Science is destroying society.

[dimreepr]

The reason science is destroying our society, because science has allowed the moraly corrupt to have no accountability. The excess' of these people have no checks therefore the extrems are bigger and far more damaging to society. The religions grew up with a set of ideals and beliefs based on a bible of some description. This contains mans best atempt at explaining the universe at the time of writing, this leaves no room for flexibilty, consiquently you have a rigid set of believes that must be true. This flaw means science explains to us this book isn't the absolute truth how can it be etc... I can see nothing to stop a religion allowing flexability by haveing fundamental rules, basic morals and allow the stories to change with our increased knowledge.

[swansont]

Religion is usually based on infallibility/omniscience. How can the information have been wrong?

[CaptainPanic]

[...] science is destroying our society, [...]

Could you first explain why you think science is destroying our society? At the moment I would disagree with this... and therefore I cannot discuss the actual topic.

[jimmydasaint]

With respect, how is Science destroying society? The scientific method has not been widely or frequently for social engineering, except for some disastrous, uncommon consequences in Nazi or Communist States. Capitalism, as far as I know, has no need for satisfying morality but only to grant some fundamental freedoms- economic and political for the main part. Science refers to the experimental method to establish or uncover fundamental objective truths. The destruction of society cannot be attributable to the door of Science or technology.

 

It only makes sense to read religious scripture as allegory or metaphor, with a general ethical underpinning that allows societies to flourish. However, flawed man-made scriptures are open to ridicule, if they have been wrongly transcribed or reflect the knowledge of their times. You should not expect anything else.

 

If I can paraphrase what iNow said in a similar thread: your right to have a faith must be respected; your attempts to find scientific truth in scripture is open to criticism.

[iNow]

If I can paraphrase what iNow said in a similar thread...

No problem at all, mate.

 

 

Dimreepr - As others have noted, your OP lacks a logical connection and lacks sufficient elaboration. It is not clear to the rest of us truly what you're proposing, not even why you are proposing it. I suspect it has something to do with science not being a source of morality, but then frankly... Neither is religion when you take a moment and actually review what most of them say in total. The only way scripture offers us a "morality" that makes sense in the modern world is if we pick and choose and ignore most of it. Consequently, since we have to cherry pick from the scriptures, and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore, it seems rather obvious that those scriptures cannot be the "source" of our morality. If they were, we'd have no way to know which writings to accept and which to discard.

[dimreepr]

Could you first explain why you think science is destroying our society? At the moment I would disagree with this... and therefore I cannot discuss the actual topic.

 

 

It seems you miss the point of a forum.

[iNow]

It seems you miss the point of a forum.

It seems you need to learn to express yourself more clearly if you want people to engage in your topic. Responses like this are not helpful and should be avoided.

[CaptainPanic]

It seems you miss the point of a forum.

If you wanted to discuss something which is based on a (giant) assumption, you should clearly say: "Let's assume that it is a fact that science is destroying our society"...

 

then you can proceed with a "what if" question.

 

But if you don't include the assumption, it seems you're jumping to conclusions.

[dimreepr]

So nobody here thinks western society is in trouble. Seriously??

[mississippichem]

So nobody here thinks western society is in trouble. Seriously??

 

No, science built western society, along with the computers that we are typing on now. If you really think science is destroying western society then get rid of all your technology and don't ever take an antibiotic again.

[iNow]

So nobody here thinks western society is in trouble. Seriously??

You will likely find allies in the assertion that there are troubles in our current society which need to be addressed. You can probably even find allies who agree with you that science is the source of those troubles. Folks here, however, don't seem to agree with your assertion, find it rather lacking in logic and reason, and are still waiting for you to clarify why you put it forward and what has informed such an opinion.

[Sergeant Bilko]

In order to accept your premise that science is destroying our society, you first need to explain how you think society is being destroyed and what specifically science is doing to aid and abet this.

[kitkat]

I am a person that loves to learn all the new information in science but I also was raised as a catholic which as a child always questioned its authencity. My morals came from the teaching from my religious faith and my parents who learned them from that faith. My behavior, I felt was under close observation from a higher power "God" so it obviously had a great deal of influence of me choosing the moral high ground in acceptable behavior verses the choice of choosing to act in behavior that is deemed "sinful" in the teachings of religion, of society, the laws, etc.

