Trusting Science over Religion: A Pragmatic Approach

[boatsnguitars]

Decisions carry profound consequences. This is why it is critical to rely on evidence-based reasoning to address critical issues. While it's fine to invent your own personal worldview and pretend everything is as you believe, in Reality - in real, serious, no-kidding Reality - it's absolutely imperative to prioritize the rigorous methodologies and objective inquiry of science when making crucial choices that impact humanity. The scientific method empowers us to confront challenges with clarity, precision, and adaptability, enabling us to navigate complex problems in a constantly evolving world.

Empirical Evidence
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate the connections of things - from subnulear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence the to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an infallible guise. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomenon of the world"
From Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan

"Science cannot be stopped. Man will gather knowledge no matter what the consequences — and we cannot predict what they will be. Science will go on — whether we are pessimistic, or are optimistic, as I am. I know that great, interesting, and valuable discoveries can be made and will be made… But I know also that still more interesting discoveries will be made that I have not the imagination to describe — and I am awaiting them, full of curiosity and enthusiasm.
Linus Pauling

vs.

"16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents [with their hands], and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them."

Science relies on empirical evidence, garnered through observation, experimentation, and data analysis. This robust methodology helps us understand natural phenomena but also offers practical solutions to pressing problems. For example, medical science has revolutionized healthcare with vaccines, antibiotics, and surgical techniques, saving countless lives.
Try applying that to the Bible quote...

Religion and the Interpretation Quandary
"Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem." Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://neildegrassetyson.com/essays/20 ... ignorance/

vs.

"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his testicles broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)

Religion, based on faith and belief, encounters the challenge of diverse interpretations. With thousands of religious sects and doctrines worldwide, conflicting interpretations can lead to inaction or even conflict. In contrast, science encourages open discussion, peer review, and a collective pursuit of truth.
Imagine trying to figure out if God allows blind people near him. All you'll get is opinion.

Climate Change: A Case Study
"The scientific consensus is clear: climate change is occurring, and human activities are the primary driver."
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, 2018

vs.

"The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left."
Isaiah 24:5-6

When facing global issues like climate change, it is imperative to trust scientific consensus. A staggering 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities contribute to global warming (NASA). Neglecting this consensus risks irreversible ecological damage and social upheaval.
While one might see the Bible quote as a prophesy, it does nothing to help us understand the problem or solve it.

Medical Ethics and End-of-Life Decisions
"Modern medicine has made tremendous strides, saving countless lives and alleviating suffering through evidence-based treatments, advanced surgical techniques, and cutting-edge technologies."
Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

vs.

James 5:14-15 (ESV): "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."
Matthew 9:12 (ESV): "But when he heard it, he said, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.'"
Exodus 15:26 (ESV): "If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer."
Jeremiah 17:14 (ESV): "Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise."

The field of medical ethics wrestles with profound questions related to life, death, and human dignity. While religious beliefs play a role, medical decisions must be grounded in evidence-based medicine to prioritize patient well-being. Euthanasia, for instance, demands objective evaluation of patient autonomy and the alleviation of suffering, drawing on secular moral principles and empirical studies on quality of life. If Christians followed the Bible, they'd prefer people to die in pain.

Moral Progress: Embracing Inclusivity
"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
Carl Sagan

vs.

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
Mark 12:19

As societies evolve, so do moral values and ethical standards. History shows that religious institutions have resisted changes in social norms, such as women's rights and LGBTQ+ inclusion. On the other hand, scientific inquiry fosters openness and embraces diversity, leading to greater social progress.
Imagine being who you are today, with your moral values, living in 0 CE after thousands of years of Yahweh's management of the religious world - you'd either hate it or be burned as an infidel. Even Christians.

Conclusion

While respecting the significance of religious beliefs in individuals' lives, it is crucial to prioritize science when addressing pivotal matters that affect humanity collectively. Science provides an adaptive, evidence-based framework to confront global challenges, encourages open dialogue, and fosters inclusivity. Trusting science over religion when dealing with important issues empowers us to make informed choices, promoting progress, and securing a brighter future for generations to come.

"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion."
Daniel Dennett


Debate:

Resolved: Science is obviously the best tool we have to know about our world. Religion is made up and useless - except in the most minor way to an individual, or if you want to make money fleecing old ladies.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #8]

Thank you for telling us the events that the Bible recounts that you do not accept. That has to do with your doubts and lack of answers to your questions, but it has nothing to do with science.

The point was not whether these things are accepted (by me or anyone else) ... they are a short list of things that are contradictory to science which was the whole point (your comment in post 4 that led to this discussion). All of the things listed are in contradiction to science, which has shown they could not and did not happen. Believe them if you like ... but they are not compatible with modern science in any way.

Nah, "they are a short list of things that are contradictory to" the knowledge modern science has until now ... but everybody knows that although some people think that what is known is a lot, it has been calculated that what they do not know is infinitely superior. So the issue becomes whether or not you want to put your trust in the testimonies of those who told those stories... not in science.

For my part, I have a trust problem with human institutions, and it goes without saying why (I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist).

[Replying to Eloi in post #8]

Real life shows that what seems impossible to some is an ordinary event to others, such as the fact that daylight in certain places on earth lasts 6 months. If an uneducated person is told that this happens in real life, he would react just like you.

Unless that person lived north of the Arctic Circle which a signficant number of people do. They would not even need to be educated to know this as they live it every year. But nearly everyone on Earth these days knows about Earth's orbit around the sun that causes the seasons (along with the 23.4 degree tilt of the Earth on its axis), and what lattitude is and how that impacts the number of sunlit hours in a day. This is stuff people learn in grade school now, but of course 2000+ years ago when the bible was written scientific knowledge was far less than it is today, so they made up gods and stories to try and explain things. That is what the Genesis creation story is (one of many religious creation myths), but we know with 100% certainty today that this is not how it happened (ditto for Noah's flood, etc.).

