Has The Religion of Science Let us Down More Than Religion

Its a thought I wanted to touch on after reading a couple of mocking of religious subjects.
People talking about how science is the savior and religion is defunct.

So here is the question I pose.

Has science really given us what it promised? I'm not saying it is bad, but has it really fulfilled its Utopian promise.
Or is the problem with science the application of it by evil people?
We have GMO's
Vaccines that are creating autism.
Poison in our water,
Radiation cancers from cel phones.
and the list goes on and on

If it is the people and not the science, then maybe we should look at religion the same way. Stop blaming the religion and start blaming people.

Science is great for its discoveries, but the application...?

What do you think?

Science is not a religion.
Oh and No it has not Science have saved many people and without it many of us would have died before 40.
If no one would have bothered about science we would be thinking old books were the truth and we would still be in the dark ages.
Oh and comparing one thing that is provable and one thing that isn't is a bit silly.

reply to post by winterkill


The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they became with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier to see something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.

Does that balance how many science has killed?
We hold great faith in our science, that makes it a religion.
See how many come to mass when the latest " i " gizmo is being sold.

reply to post by boymonkey74


But surely you're aware of those people who do treat science as a religion? (see: most renown empirically and physicality-binded scientists) As in, those who believe science can really answer everything. They can assure you they exist; I used to be one of those people.

Anyways, OP, I believe we're currently in the "technological age" as Moore's Law states for every two years technology increases tenfold or so. If you continue looking at the trend, if and when laid out on a graph, you eventually reach a point of infinity where technology basically reaches a "singularity." I believe, if we were able to, with our current understanding and system of science, coincide it with the fact that it cannot answer everything, that we'd be able to advance and progress even further with more beneficial progressions to that of the welfare of humanity. Perhaps it's really a good idea to just "unplug" once in a while.

reply to post by winterkill


It's not the science that is the problem.

It's the corporations, governments, and people applying the science to generate profit that is the issue. Science is essentially indifferent. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

reply to post by winterkill


Wrong, Science requires no faith at all, because we have proved it.
We can hope science will solve all the problems mankind but we do not need faith in it.

As opposed to religion which has caused countless wars and controlled almost every aspect of how humans live? I would say consumerism is more dangerous than science, science by itself just advances our understandings, it is religion and greed etc that push people to use science unethically.

reply to post by winterkill

Originally posted by winterkill
Does that balance how many science has killed?

How is reliable knowledge (or the method of finding it) able to kill?

reply to post by SirMike


There is a term for it but I can't remember what it is. It applies to food and economics. IN regards to food, say you look forward all day to this great tirimisu. The first bite is heaven. The next bite is almost heaven, but not quite as satisfying as t he first, and so on.

It is human nature, nothing more.If humans were easily satisfied, we would never get anywhere.

Religion: "you are condemned for not believing as I do - I shall destroy you (on Gods Behalf)"
Science: "Well, wadda ya know.....here is a weapon I just made that can help you in your endeavour".

Cue Earths history...........right up to 6th December 2012 @ 1824hrs GMT.

No not at all but it's the people or shall I say gov't that has let me down in the fact they won't release any god damn information ever.

reply to post by winterkill


Science is not a religion. Science is based on facts. Religions is based on hearsay and conjecture. Big difference.

reply to post by OwenGP185


Well said

Originally posted by winterkill
Its a thought I wanted to touch on after reading a couple of mocking of religious subjects.
People talking about how science is the savior and religion is defunct.

So here is the question I pose.

Has science really given us what it promised? I'm not saying it is bad, but has it really fulfilled its Utopian promise.
Or is the problem with science the application of it by evil people?
We have GMO's
Vaccines that are creating autism.
Poison in our water,
Radiation cancers from cel phones.
and the list goes on and on

If it is the people and not the science, then maybe we should look at religion the same way. Stop blaming the religion and start blaming people.

Science is great for its discoveries, but the application...?

What do you think?

Science is not a religion.

I know that it is the new propaganda tactic of bible thumpers. Since people are against religion, and the religious are threatened by science, they try to turn people away from science by calling it a religion. Or hope to bring people closer to religion by making it similar, I haven't decided yet.

The fact that you even have to ask what science's applications are show that you don't know much about it.

Everything, that you touch and do in everyday life is a result of science. From the clean water you get, to the safety of your car, to the doctor prescrbing you medicine, to the computer that you are using. To the food you eat.

It may not be a popular idea, it is not even popular with me, but GMO is the only reason that the world has enough food today, because sustainability of current populations is only because we have GMO, without GMO, we will not be able to feed the world's population today.

Over a third of the land that has been developed, is for meat. Cows, pigs, and chickens take up a third of developed land to provide food. If the population continues to grow at the pace it is, we will need even more modified animals and grazing lands, and the lands used to feed these animals, in order to keep providing meat. It is a necessary evil.

Vaccines may create autism, but they also prevent a lot of diseases as well. Some ARE effective. If you think they are not, third world countries that can't afford adequate vaccination would not be rampant with disease if they had it.

The amount of radiation to cause cancer from cells phones is very, very minute. If they were that dangerous, people would be afraid to use them.

So here is the list of things that science has saved:

cancer treatment
low infant mortality. (if it were not for science, my son and I would be dead)
A third of the population of those living in the dark ages, died. A third of children would die, and most of those children would lose both parents by the time they became adults themselves. So yes, science keeps people alive.
We can now travel around the world in hours.
We can now call people anywhere in the world.
We can now clothe people anywhere in the world.
Most of the world has electricity, and potable drinking water.

Even car deaths will be mostly eliminated soon. Like I said, science is evolutionary. It has to progress. You can't go from a model T ford to a flying delorian in one step.

Right now Google is working on a car that can drive itself. It is much safe and accurate then any human driver. It has logged 200,000 miles on the road without a single incident. Most humans can't claim the same.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by winterkill

 

Wrong, Science requires no faith at all, because we have proved it.
We can hope science will solve all the problems mankind but we do not need faith in it.

Assumptions based on understanding contain belief in an absolute ground out of which all things spring like plants growing from seeds. Behind such assumptions lies a faith in words that is unquestioned. The act of saying that things exist that cannot be described in words shakes a universe where words are the supreme belief.
***
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

-The Dune Chronicles

“ People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define "reality". But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts... Their "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider them to simply be living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs?...
how much can you really see?”

-Uchiha Itachi

reply to post by nixie_nox


"brought to you by the church of scientism"