Science doesn't have all the answers!

[c4ts]

I hate it when people say that in order to give religion a priority. Science may not have all the answers, but it has a lot more than religion ever gave us.

The other misconception is that nothing can be known. If all knowledge is meaningless, then there is no point in saying so. And, if you look at what knowledge really is, you will find that it can be gained from things like evidence, experience, logic, and reason. We may know relatively little compared to the rest of the universe, but it's still something, and compared to your average human being, it's a lot.

And another thing. Why do people think science is a kind of faith? Do they take scientific theory as fact because they believe in it? This is the wrong way to go about understanding science. If all theories were believed in and accepted as truth, there would be no point to testing them, no further scientific progress whatsoever. Scientific thought is derived from the philosophy of the unbeliever. To say it is a kind of faith is to deny its very foundations.

[Rose]

Science might not have all the answers, but at least it looks for them. Not to mention guess who comes up with most of the questions...

[Yahweh]

Science doesn't have all the answers!

Gahhh! You mean we are still progressing scientifically?!

Common misconception: Attacking science does not constitute as "even more proof of the devine existence of god!". There is actually very little science cant explain. And no, if science cannot explain something that is known to exist (i.e. Do we have a Quantum Theory of Gravitation yet? I dont know of one...), it cannot possibly be described as "proof of God". If ignorance of a particular field of why you attack science and attempt to establish God, seek education (Note: Try at your local community college, your Sunday School will do nothing to help you).

100s upon 1000s of books written to fill the totality of all things known scientifically would fill libraries. Is it possible for that tiny "Bible" thing to hold all the answers (is it possible that bible might be incomplete... or perhaps "inaccurate")?

[Upchurch]

Religions do have all the answers!!









they just have many wrong answers, but as long as they don't admit it, there isn't a problem.

[athon]

Gah! GRRRRR!

So many misconceptions....don't know where to start...

OK. Science is not a bank of wisdom. It is not a library of knowledge. It is definately not a book of answers.

It is a methodology. It is a system which, when followed, enables somebody to piece together known facts to speculate a story that best combines those pieces to resemble objective reality. It is a pattern of dreaming - a guide to interpreting the language of universal data that our feeble senses can gather.

Science leads us to build a picture of the universe that can be built upon. It does not give 'answers' outright - we create them ourselves with our imaginations. What it does is tells us which colours and which shapes to use to create the tapestry of nature in our heads to best resemble the objective universe. Science will indicate the picture might be wrong if newly discovered pieces don't fit. It does not force answers, it coerces a new way of looking at things.

Religion draws those pictures for you. New pieces are not allowed, and the picture cannot change. The answers need not reflect anything that resembles the colours and shapes you perceive with your senses.

So science does not provide all the answers. And let's be grateful for that!

Athon

[ceo_esq]

Aren't scientific knowledge and moral/spiritual knowledge sufficiently distinct to render this kind of exercise pointless?

What are the questions, anyway?

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Aren't scientific knowledge and moral/spiritual knowledge sufficiently distinct to render this kind of exercise pointless?

What are the questions, anyway?

There are plenty of areas that scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge collide and contradict each other.

Some of them (for example HIV - a virus or God's punishment of the unbelivers) are sufficiently important that a responsible person should choose a side.

Graham

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Aren't scientific knowledge and moral/spiritual knowledge sufficiently distinct to render this kind of exercise pointless? Not when the questions overlap (and disagree). For example, the origins of the universe, the origins of mankind, the ages and timelines of various events, what happens near death, etc.

[whitefork]

Science doesn't have all the answers? Well, sheeeyut, religion doesn't have most of the questions.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Graham
There are plenty of areas that scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge collide and contradict each other.

Some of them (for example HIV - a virus or God's punishment of the unbelivers) are sufficiently important that a responsible person should choose a side.

Graham But this is an example of the sort of distinction to which I'm referring. Spiritual knowledge cannot tell us that HIV is a virus. Scientific knowledge cannot tell us, beyond what might naturally be implicated by the existence and properties of the virus, what role (if any) the virus might play in hypothetical deific schemes.
Originally posted by Upchurch
Not when the questions overlap (and disagree). For example, the origins of the universe, the origins of mankind, the ages and timelines of various events, what happens near death, etc.You've evoked what, in my opinion, are specific instances in which moral/spiritual knowledge has been mistaken for knowledge of the scientific sort. [EDIT: Oops, that's not exactly what I meant to type. It is an example of a putative source of spiritual knowledge being mistaken for a source of scientific knowledge, and interpreted accordingly.] They are not actually instances of moral/spiritual knowledge insofar as they do not relate to subjects of a moral or spiritual nature. I realize that this distinction is not recognized by some people (e.g. Creationists), but I submit that it is still a valid one.

