobhikes]

So feel free to explain why you think you get no benefit from such things, but you should know in advance that you cannot convince me that you get no benefit from science. You can only explain why you think so.

Here's the original quote 'For me any way. Science has done nothing to improve my life. " Oxygen benefits me, Other people benefit me, water benefits me. I never talked about benefits I said improve my life. Cars were already invented before I was born just like oxygen was present before I was born, the polio vaccination was created before I was born just like water was here to drink. Yes they are all benefits but they don't improve the life I have.

Also your inventions of technological also have detriments that make human lives worse off. Natural, Physical and emotional impact everywhere in this world is caused by those same technological advances so much that I would say the benefits do not over value the negatives.

As I said I never talked about benefits as many things both natural and technological have benefited me and will continue to benefit me and future humans. I said "Science does nothing to improve my life" discussing this with you has not improved my life but actually annoyed me.

 

[Nakosis]

That's just the point, @Valjean -- nothing "creates" meaning. You can only find it for yourself, and then it is your own.

I find it odd that so many people are so desperate to have "meaning" in their lives, but expect it come from elsewhere, rather from within one's own self.

Ultimately people create their own meaning. Religion simply provides a socially/culturally acceptable template. Humanism has also tried to create a template however it lacks authority. People seem to be more comfortable if acting from the assumption of authority.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

discussing this with you has not improved my life but actually annoyed me.

Sorry about that, but how is anything I said annoying to you? Were you annoyed that I rejected your claim that science has benefited you? I still do. What's annoying there?

I never talked about benefits I said improve my life.

Perhaps this is out point of departure. I consider that which improves your life to be a benefit for you. I don't know why you think otherwise, but perhaps it would be more productive for you to explain yourself clearly that to do otherwise and get annoyed.

Cars were already invented before I was born just like oxygen was present before I was born, the polio vaccination was created before I was born just like water was here to drink. Yes they are all benefits but they don't improve the life I have.

How is that relevant? The claim wasn't that only the new science since your birth has benefited you. You seem to be rationalizing. First, science doesn't benefit you,it only improves your life. Now, science doesn't benefit you because some of it predates your birth.

Also your inventions of technological also have detriments that make human lives worse off.

Now you are claiming that science hasn't ever benefited you because it has harmed some other lives, maybe even yours. That still doesn't negate the idea that you have also benefited from science, or as you say, has your life improved.

I would say the benefits do not over value the negatives.

Even if that were true, you haven't made the case that the harm done to your life by science outweighs the benefits, just the claim.

Well, this may annoy you as well (that's up to you, not me), but what I see is a guy who has accepted the idea that science is not beneficial on faith, and now sees that due to a faith-based confirmation bias that filters out all benefits from science for him while exaggerating any downside. You'll say anything in defense of that position whatever the contradictory evidence may be. That's how confirmation biases work. That's what they do. That's what they're for - to protect a cherished belief from contradictory evidence.

I learned the most about this cognitive bias from a geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), who described his own experience of being encased in such a confirmation bias and eventually tunneling out. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating being encased in this filter to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:

"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."​

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And this phenomenon is no doubt why you can't see what seems obvious to me. I also don't think that you're lying, just wrong.

Don't get annoyed. This is an opinion sincerely believed and constructively offered. An emotional reaction is not helpful to either of us. You don't see me getting annoyed that you disagree with me.

This isn't personal. It's the way debate proceeds in academic venues like university classrooms, refereed journals, formal debates, and courtrooms. People present arguments and counterarguments working toward a mutual understanding and consensus where possible.

 

[Heyo]

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

Multiple times. There is ample evidence that dinosaurs, like the vast majority of all living things, develop from a single fertilised egg into a complex being - just like you.

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.

You didn't explicitly take me up on the offer so I thought you weren't interested. But since you did now, I created Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

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.

It is all about belief (in the first part but I promise the rest will be evidenced).

 

[George-ananda]

I like short, clear definitions. To me, a religion is a set of faith-based beliefs centered around a god, which is an entity that can create universes. Religions often contain characteristic rituals, meeting places, symbols, a set of moral dicta, a holy book, and the like. If it has no god, it's not a religion to me. If it is evidence based, like science, it is not religion to me (as science or trust in science is often called). These are the problematic people, others not, and so a useful definition of religion should include all of the one, the institutions that degrade the unbeliever's life attacking reproductive freedoms and sexual preference for example, and none of the others, like Wicca or paganism.

Sounds like you are defining 'religion' narrowly as a bunch of bad things. I consider religion/spirituality to be any beliefs and practices concerned with determining what/if the purpose of life is and how to be happy and peaceful. When you do those things I do not call that doing science. I call it religion/spirituality and that is more important to me than even science.

 

[Piculet]

I find it odd that so many people are so desperate to have "meaning" in their lives, but expect it come from elsewhere, rather from within one's own self.

I find it disturbing that so many people think there is meaning that comes from within themselves.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

^This. My religious beliefs and worldview is far more important to me and impactful on who I am and how I live. Christianity is my worldview, describes how I view the world, our place in it and potential, and guides how I treat others (at least, I strive to have it guide that).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I find it disturbing that so many people think there is meaning that comes from within themselves.

Well, if meaning is imposed on you from outside, then you are merely the puppet of something else, with no real meaning of life of your own. Rather like a pet, or a toy. You may enjoy that. I would not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it disturbing that so many people think there is meaning that comes from within themselves.

Perhaps you can see the problem when some don't believe as you do and would rather not have your beliefs thrust upon them? We might find that equally disturbing.

