Isn't modern science overrated?

[TimeEntrance]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

I think it has a lot to do with the story told about religion. Basically the story goes that religion explained everything occurring in the natural world as cause by demons and/or God or other spirits. That religion caused the masses to suffer and oppressed science and logic that could and would have ended or reduced suffering.

I don’t think most people equate religion with philosophy either.

I think most of us lay people (of religion and science) don’t really understand the different roles of science and religion and confuse their limitations.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I’d like to ask what Galileo thought of the Church and science…

He was a Third Order Franciscan I think–or a lay Catholic “on steroids.” Kind of like Gregor Mendel was a priest and monk and the professor credited with the Big Bang theory a priest as well.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I have a college anatomy and physiology text book that asks the question what is human life, is it sperm? It asks the question to suggest the answer can not be known and to ally itself (in my opinion) with judicial opinion in Row vs Wade (many of the Justices said they could not know when life begins).

I’ve had other biology texts books that have stated human life begins at conception. The term “conception” (beginning) should be a clue anyways, so should the meaning in the title Planned Parenthood.

Basically, scientists are human. I have a TA for lab that told all of us students to write down our biological sex and not what we identify as if we identify as the opposite sex. For purposes of a class exercise taking down physical measurements of each other. That an example of a grad student in science not seeking to make science agree with political or ideological views. When a scientist states they don’t know when human life begins this is an example, in my opinion, of science beginning with non-scientific opinions from lawyers on the Supreme Court. In other words… science in practice is kind of like someone putting a dead rat on the side of their face to relieve a tooth ache.

 

[Fomalhaut]

When a scientist states they don’t know when human life begins this is an example, in my opinion, of science beginning with non-scientific opinions from lawyers on the Supreme Court. In other words… science in practice is kind of like someone putting a dead rat on the side of their face to relieve a tooth ache.

Well, a honest scientist HAS to tell you he doesn’t know where human life begin. Simply because it is very ill-defined. Science doesn’t provide a clear definition of what a living human being is. Because “human” is semantics. Is a brain dead patient with artificially pumped blood a living human being ? Was Lucy the Australopithecus a human being ? Where does it stop, where does it start ? Of course religious people assume life begins at conception and that humans were actually humans once they were given a soul, I can understand that viewpoint, but you can’t ask scientists to automatically share your assumptions.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

We want what science refuses to give: truth.

What do you mean by that?

The scientific method has discovered more truth than, well, anything. Proof: see my previous post. Life expectancies - including medicine, food, sanitation, shelter, protection from natural disasters, etc., comfort levels - including technology, transportation times, etc.

To all the above: we are going to die so these things are ultimately unimportant.

I take it that Jesus disagrees:

Matthew 25:35-40

English Standard Version (ESV)

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

 

[antunesaa]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

The last question has an obvious answer: the successes of science in explaining natural phenomena and producing various useful tools for our daily lives. Think about artificial satellites, penicillin, crop selection, the Bing Bang theory. (Granted, you can also enumerate dreadful inventions like the hydrogen bomb, anthrax, scientific experiments with humans - including vivisection and human embryonic cell research -, the AK-47 assault rifle, etc.) So there’s no question that science can help us humans improve and develop our potential.

My point here is the following. Modern science has perhaps 250 or so years (some people go a little more back, maybe to the Middle Ages, with Roger Bacon’s experiments and the numerous incremental advances in technological disciplines across European universities). Christianity is 2000 years old and builds on a religious and philosophical tradition that goes back perhaps 3000 years. So, scientism (the belief system that takes science for a lot more than a useful instrument for mankind) is in its infancy. The problem is that it is already dying. When you look at the 18th century literature and philosophy, you notice the almost divine status of science. People seemed to believe that science would solve all their problems. Then came the terrible XXth century numerous wars and famines and this optimism disappeared. Today, does anyone really believe that science is going to make us happier, or better, or more just? Passion, compassion and justice pills, anyone? Some people might still think that science can serve as the foundation of a new world view; but this is a marginal movement nowadays and it is also clear that consumerism and utilitarianism will lead us nowhere. So I think that in a sense you’re right, science is indeed overrated, but only by those who believe that it can be the basis of a credible belief system, rather than an extremely useful (and sometimes dangerous) tool for mankind.