 

The day I realized I no longer believe in the story of my religious faith nor any other faith about creation. I thought for a moment of perhaps panic and said to myself, "I'm still here and my brain is still in tact knowing that my whole belief system my entire life that I had made every decision and action based around those beliefs was absolutely not part of my reality any longer." so I said to myself, " I am still grounded here in this reality and I was eager to learn and have an open mind to the many possibilities of our existance." This fork in the road takes being responsible for one''s ideology that is now completely replaced with the unknown.

 

This is where I have to agree with the op's view that science is destroying our society but not in an intentional dirrect manner. The masses need the comfort of their religious beliefs thinking that a "God" is watching over them and they are accountable for their actions. Because face it, if they didn't what would stop the masses from turning on each other and taking what they want knowing the only consequence of their actions was they may lose against the opponent. No big deal, humans are certainly manipulative enough that they can find some way of getting what they want without any remorse for any other human being that gets in their way.

 

The evolution of our brains that brought inventions that allowed us to live in a perfect temperature environment which is not an option for all other living entities that we share this planet with on a continuous state of existance. Without that, we could not have further advanced us in the technology we have today. The drawback to our bigger brains also creates our own extinction because it can be used against each other. The creation of religious beliefs is just as much a part of our evolution that enables us to survive as a species with the addition of our human traits.

 

To me, I find more comfort in the fact that the masses still believe in their faith over science's version of evolution. Even though science maybe right in their research, the truth might very well destroy the human species into their own created extinction. I may not be explaining my thoughts very well so I hope you get an idea of where I am coming from so I appreciate any comments.

[iNow]

This is where I have to agree with the op's view that science is destroying our society but not in an intentional dirrect manner. The masses need the comfort of their religious beliefs thinking that a "God" is watching over them and they are accountable for their actions. Because face it, if they didn't what would stop the masses from turning on each other and taking what they want knowing the only consequence of their actions was they may lose against the opponent.

The collective shunning that would come from others in the population. We are a social species, and evolution has selected for those who acted in ways that benefited the group. Those organisms who "turned on each other" and who "took what they want" were shunned from the group... They were ostracized, and lost the protection of the pack/tribe. They also lost access to the resources like food and protection, and they lost access to potential mates. Social behavior and the morality you describe came about long before religion. Religion (or belief in a magic sky dictator watching your every move and judging your every thought) does not generate morality. It exploits it. Morality existed well before religion, and the fact that science is becoming more prominent is really quite peripheral and unrelated.

 

The evolution of our brains that brought inventions that allowed us to live in a perfect temperature environment which is not an option for all other living entities that we share this planet with on a continuous state of existance.

There are quite a lot of animals that alter their environments to keep them at specific temperatures. The examples are too numerous to cite. Your point is mistaken.

 

To me, I find more comfort in the fact that the masses still believe in their faith over science's version of evolution.

Would you still feel this way about faiths that are different from the one you were raised with? What if "the masses" believed that burning children was the fastest way to get their crops to grow? Would you still find comfort in the fact that they believed this and rejected "science's version of evolution?" I should like to think not.

 

 

Even though science maybe right in their research, the truth might very well destroy the human species into their own created extinction.

I know it's a matter of opinion, but I think that the chances of being destroyed by religion and tribal clashes between different faiths is MUCH higher than the chance of being destroyed by truth or the outcomes of research.

[kitkat]

I know it's a matter of opinion, but I think that the chances of being destroyed by religion and tribal clashes between different faiths is MUCH higher than the chance of being destroyed by truth or the outcomes of research.

 

 

iNow

 

My response to this is that they are both equally capable of destroying humanity. Scientists have recently created the "super flu" that could wipe out a population and this could easily end up in the wrong hands to use as a weapon of mass destruction. The fact we are causing massive extinctions of other species with the belief that new evolved ones will emerge in the future by speciation. What if science is wrong and there wasn't mass extinctions of biota in the past and that those species changed in form through descent with modification. The fossil evidence does not contain all of the biota that lived in the past and it may very well had the numbers in biodiversity throughout history. The fossil evidence can be viewed as a snapshot of what they once looked like in that time frame.

 

I am not saying that speciation does not occur but I don't think it is to the extant that science believes that explains the numbers in biodiversity. Many of the other species of mammals will no longer exist by 2050 and it would be devastating to realize that humans ended the long line of descent that began in the Cambrian era. I am not saying this scenario is the actual truth but what if it did turn out to be reality in the future. This is just a small tiny example of what the masses are taught about evolution. Believing that biodiversity can recover by speciation allows humans to continue to destroy other species habitats thinking that in the future, nature will evolve new species.

