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

[Piculet]

No.

Why not?

 

[Heyo]

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

And why would it hurt you or your position to say that you are not claiming scientific facts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To me being religious or spiritual, does not mean you need to believe in God. All that matters is to be a good human. Love is the key.

Being a good person is not religious or spiritual. Such as, I have no religious adherence amd I do not live in accordance to any spiritual religion or philosophy. Thus I do get annoyed when people try call me spiritual and insist I am. I'm not.

 

[Piculet]

More loving, less hurting. More Peace.

Some things you think are loving, are hurting, some you think are hurting are loving. What you think is peace is not peace. What you think is not peace might be peace.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why not?

Why not? I said why not. Pretending I didnt by just including "no" doesn't mean I failed to give an explanation.
In a nutshell, I deny it because I've worked with electricity enough to get how static electricity works, everyone at times unintentionally releases a built up charge, and lots of us have the knowledge that lets us do it on command, but because we know how it works and what's going on. Not because of gods, religion, magic, or other superstitious means.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And why would it hurt you or your position to say that you are not claiming scientific facts?

Well, that is indeed a fact, but not a scientific fact. It is true, that I can do something, which doesn't involve science and yet you can observe it and know it. So there is something true and a fact, which isn't scientific.

 

[stvdv]

Being a good person is not religious or spiritual. Such as, I have no religious adherence amd I do not live in accordance to any spiritual religion or philosophy. Thus I do get annoyed when people try call me spiritual and insist I am. I'm not.

You can have your definition of spirituality, I have mine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Well at least you have upgraded to CDs. Mp3s are just so much more convenient, and sounding as reasonably good as anything else.
And you sound like my dad, he did much the same - and good for him and you - no issues with that.

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.

Except there is a vast difference - you have your music to listen to, any books to read, the internet to distract one, affordable places to visit and to learn about other cultures. The rich/poor divide has always been there - well ever since we gathered in larger groups - and all the poor are actually wanting to be in our (much of us I'll grant are privileged) place, and hopefully they will be doing so. I think we just have to do better, and capitalism isn't exactly helping. I have travelled a bit so I know something about the wealth/poverty gap.

All I'm saying is that it was probably inevitable that we have developed as we have done, although not necessarily in the same manner, and we should be grateful for the advances made by all those who have gone before so as to enable such. Obviously some things, like nuclear weapons, one would rather hadn't been invented.

 

[Piculet]

In a nutshell, I deny it because I've worked with electricity enough to get how static electricity works, everyone at times unintentionally releases a built up charge

Well why don't you think I can use electricity as a weapon like the fish? Where would fish get electricity? How would it occur to a fish to use electricity as a weapon? You've studied, but can you do what the fish does? Why don't we all do what the fish does? Why don't all fish have that weapon?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well why don't you think I can use electricity as a weapon like the fish?

Because you can't.

Where would fish get electricity?

Most of an electric eel's body is three organs that generate its electricity, combined with a nervous system equiped to handle it. Its a part of them that enables them to do that, just as our opposable thumbs enable us to do many things other animals cannot. Or how a bird has feathers amd a hollowed skeleton for flight. Or dogs with theor incredible olfactory receptors that allow them to interpret and navigate the world through scent.

How would it occur to a fish to use electricity as a weapon?

It's called instinct. Birds are not taught to build a nest, they just know. Such as how we often begin sucking our thumhs while still in the womb, because to humans sucking is instinctive.

Why don't we all do what the fish does?

Why can't all sharks and whales eat prey larger than plankton? Why can't a fish do all the things we can. (We don't have the anatomy for it)

Why don't all fish have that weapon?

They don't have the anatomy for it. An orca is capable of killing and swallowing a human. The much larger basking shark, however, despite having a mouth large enough to engulf us and swallow us whole, their throat is much too small to swallow prey our size amd they would choke to death if they attempted to eat us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can have your definition of spirituality, I have mine.

That doesn't mean it's polite. Best not to insist people are something they aren't.

 

[stvdv]

That doesn't mean it's polite. Best not to insist people are something they aren't.

I only said:

To me being religious or spiritual, does not mean you need to believe in God. All that matters is to be a good human. Love is the key.

I gave my opinion. But if you want to give it a mean twist, then that only tells something about you. I was polite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I only said:


I gave my opinion. But if you want to give it a mean twist, then that only tells something about you. I was polite.

Your definition applies spirituality to people who themselves would never use the term to describe themselves. You might as well call a Muslim a Jew becaus Judaism is the origins of Islam.

 

[stvdv]

Your definition applies spirituality to people who themselves would never use the term to describe themselves. You might as well call a Muslim a Jew becaus Judaism is the origins of Islam.

I follow Sanathana Dharma, and this is what Spirituality means to me. And I am not the only one who believes this way. I was only giving my own opinion, don't read more into it. You start a whole problem, where there was no problem. And I am not interested in creating problems. If you like to create problems, do it yourself. Don't involve me in your problems.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

IMO....
Science = useful
Religion = useless bunk

 

[Piculet]

Because you can't.

But you haven't proven that. You can't. You assume.

Most of an electric eel's body is three organs that generate its electricity, combined with a nervous system equiped to handle it.

That tries to explain how the body of the fish creates electricity. We know it has a special system inside it that makes it possible. But where do those come from?
Why would fish have those? Does evolution explain why some fish have those and how they came to be? When did the fish use electricity for the first time and why? Those without the ability get along alright. And that's just the electric eel...

It's called instinct.

Why do fish have instincts?

they just know

Why don't you know how to build a house without any guidance? Why do the bird know more than you? Did you ever "just know" how to build a boat? Did you "just know" how to talk? Did you "just know" how to count?

Such as how we often begin sucking our thumhs while still in the womb, because to humans sucking is instinctive.

That's not an instinct. It's a reflex.

Why can't all sharks and whales eat prey larger than plankton? Why can't a fish do all the things we can. (We don't have the anatomy for it)

Anatomy?

a·nat·o·my
(ə-năt′ə-mē)
n. pl. a·nat·o·mies
1. The bodily structure of a plant or an animal or of any of its parts.
2. The science of the shape and structure of organisms and their parts.
3. A treatise on anatomic science.
4. Dissection of a plant or animal to study the structure, position, and interrelation of its various parts.
5. A skeleton.
6. The human body.
7. A detailed examination or analysis: the anatomy of a crime.
anatomy

Did you mean they?

They don't have the anatomy for it

Why not? What is the purpose? Why is there such a thing as electric fish?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But you haven't proven that. You can't. You assume.

You lack the anatomy to do so. You being human is proof enough.

That tries to explain how the body of the fish creates electricity. We know it has a special system inside it that makes it possible. But where do those come from?

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

Why do fish have instincts?

Many long years amd ages of behaviors becoming genetically ingrained. Like how we just know the basics on how to have sex without being taught.

That's not an instinct. It's a reflex.

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

What is the purpose?

Who says ot has to have a purpose?

 

[stvdv]

IMO....
Science = useful
Religion = useless bunk

IMO:
That is not very Scientific (science used to be specific, not generalizing)

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO:
That is not very Scientific (science used to be specific, not generalizing)

Well, it is just an opinion.
And I'm only an engineer, not a scientist.

 

[stvdv]

Well, it is just an opinion.
And I'm only an engineer, not a scientist.

Under Sharia Law your opinion would (not "could") have been "your death sentence" I think

 

[Revoltingest]

Under Sharia Law your opinion would (not "could") have been "your death sentence" I think

Well then that does it...I'm not moving to countries with sharia courts.