There are things that don't need to be taught... just lived. When I had an illness that no doctor knew how to cure, a lady who knew herbs gave me the cure, and in two weeks my problem was resolved.

How interesting that the one who cured me was a woman from the countryside and not science, right?

Sometimes some atheists can be very arrogant when they put scientific institutions in the place of god.

[Replying to Eloi in post #8]

In my case, I find it impossible to believe that life can emerge from inorganic matter, that organization emerges from chaos upon chaos, that heredity does not have a primary origin, that humans can emerge from animals, etc. But my lack of answers doesn't affect the answers I do know: we all have a father.

Some of these you can learn about with some reading, for example how humans evolved from a great ape ancestor. This isn't secret information that is being hidden from the public, and is well supported by over a century of scientific research on the fossil record, genetics work since the 1950s, etc.. Some problems do not yet have scientific answers (eg. the mechanism for origin of life on this planet) but that doesn't default to "god did it." It just means there are many open science problems still to be solved, and fortunately people will continue to work on them and not accept ancient religious stories that have no scientific relevence in the modern world.

Mmmmh, no, that is false.
If evolution were a proven scientific fact, scientists would all be evolutionists. Obviously that is not the case.

Believing that those who accept that "humans evolved from a great ape ancestor" as a fact, although it cannot be proven, are more or better scientists than those who do not accept it, is simply fallacious.

[Miles]

There are things that don't need to be taught... just lived. When I had an illness that no doctor knew how to cure, a lady who knew herbs gave me the cure, and in two weeks my problem was resolved.

How interesting that the one who cured me was a woman from the countryside and not science, right?

Ah ha, once again confirmation bias raises its ugly head.

Sometimes some atheists can be very arrogant when they put scientific institutions in the place of god.

Not believing god exists, why wouldn't an atheist put science institutions in place of Zeus, or Vishnu, or Odin, or the god of Abraham?

[Replying to Eloi in post #8]

In my case, I find it impossible to believe that life can emerge from inorganic matter, that organization emerges from chaos upon chaos, that heredity does not have a primary origin, that humans can emerge from animals, etc. But my lack of answers doesn't affect the answers I do know: we all have a father.

Some of these you can learn about with some reading, for example how humans evolved from a great ape ancestor. This isn't secret information that is being hidden from the public, and is well supported by over a century of scientific research on the fossil record, genetics work since the 1950s, etc.. Some problems do not yet have scientific answers (eg. the mechanism for origin of life on this planet) but that doesn't default to "god did it." It just means there are many open science problems still to be solved, and fortunately people will continue to work on them and not accept ancient religious stories that have no scientific relevence in the modern world.

Mmmmh, no, that is false.
If evolution were a proven scientific fact, scientists would all be evolutionists.

Not at all. There will always be fringe sets of scientists that disagree with the majority about something.

Obviously that is not the case.

And it's not the case because some scientists are easily duped by their religion into believing the literal Genesis story. Here, from a Pew report:

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.
source

And I bet if you looked into the pockets of the 2% who don't believe humans evolved over time you would find Christian fundamentalist membership cards.

Believing that those who accept that "humans evolved from a great ape ancestor" as a fact, although it cannot be proven, are more or better scientists than those who do not accept it, is simply fallacious.

But they are better scientists because that's what the evidence points to. And it's evidence, not Bible fables, that scientists rely on. If you believe the Bible trumps science on scientific issues, fine. Go sit in a pew, but not in a lab coat.

.

[Eloi]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

Be real https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/s ... iewpoints/

[Miles]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

But enough of them are, 98%, to make the 2% in denial look rather obtuse if not silly.

.

[Eloi]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

But enough of them are, 98%, to make the 2% in denial look rather obtuse if not silly.

.

Be real: Are you taking into account scientists from countries like India, to cite just one example?

[Miles]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

But enough of them are, 98%, to make the 2% in denial look rather obtuse if not silly.

.

Be real: Are you taking into account scientists from countries like India, to cite just one example?

Look at the link I posted.

.

[Eloi]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

But enough of them are, 98%, to make the 2% in denial look rather obtuse if not silly.

.

Be real: Are you taking into account scientists from countries like India, to cite just one example?

Look at the link I posted.

.

Are those stats coming from evolutionists?

[Miles]

Again: not all scientists are evolutionist.

But enough of them are, 98%, to make the 2% in denial look rather obtuse if not silly.

.

Be real: Are you taking into account scientists from countries like India, to cite just one example?

Look at the link I posted.

.

Are those stats coming from evolutionists?

Have a good day.

.

[Eloi]

Statistics or the success of a certain class of partisan propaganda definitely do not determine the veracity of certain conclusions.

I prefer to ask practical questions that anyone can reason on.

Have a good day.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Empirical Evidence
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate the connections of things - from subnulear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence the to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an infallible guise. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomenon of the world"
From Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan

Maybe one of your problems is that you are thinking of science more than what it is. Science is nothing more than an ordered approach to problem-solving using observation (measurement) and repeatability.

Where people run into problems is that they forget the observation and repeatability part of Science. If you cannot observe it it is not science and if it cannot be repeated it is not science.

This means that
1. History is outside the scope of science because history is not repeatable.
2. Morality is outside the scope of science because morality cannot be measured.

Everything you mentioned in your OP was not science it was philosophy. Science can be used to support a philosophical view but it cannot prove a philosophical view.