Why does science hold more weight than religion in this present day?

Question

I would like to know why in this day and age, in this modern society why science holds more weight than religion. I am curious as to why people are willing to accept the word of science which may be able to prove itself over religion as this can also prove itself. (Both these points are debateable clearly) Is it because society has become secularised? Maybe because society has changed too much and religion has now developed a bad sterotype? I'm interested in what people think as to why a society (espically in some places more than others) accepts the word of science rather than religion?

Answer 1

Religion can't prove itself.. that is why.

Answer 2

For convenience I've used the term Bible throughout this answer but it could have been any religious text. I've used the term Church in a generic sense but it applies equally to any religious organization.



I think there are many reasons, one of which is enlightenment and another is education.

Historically all Bibles were printed in Latin and the only people who spoke Latin were clerics and medics. The consequence of which was that preachers were at liberty to preach what they chose and to distort the message of the Bible. It was all fire and brimstone and give me all your money or you'll be damned for all eternity.

Nobody could read the bible so nobody could question it. It was effectively a dictatorship with the Church as the dictator, threatening divine retribution and ordering people how to live their lives. Not only was the Church a dictator but it was a tyrant too, fanning out across the world an killing millions who didn't believe or believed in something different.

When it was announced that the Bible was to be printed in English the Church were absolutely horrified and went to great lengths to do everything possible to prevent this. Obviously the presses rolled and English language Bibles were printed.

People were suddenly emancipated from the chains of religion. They were able to see for themselves that major discrepancies existed and they began to question these discrepancies. The Church were unable to provide answers and the once faithful became the disillusioned.

Science was able to provide answers but not only that, it was able to prove conclusively that the Bible was wrong. Fundamental pillars on which religion had been preached for centuries collapsed - the earth wasn't flat after all and it wasn't at the center of the universe.

Suddenly science became exciting, new discoveries, new vaccinations, electricity, sanitation, mechanics, railways; all had a major impact on peoples lives and for the better. The Bible had once held all the answers and promised great things but it had failed to deliver, science was delivering the goods.

Science could be proven, the Bible could only be taken at face value. Science could disprove the Bible, the Bible couldn't disprove science.

People became more intelligent as social and educational reforms revolutionised peoples lives, they had new found liberties. People were able to make up their own minds and enjoy a freedom of choice that hitherto had been denied them by the dictatorial approach of the Church.

As educational standards rose beliefs declined. We see this all over the world today, the least educated countries are generally the most religious and similarly, the highly educated individuals are unlikely to hold strong religious beliefs (very few doctors, lecturers, professors etc go to church).

In today's modern society which is driven by information, people expect answers - a yes or a no is fine but a maybe isn't good enough. The Bible has too many maybes and what ifs and not enough definitive answers. People question the Bible but there are no substantiated answers

• Is the earth really only 6000 years old (science tells us it's 4 and a half billion years old)
• Is creationism correct and evolution wrong (Darwinism says otherwise)
• If Adam and Eve were the only 2 people where did he go to find a wife
• How did Noah get two of all land animals onto the ark when the dimensions stated in the Bible make this a hopeless impossibility
• Is it right to own slaves, the Bible advocates this

When people first muted the notion that the earth was round and not the center of the universe the Church's response was "wrong, wrong, wrong because the Bible tells us so".

Today people question the accuracy of everything being created in 6 days. The Church's response is "yes it was because the Bible tells us so". Herein lies a problem for the Church, the Bible has told us so many other things which we know are wrong, why should this instance be any different? On the other hand, science is able to say "The Bible is incorrect and here's the reasoning and evidence to prove it..."

In short, the Church seeks truth from a discredited and factually incorrect document and is unable to substantiate it's arguments. Science on the other hand seeks truth in ways that can be rationalized, explained and proven.

If the Church and science were put on trial then the evidence that came before the court would convict the Church and absolve science.



Just for the record, I don't not beleive in the Bible. Some of it is wrong - there are no two ways about that but that doesn't mean it's all wrong, there may be truths in their and there may be lessons to be learned. Indeed, putting science and fact to one side, there are a great many things that the Bible tells us that if we were to follow, would be beneficial to us as individuals and to society as a whole.

Further, I've approached your question from a narrow perspective based on science versus religion, there is much more to it than a one on one confrontation. Consequently there are huge areas that I haven't touched on and much much more that could be debated upon.