 

[fakename]

What do you mean by that?

The scientific method has discovered more truth than, well, anything. Proof: see my previous post. Life expectancies - including medicine, food, sanitation, shelter, protection from natural disasters, etc., comfort levels - including technology, transportation times, etc.

I take it that Jesus disagrees:

Matthew 25:35-40

English Standard Version (ESV)

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

(1) The ability to heal a man is the exact opposite of knowing what constitutes health. Practical issues are almost always issues of experience and particularity, but the higher the science, the less practical it becomes. In any case, it is also false that “science” leads to truth even in theory. For a theory that explains a few facts has a larger chance of being correct than a theory that explains more facts simply because it deals with fewer events that can be falsified. As such, the better the “scientific” hypothesis, the inherently less likely it is to be true and the cake is a lie.

(2)
A noble point, but one that doesn’t deliver the “knock-out” to my point. Healing the sick, and etc. was always possible in less advanced civilizations however, knowing the truth was always something more easily lost. Observe also, that instructing the ignorant is an even more precious ability than feeding the hungry, so that we should not endure loosing that science which is the truest of the true in order to pick up mere arts and crafts which help us to feed ourselves better.

 

[Rich]

It justifies atheism and therefore all kinds of sin. It also seems to be a means of making fun of people who question our culture’s worship of modern science.

Why does it justify atheism? Many of our greatest minds, past and present, showed science to prove a God.

 

[Solus_vistor]

It is not true that Christian beliefs and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that Christian berliefs and science are mutually irrelevant.

It is true that some interpretations of Christian beliefs and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that “uninterpreted” Christian beliefs and “uninterpreted” science are mutually irrelevant.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Well, a honest scientist HAS to tell you he doesn’t know where human life begin. Simply because it is very ill-defined. Science doesn’t provide a clear definition of what a living human being is. Because “human” is semantics. Is a brain dead patient with artificially pumped blood a living human being ? Was Lucy the Australopithecus a human being ? Where does it stop, where does it start ? Of course religious people assume life begins at conception and that humans were actually humans once they were given a soul, I can understand that viewpoint, but you can’t ask scientists to automatically share your assumptions.

This is not entirely true. Even my Anatomy and Physiology book states like my previous other biology text books that human development begins with the fertilized egg. There is a whole study into embryonic development.

I didn’t need to mention the term “soul” because it’s not a scientific concept. The life sciences don’t need the use of a concept of a “soul” to the growth and development of human life.

I don’t know why you brought up an Australopithecus either. There is only one race of humans (if you believe contemporary anthropologists) on earth today. And female humans give birth to them.

 

[John_Savage]

I think science is good for finding stuff out. Architecture is good for building buildings. Agricultural science has kept the world fed.

I think the OP meant something like scientism. That’s a mixed bag.

The idea that the physical world follows certain laws has been helpful in dispelling superstitions. Some claim this idea is of Christian origin or at least not opposed to Christian thought. The idea that science replaces legitimate religion is a bad thing, if you’re religious. If you’re not religious, then it’s had a good effect on society, regardless of whether it’s completely coherent.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Firstly, I started at the beginning of the thread and tried to work my way through all ten pages, but I couldn’t bring myself to do so. In that light, I won’t offer any of my personal opinions, but rather something that might aid in the discussion. Here’s an important, fundamental point that I think too few fail to mention in these kind of debates. The difference between a scientific hypothesis and a theory. Scientific theory is fact UNTIL it is disprove, and hence the moniker of ‘theory’ is kept. The best example of this is the switch from Newtonian to Einstenian physics; Einstein discovered things that disproved some of Newton’s theory, and therefore became the new accepted facts.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven’t tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

In conclusion, one must realize that SCIENTIFIC THEORY is not the same as a postulated theory. Hope this helps, God bless.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Firstly, I started at the beginning of the thread and tried to work my way through all ten pages, but I couldn’t bring myself to do so. In that light, I won’t offer any of my personal opinions, but rather something that might aid in the discussion. Here’s an important, fundamental point that I think too few fail to mention in these kind of debates. The difference between a scientific hypothesis and a theory. Scientific theory is fact UNTIL it is disprove, and hence the moniker of ‘theory’ is kept. The best example of this is the switch from Newtonian to Einstenian physics; Einstein discovered things that disproved some of Newton’s theory, and therefore became the new accepted facts.