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But this is an example of the sort of distinction to which I'm referring. Spiritual knowledge cannot tell us that HIV is a virus. Scientific knowledge cannot tell us, beyond what might naturally be implicated by the existence and properties of the virus, what role (if any) the virus might play in hypothetical deific schemes.

That's all well and good as far as pure knowledge goes.

The conflict occurs when it comes time to decide whether to act according to the spiritual assessment of the situation or the scientific.

For instance in Africa where the use of condoms is promoted by the scietific/medical community and vigorously campaigned against by the religious.

Graham

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Graham


That's all well and good as far as pure knowledge goes.

The conflict occurs when it comes time to decide whether to act according to the spiritual assessment of the situation or the scientific.

For instance in Africa where the use of condoms is promoted by the scietific/medical community and vigorously campaigned against by the religious.

Graham Yet no amount of pure science can, on its own, dictate a particular course of action. Science can help provide a factual description of the material world that informs our moral understanding, but decisions are always the product of a non-scientific, prescriptive assessment (generally, one that falls into the broad category we've termed "moral/spiritual"). That can't be escaped.

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Yet no amount of pure science can, on its own, dictate a particular course of action. Science can help provide a factual description of the material world that informs our moral understanding, but decisions are always the product of a non-scientific, prescriptive assessment (generally, one that falls into the broad category we've termed "moral/spiritual"). That can't be escaped.

Do you consider the terms "spiritual" and "moral" interchangeable?

Do you not concede that spiritual concerns could lead one to actions that could only be described as "immoral"?

Graham

[jimmygun]

Science does not have all the answers, true, but science does have to show evidence for the answers it does have. Therein lies the difference between science and the paranormal. The paranormal does not have to offer any proof at all.

[Swishy McJackass]

The answer is 42.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What are the questions, anyway? What is eight times seven?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Graham
Do you consider the terms "spiritual" and "moral" interchangeable?Not in every sense, but I'm trying to be broad for the purposes of delineating what falls within the sphere of science from what doesn't. I am using "spiritual" in a sense close to its first OED sense: pertaining to the spirit or higher moral qualities, especially (though not necessarily) regarded in a religious aspect. This would include such abstract, non-scientific considerations as right and wrong, virtue and vice, duty and responsibility, and so forth, whether they are linked to a moral/spiritual worldview derived primarily from the Bible, from the writings of Nietzsche or some other source. (Note that it is impossible, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, to derive a moral/spiritual outlook from science.)
Originally posted by Graham
Do you not concede that spiritual concerns could lead one to actions that could only be described as "immoral"?
Graham Sure, but that's equivalent to saying that one's moral philosophy, however derived, could lead one to commit an immoral act. (Of course, an "immoral choice" is still relevant to the moral realm, and is thus still "moral" in the sense I'm using the term.)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What is eight times seven? I'm not sure I follow you, but isn't the answer to that question an abstract logico-mathematical truth, rather than a scientific or a spiritual one?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure I follow you, but isn't the answer to that question an abstract logico-mathematical truth, rather than a scientific or a spiritual one? No. But then, I've always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.





(In case you aren't joking, my post was a reference to Douglus Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, as was Swishy McJackass's "42", which in the series was the answer to the question I asked.)

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Not in every sense, but I'm trying to be broad for the purposes of delineating what falls within the sphere of science from what doesn't. I am using "spiritual" in a sense close to its first OED sense: pertaining to the spirit or higher moral qualities, especially (though not necessarily) regarded in a religious aspect. This would include such abstract, non-scientific considerations as right and wrong, virtue and vice, duty and responsibility, and so forth, whether they are linked to a moral/spiritual worldview derived primarily from the Bible, from the writings of Nietzsche or some other source. (Note that it is impossible, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, to derive a moral/spiritual outlook from science.)

I would have to insist on three categories then:

Science

Religion

and

Moral/spiritual (as you define it)

There are issues of science (practical matters such as how best to fight a disease such as HIV/AIDS) and issues of religion (whether god permits the use of condoms).

There is also a moral/spiritual question (whether it is morally right to allow HIV/AIDS to ravage the African population).

The moral/spiritual question must be applied to both one's scientific (if I can cure a disease, should I?) and religious (my god forbids me from fighting this disease, should I go along with that?) thinking.



Sure, but that's equivalent to saying that one's moral philosophy, however derived, could lead one to commit an immoral act. (Of course, an "immoral choice" is still relevant to the moral realm, and is thus still "moral" in the sense I'm using the term.)

One's science can lead one to an immoral act (for example cruel and painful experimentation on living things).

One's religion can lead one to an immorral act (for example picketting the funeral of a gay person simply because he was gay)

One's moral/spiritual sense is what allows one to make the decision between the two.

No?

Graham