 

The evidence that science has is not being questioned here, it is how it is interpreted to what it means is where humans can get into trouble. This applies to both religion and science equally. This is just my opinion as I tend to look and put myself on both sides of the argument.

[iNow]

The evidence that science has is not being questioned here, it is how it is interpreted to what it means is where humans can get into trouble. This applies to both religion and science equally. This is just my opinion as I tend to look and put myself on both sides of the argument.

So, even though you said above that your problem is with science, you've just conceded that your problem is not with science, its evidence, or its outputs at all. Your problem is with the infallibility of humans, and the various interpretations people take away from the truths that science provides us.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently people argue implicitly that we should remain ignorant instead of arguing explicitly about how we should use the knowledge we acquire more wisely.

 

Kitkat - I'm not sure if you realize it, but your position is equivalent to burying our heads in the sand and hoping things magically get better. We're not ostriches, mate.

[swansont]

So nobody here thinks western society is in trouble. Seriously??

 

That wasn't your thesis. You proposed not only that society is in trouble, but also that it's science's fault. Science has pointed out errors in religious dogma and that has caused some issues. But if we rid ourselves of science's influence, wouldn't that put us back smack dab in the middle of the dark ages?

[kitkat]

So, even though you said above that your problem is with science, you've just conceded that your problem is not with science, its evidence, or its outputs at all. Your problem is with the infallibility of humans, and the various interpretations people take away from the truths that science provides us.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently people argue implicitly that we should remain ignorant instead of arguing explicitly about how we should use the knowledge we acquire more wisely.

 

Kitkat - I'm not sure if you realize it, but your position is equivalent to burying our heads in the sand and hoping things magically get better. We're not ostriches, mate.

 

 

I am in no way suggesting we should bury our head in the sand and stop scientific research. Yes, my problem is with infallibility of humans. As a species I don't believe that humans have matured or evolved enough to handle the responsibility of what science and technology can accomplish these days in genetics,bioweapons, military weapons, etc. Yes, I do agree that we should spend more time with the knowledge that has been acquired to use it wisely. However, I do not have much faith that those in power are actually wise individuals.

[CaptainPanic]

Keeping people ignorant is not the point. What humans need is a clear set of rules to live by, and religion can provide that (although it can just as easily screw it up completely, and cause war and chaos instead).

 

Religions were founded around a very basic set of rules that are easy to understand and that make a lot of sense... And it might be just as useful to lead people as the scientific method - especially since almost nobody can apply science on a daily basis to guide them through every obstacle that we encounter. It's just too complicated.

 

Some problems are so complicated that we shouldn't trust humans to apply the scientific method correctly. And some inventions are so dangerous that we might not assess the risks correctly.

But science itself is not the problem. The scientists who dedicate their lives to solving a problem aren't the problem either (they understand it). The problem arises only when people like politicians and other leaders, who will only read the executive summary of the research, will still use "science" to guide them. By then, "science" should definitely be put between quotation marks, as these people might be clueless about the contents, assumptions or even definitions. And typically, by then science has also become a synonym for "the truth", even though the scientific method usually includes comments about error margins and uncertainties. All that gets tossed overboard. It's the absolute truth when it fits the agenda, and the uncertainties allow it to be dismissed completely when it doesn't fit the agenda.

 

And that's why I might agree that "science" can destroy us. It's because scientists usually do not decide how their inventions are applied. Other people decide that, based on very limited knowledge and even misunderstandings. This is indeed a huge risk.

 

Is it a reason to stop science? No, of course not. But we might consider the need to keep everyone in check with other means than just the scientific method alone. I am very worried that politicians seem to be fabricating and (deliberately) misinterpreting research to advance their own agendas. And if a set of religious rules can keep them in check and prevent them from turning science into a set of lies to advance their agenda, then I would gladly spend a few hours in some religious building listening to the gibberish of a priest (I probably wouldn't become a believer though, but that's not necessary). If it would be included in the law, I would be just as happy. And if

 

At this moment, science gives us a set of simple rules to live by (for example that you must "prove" everything). And it also leads to some mistakes, just like religion can do when it is taken to the extreme. It's all a matter of balance of power, and making sure that all things developed for the progress of mankind aren't used in the wrong way...

 

p.s. On a sidenote, I don't think we should be using the - button to say "I disagree". It should only be for poor quality posts. At least, that's my opinion.

[imatfaal]

The initial response to this post has been quite baffling. The op is a statement of belief not one of fact.

"Science is destroying society. Its religions fault" "The reason science is destroying our society..."