Einstein’s theory of relativity did not disprove Newtonian mechanics. What his theory did was resolve the issue of Newton’s mechanics being wrong on the cosmological scale. We still use Newtonian mechanics to send rockets into space, not Einstein’s field equations.

 

[Leana]

If I may…I consider science (modern science) a tool by which we can seek to understand and use creation. Our growing knowledge of creation hopefully leads us to better praise, reverence and serve God our Lord.

Science can act as a corrector of our Catholic faith. For example, we once believed literally that the world was about 6000 to 8000 years old and that it was created in six actual earth days. Science, through its methods, has demonstrated that the cosmos is likely billions of years old.

Science can neither prove (scientifically) nor disprove the existence of God or how God is the author of all creation. To believe that science can prove or disprove God’s existence, or lack thereof, is to give oneself over to scientific fundamentalism. Science, as it advances, can answer scientific questions. Theology, on the other hand, can answer questions of faith. It does not appear to me that theology can answer scienfic questions, and neither can science answer questions posed by faith and theology. I believe it is important to know when one is asking a question of science and when one is asking a question of faith (or theology).

Science shows us (people of fath) that creation is a mystery, the origins of which are hidden in the Mystery that we call God. As a person of faith, all creation, including sceince, speaks to me of the wondrous and mysterious presence of an intimate loving God who is always with us, every scientifica step of the way.

As I sit here and form this reflection, I am overwhelmed, as I often am, that our God seeks in all things to love us, to care for us and to call us to Himself…In all things…including science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Modern science may well be overrated.

When they first invented nuclear weapons, scientists were ecstatic at their creation of the ultimate weapon.

Today we all live in fear of nuclear meltdown somewhere or everywhere in the world sooner or later.

On balance, how do all the achievements of modern science stand against this one?

The time may one day come when the world will curse Einstein and all nuclear science.

We just don’t know.

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

Science in itself does not, and cannot, negate God. Science is concerned with the natural world, the metaphysicial world is the concern of theology, religion, and philosophy.

 

[Solus_vistor]

Science in itself does not, and cannot, negate God. Science is concerned with the natural world, the metaphysicial world is the concern of theology, religion, and philosophy.

In other words, scientific theories (including those about the working of evolution) by their very nature cannot contradict a theist outlook, unless either or both are interpreted with the purpose of finding a contradiction, i.e. unless science is seen as ersatz-religion and/or religion as ersatz-science (the latter having had some justification in the past, when no proper science existed).

 

[tonyrey]

If I may…I consider science (modern science) a tool by which we can seek to understand and use creation. Our growing knowledge of creation hopefully leads us to better praise, reverence and serve God our Lord.

Science can act as a corrector of our Catholic faith. For example, we once believed literally that the world was about 6000 to 8000 years old and that it was created in six actual earth days. Science, through its methods, has demonstrated that the cosmos is likely billions of years old.

Science can neither prove (scientifically) nor disprove the existence of God or how God is the author of all creation. To believe that science can prove or disprove God’s existence, or lack thereof, is to give oneself over to scientific fundamentalism. Science, as it advances, can answer scientific questions. Theology, on the other hand, can answer questions of faith. It does not appear to me that theology can answer scienfic questions, and neither can science answer questions posed by faith and theology. I believe it is important to know when one is asking a question of science and when one is asking a question of faith (or theology).

Science shows us (people of fath) that creation is a mystery, the origins of which are hidden in the Mystery that we call God. As a person of faith, all creation, including sceince, speaks to me of the wondrous and mysterious presence of an intimate loving God who is always with us, every scientifica step of the way.

As I sit here and form this reflection, I am overwhelmed, as I often am, that our God seeks in all things to love us, to care for us and to call us to Himself…In all things…including science.

Welcome to the forum, Leana.

An excellent first post!

 

[cheezey]

Welcome to the forum, Leana.

An excellent first post!

Yes, I thought so, too. Makes me want to find a book that is buried in boxes.
“Show Me God.” a Science book