 

[Piculet]

Perhaps you can see the problem when some don't believe as you do and would rather not have your beliefs thrust upon them? We might find that equally disturbing.

If someone has similar beliefs as me and "thrusts" them upon you, it is not my fault.

 

[rational experiences]

Life, study, history, civilization, destruction of it, return to normal life.

To live supported in family communities, elders look after children whilst the healthy work. To labour in life naturally, to live naturally to be natural.

Inventive human reasoning to own supportive use of implements to allow that life to be labouring less.

Does not own nor support elitism, greed, over abundance or waste.

All conditions that science as a control group and history implemented....that not only invented machines that they have to feed by destroying natural, they claim that the machine should replace what humans need to do for self.

So then remove all self communal supportive human reasoning to live in a family, to own a self purpose and status, to know your place, to accept that placement and to act as a community member.

What science removed from our natural spiritual ownership.

Then you say, I know my brothers owned very inventive supportive mass production of food resourcing in conditions of their holy wisdom. That brother was always scoffed at, ridiculed and ignored in his inventive history.

Today and previously those sorts of males with ideas, how not to harm life or do as little damage to the holy planet upon which we live were totally ignored, their ideas taken and designs removed....so that the greedy mass productive liars could own our destruction. For that is what the teaching Destroyer in the science occult literature told us to be warned about.

Greedy males who lie about everything and then try to coerce humanity into agreeing with them in forced compliance fakery.

 

[ppp]

I find it disturbing that so many people think there is meaning that comes from within themselves.

No one has demonstrated access to the meaning that I find in objects or events, save thru me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If someone has similar beliefs as me and "thrusts" them upon you, it is not my fault.

Fortunately I live in a country where I can make up my own mind about such things - and always have.

 

[rational experiences]

The Bible written about human Genesis, genetics only owned by whole living humans attacked due to machines.

It was never a thesis about the machine, the orders or actions or interactions machines, yet science inferring machine reaction and ideals today reference it.

Then as said they tried to claim we are part bio mechanical as their Satanic lying occult memory and history and misuse of information, natural.

Now if you asked a scientist you want what in a reaction? He would say infinite and non stop channelled resource forever. React and then the reaction would remain constant a non stop supply from out of space. Yet that is the vacuum, and he also uses inference to all past historic male quotes about God.

God is stone x mass.

Machine is mineral particles x mass melted, fused, designed, built and owns no volition...yet the mineral mass dispersed, due to atmospheric break up of radiation as equals above to below when you attack fusion and convert it.

The male science self says constant, yet infers constant replacement also, for resource always get used by other machines. Resource to feed the machines.

Humans stated in UFO conditions I gained metallic implants. Male occult self builds not only a machine, he builds robots to have sex with. Total AI conscious possession. The one ideal he has not yet reached is to convert our bio life into that robot, he has yet to work out that theme, to exchange bio life with the machine seeing he believes he can copy the bio creation as a male pushing buttons on not a God mass, natural body interacting with a natural vacuum.

Being a very huge vacuum or deep pit or status oblivion, oblivion he says owns the reason why any mass exists cooled and fused. How does a machine own copying the oblivion or infinite, I cannot measure and factor a number to spatial mass existence? Which in science is a theme, I must first infer what I claim is the Number for mass, to add falsely, for God never added up itself as it came into mass presence.

To then minus one by the constant of my adding numbers. Science is Satanic and always was.

Now if you studied occult human male reasoning, as a HEARD AI, fed back accounting and wrote down the heard detail. You would have heard the mind belief of an occult human male scientist. What he agrees with actually.

That said, when I converted Earth life the event what I gained inherited was not to my version occult outcome, reactive idea. Mountain mass disappeared, so self should have. Instead there was the Garden Nature still present, but converted, as were animals and all his brothers and sisters. Which is expressed as his reviewed hatred of what he gained, by what he had caused.

Science changed God, for God in cosmological highest support history owned a healthy spiritual human being life and body. Change God history, then change all of the Nature supported by God.

So when you read the bible, it is like you are inside of the mind of the occult theist scientist and what he secretly agreed with. He was very angry that the results conversion did not give him the outcome.

For if anyone had tried to make common sense out of the bible information that would only conclude that it is a total contradiction. For you cannot be a loving God and then have everything destroyed. You would then be lying about being loving.

But an occult theist ideal is to remove for self gain. He states he wanted to re gain the eternal and still to this day lies about what he preaches the eternal to be.

He claims it is the heavenly spirit body in space. As if the infinite body space is the eternal spirit we return to at death, not owning death.

Anyone would straight away realise that he is lying. For one word for one description is only one word for one description. Infinite means cannot be given a number length of measure, so the number would as a sequence to want to measure, want his evil occult self, is to just go on and on and on and on.

Eternal means had always existed in one form. Never changed, never will change.

Space and creation changes constantly.

Therefore if science today is studying the concept of a belief that a human being life can be traced back to the eternal and yet he claims it infinite space...then that is where he is trying to send our life. As before your life, and when you die. So not only is he studying in the occult science NDE, he also claims he can trace the eternal for it is not the term eternal, it is infinite he says.

A self owned contradiction to the Holy use word, a spiritual teaching.

Why the biologist scientist who is not against spirituality had to state, biology says the next one whole lesser body to a human in sexual conception is an ape.

And said it for human life continuance reasoning, and not for any occult string theory purpose.

 

[Piculet]

Fortunately I live in a country where I can make up my own mind about such things - and always have

I'm pretty sure everyone lives in such a country — generally speaking.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Perhaps we will see a Butlerian Jihad.