These read like assertions of fact. Your title stated that science is destroying society, and the first line of the OP took that fact for granted and sought to explain why this was the case. I, and many others on the site, did not believe these statements to be true; the fact that your argument took them as axiomatic lead to the fairly trenchant response.

It attacks neither science or religion, other than pointing out the rigidity of the dogma, is the route of the problem. Science is an inevitable consequence of mankind's natural curiosity and intelligence. Religion is essential for a decent strong society.

Again - it is by no means accepted or agreed that religion is essential for a any sort of society

 

The anthropic principle is a good attempt to reconcile religion with science

. I think you need to differentiate between the strong and the weak version - and even then I am not sure that I agree with the statement

 

For me it just needs a few tweaks to somehow humanise the principle. The credit crunch was an excellent example of the damage possible when people without moral checks are allowed access to power/money.

No the credit crunch was an example of things going wrong - in some cases the combination of money, power, risk, and imagination have been tremendous, and in others they have been awful. It is the sentiment behind the power etc that is important - the scale of the triumph or disaster merely changes the news-worthiness, but does not affect the moral culpability for a negative act nor the praise due for a positive act.

 

I apologise to anyone who found offence in my statement.

If you make statements such as Science is Destroying Society on a Science Forum expect people to call you on it - however offence is not really an emotion that is due in any sensible, impersonal discussion.

 

[CaptainPanic]

I have to agree with you this reply was based on a missreading of captainpanics reply, due to a christmass excess of alcahol, and was completely unwarranted. I apologise captainpanic.

I didn't take it as an offense. No worries.

I think my next reply also was just an explanation of what I meant. If I was offended, I would have said so.

[iNow]

Religion is essential for a decent strong society.

Actually, no. It's not. Some of the best societies on earth are irreligious as measured by the quality of life index and the human development reports. In fact, societies which are the most religious tend to have the worst poverty and the worst living conditions.

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx

 

 

Both of these FACTS speak rather strongly against your assertion that "religion is essential for a decent strong society."

[Sergeant Bilko]

Actually, no. It's not. Some of the best societies on earth are irreligious as measured by the quality of life index and the human development reports. In fact, societies which are the most religious tend to have the worst poverty and the worst living conditions.

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189

http://www.gallup.co...st-nations.aspx

 

 

Both of these FACTS speak rather strongly against your assertion that "religion is essential for a decent strong society."

 

Inow, such a disappointing post from you, these FACTS are merely the results of surveys/studies carried out by: 1, An opinion poll company, and 2, a study group. Neither of which can be construed as carrying the burden of proof to establish the results as fact. They do indeed carry an indication that supports your assertion, but without understanding the research methodology, the actual questions asked, and the slant from which the questions were asked from it is hardly scientific to call the results FACTS.

 

 

Thefore I submit that you have not been able to refute the assertion from the OP, and have merely offered an alternative hypothesis, albeit backed up by some third part information. Please do not dress up your hypothesis as FACT, when you have not been able to disprove that of the OP conclusively.

[iNow]

I was not responding to the OP with that post, but to the quoted part within my comment. And yes... societies with highest religiosity have highest poverty. Waving your hands about and closing your eyes and covering your ears and singing "lalalalala, I can't hear you" does not negate that. Likewise, very many "decent strong societies" are, in FACT, almost entirely godless and irreligious.

Edited December 30, 2011 by iNow

[Sergeant Bilko]

I was not responding to the OP with that post, but to the quoted part within my comment. And yes... societies with highest religiosity have highest poverty. Waving your hands about and closing your eyes and covering your ears and singing "lalalalala, I can't hear you" does not negate that. Likewise, very many "decent strong societies" are, in FACT, almost entirely godless and irreligious.

 

A considered and interesting reply, I have studied many of the posts within this forum, and have not been able to find any references to "singing lalalala I can't hear you" however I will keep looking. My post merely pointed out that the "evidence" that you presented as "fact" was not necessarily "fact" but it is indeed evidence. On a scientific forum I feel that it is correct to seperate opinion from fact.

 

 

I would be interested to know which "decent" (very subjective term) societies exist today are in fact "godless and irreligious".

 

It may be more relevant to look at societies which are more unequal than others rather than focus on poverty alone as a yardstick. I think that as a general rule, more unequal societies tend to be more religious. You have the deprivation theory which focuses on the belief that the poor turn to religion as a source of comfort, and the relative power theory which suggests that those at the top of an unequal society disseminate religion to this who are not so fortunate. It is interesting to note that neither of these theories are considered to be the cause of the inequality, but as a consequence of it.