What is so wrong with Science?

Question

Why do some Christians, and I do stress some. I know not all Christians feel this way, but why do some Christians feel as though science seeks to disprove the existence of God? Science is a tool not a religion. Science is simply a tool used to observe the nature of things, that’s all nothing more. Why do some Christians feel so threatened by it? It is an objective view of things with the physical data that is observed. A lot of scientist believe in God and are still able to look at the nature of things objectively. Why can’t all people do this, it’s obviously doing something right, your typing on your computer right now, right? Why is it so bad, why can't some see that the tool is not bad just the people that abuse it.

Answer 1

Because they are dumb. They obviously don't know anything about science; what it is, how it works. Instead, they join a religion who will just tell them what to believe. It saves them from having to think. Science requires you to be willing and able to think. They hate that.

Answer 2

Part of the problem (and I'm not claiming a large part) is
that science may pull people away from the church and
that might make the people who remain feel invalidated.

This can happen when the church takes a stance on an
issue of fact (the Sun rotates around the Earth), and then
is steadily, over time, backed into a corner.

People don't like being backed into a corner.

Personally, I think that religion should get out of the "fact"
biz and do what they do best - work with people's souls
(if they exist) or at least their spirituality.

If the religious world stayed out of the science world, I don't
think they'd have quite the rate of attrition they have, and I
don't think they'd feel backed into a corner all the time.

As I said: I don't claim it is THE reason - but its got to be
part of it.

Who will stand and claim the infallibility of the church
*AND* be looking at its track record over, say, a hundred
years (never let a millenia, etc.)?

If you are constantly trying to take religious doctrine and
make it define what nature should do and then bei told
that nature doesn't do that (and here's proof), you're going
to get a wee bit riled.

Answer 3

Science is great. On this forum however, people( mostly atheist) claim religion as the cause of all problems and science as the solution to all problems. That is the real argument. Science is just a tool. If someone invents a vaccine they used science. If they invent a tank they used science too.

Science doesnt and never will offer a solution to the problems of human nature. Bad children will still be bad no matter how many pills we dope them up with, for example.

Answer 4

> "they are trying to be like God. this is where science goes wrong."

How can anyone be like God? That is a very narrow and presumptuous view. God is all knowing and all powerful. If he didn't want humans playing with genetics, he'd send us a mysterious prophet with a confusing message. Better still, he could just lay waste to all the genetic labs in the world with a few well placed tornadoes or earthquakes.

Alas, instead he prefers to use his power to drown and starve innocent, third world children in floods, and droughts, and tsunamis... to TEACH the scientists a lesson. Don't F*CK with god! Now this is clarity of thought on a supreme level!

The only thing wrong with science is that we haven't learned how to genetically engineer away the emotion of fear. If we could do that, humans would evolve to the next step of existence in a matter of decades.

The problem Christians have with science is the same problem three year old children have with parents. They want to stay in a fantasy land where they can pretend all the time, crap in their pants whenever they want so long as they say they're sorry, and not have to be responsible for doing bad things, or for when bad things happen to them. That's God's... er, I mean Mommy and Daddy's responsibility.

In a nutshell, science = maturity, and they fear maturity.

Answer 5

I think that it is sad, too. I believe in God and the scriptures, and also love science. God created everything (also science) and gave us our brain and intelligence to use it - and it's some people's bad choices that turn great inventions into weapons.

I guess some christians are either not very strong in their faith and that's why they try to avoid science; or they are taught (for whatever reason) by their church leaders that science is against God. but like you said, there are quite a few religious scientists, and there is nothing wrong with gaining knowledge about Nature.

Answer 6

the reason science is so wrong is they are trying to disprove that God exists. string theory, the big bang, time travel, these are all examples that science and religion cannot coexist. all the theories state that there is a magic equation that will solve everything. the reason some christians, including me, belive that science is bad is because it is in the ways of the way the world started. in other ways, science is wonderful. it helps cure diseases. but in medicine, when scientists try to clone living things, they are trying to be like God. this is where science goes wrong.

Answer 7

I am Catholic Science Teacher at a Catholic School, so I could not agree more. Numerous papal documents have repeatedly stated the confluence of science and religion, and yet people still rail against many scientific breakthroughs. Now, I can undertsand the debate over stem cell research as it connects to abortion, but evolution, big bang, and other theories pose not threat to Christian principles, unless you are a strict fundamentalist. Funny, I don't see the Amish getting all riled up.

Answer 8

Many religious believers view the world through a "lens" of their belief. That means that it will be extremely difficult for them to accept the falsehood of their religious beliefs. Since some of the core beliefs of most religions - the existence of god, life after death, souls - are completely unsupported by evidence, those believers who lack faith feel their worldviews threatened by science.

We're ALL like this, by the way. If somehow we were to discover that science had fundamental flaws, I know that I would feel extremely threatened, and I would probably frantically try to excuse those flaws, to explain them away.

Answer 9

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to be escaping most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary model'."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a major change in a physics theory from the perspective of the Tao, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't know all the answers... and that is OK. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. for the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or objective reality. 'Beliefs' are a key component filter of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... their 'subjective reality'. Any attack on one of these internalized 'beliefs' is interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and attack on their subjective reality.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packages lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of Liars for Jesus (LFJ) web sites, and parroted.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest curiosity about the universe contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that their delusional faith-based 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a forum like this one, they are (generally) seeking new information which might allow them to QUESTION their beliefs more effectively, or might put their beliefs at risk... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, their self-description.

Answer 10

Many scientists and philosophers were deists and marvelled at how their God had so meticulously arranged the universe to fit into such simple laws. I agree its interesting that people think science and religion don't fit. Of course, there are some hot issues that may never mesh, but overall it can very much be consistent.