Answer 3

look at science's track record at explaining phenomenon and predicting future events and look at religion's. religion has done a horrible job explaining the world compared to the amazing success that science has had. to date there has not been any dispute between science and religion that science has not won. combine this superior record with the fact that scientific advances lead to more efficient technology (an objective and empirical measure of success that religion does not have) and it is little wonder that science today holds so much weight. humans always give more credence to philosophies which produce tangible results over philosophies which don't. the results of science will always be more tangible than the results of religion, and this is a major reason why science is more trusted today.

related to this is that science is an "open" process. it can be verified by any person with the proper tools. its doesn't rely on untestable hypotheses, but on knowledge that is publicly available. and when it does make assumptions, they are often "pragmatic" assumptions. religion tends to be a "closed" process. its relies on esoteric knowledge which cannot be verified by outsiders. this naturally is suspicious to most people. any person will trust a result they can see for themselves over a result they cannot.

another reason is that religion provided the justification for a lot of tyrannical regimes throughout the centuries. In the west, especially, when these regimes were overthrown, there was little sympathy among the revolutionaries for the doctrines which had justified the dominance of the old orders. and so, since the enlightenment, even in countries that did not have successful revolutions, there was still a diminished importance of religion; it was no longer unquestionable.

science also has the advantage of providing a superior way to increase knowledge, and thus increase power. a state which ignores science runs the risk of being outcompeted by its neighbors, while a state that ignores religion runs no such risk. in times where increased knowledge means increased profits for corporations and increased power for the state, science will be a top priority.

i think it is a combination of all the above reasons that science is more trusted today. there are likely other reasons as well, but these were the first to pop into mind.

I don't think that it is correct to say that science is on top because society has gotten more secularised. I think it is more accurate to say that society has gotten more secularised because science is on top.

Answer 4

logic will always trump faith.... You're wrong int he math however, over 80% of the world's population belong to some sort of organized religion.

The 'god gene' is something that's being explored or investigated by scientists. A certain area in the temporal lobe of all our brains causes us to 'believe' in a religious presence. It's a survival mechanism we've developed over the eons.

They can prompt people to feel a 'religious presence' by stimulating certain areas of the temporal lobe. They've already known that high anxiety, stress, near starvation and other extreme emotional situations can trigger the 'god gene,' but there has not been enough investigations to pin down the exact cause. The new studies are intriguing however.

The cerebral cortex, the area of our rational and logical thinking, is a more recent phenomena (at least within the last 40,000 years), as time goes on, the obsolete genes will disappear and we'll be a land without religion and god.

Answer 5

It is funny you ask this question "in this modern society", most particularly, because this is the age of science. You simply would not have been able to post your question over the Internet if but science. Religion is about a believe that cannot be proved whereas science is rather opposite to this. In science, what you believe in, can be tested and challenged in the real world.

Answer 6

As many people have already pointed out, Science has a rigid hypothesis-test routine which eliminates falsehood by postulating a statement as a possible truth and then attempting to disprove it. Only the ones that stand up to the scrutiny continue to subsist. Part of the weight of Science lies in the fact that is adapts to new truths as they are found. Most religions, on the other hand, ar bound together with dogmatic law which is unbreakable, or viewed as such. Because of this, when society and culture changes (which it will ALWAYS do) religion cannot change with it, or atleast not very well or very much because it would start breaking its tenats. This is part of why I find Buddhism very attractive. Buddhism adapts it's teachings to modern truths and new discoveries in science. The Dali Lama himself has years invested in understanding neuroscience at a fundamental level. He professes that science needs religion because it needs to be guided from delusion, from things that will only hurt our aquisition of knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment, but on the other hand science has a duty to guide religion by testing the truths of our reality so that we better understand what truth is. So I guess my answer is: It depends on where you are coming from. If you are religious in a dogmatic sense, religion will hold sway because that is what you hold as truth (even in the face of paradox and contradictions) where as a more evolving view of religion holds science in equal weight because it realizes that they are simply looking at the same coin from two different angles.

Answer 7

I think in terms of motivating people's actual actions and attitudes, religion continues to hold more sway. This is sad, of course, because science – by virtue of its rational and adaptive methodology – stands a better chance of bringing us close to the truth. On the other hand, it's not surprising that most people still lean on religion when making their life choices. People have always been more affected by conviction than they are by argument. I think that's just human nature.

Answer 8

Its a great question, but the premise asks us to consider science and religion as opposites. This is not really true. Its true that the westernized versions of religion seem to have little in common with science, but in the east, you'll find a more wholistic approach. For example in the Vedas, the scriptures of India, you'll find discussion of all kinds of things -- from chemistry to astronomy to social science to politics, and of course the spiritual science of self-realization. So I think the mind set of seeing science and religion as separate and sometimes opposing endeavors is uniquely a western perspective.

Answer 9

I think the difference is that most people (religious or not) believe in the scientific method, but few people believe in multiple religions. Therefore science has a more general acceptance, you can build consensus around science, but not around religion.

Answer 10

Hm, does science carry more weight? Is science killing countless numbers in the name of whoever's God is the approved one for a specific culture or region? Is science keeping women around the world subjugated and hatred ever mounting? If science were in fact dominant, we would have a rational world with efforts toward advancement as opposed to control and domination. I hope one day your question will be a valid one.

Answer 11

I think that it is a way to testiing people's faith. God wants to see who would choose ME or who would follow science. If you look at it science is God's work. When humans discover something;t they are overwhelmed with the information and start to think that they have more knowledge than who created all this.That is all this is, useless information. We still don't have any control over anything. Day and night cycle, weather, life and death, health. He is still controlling everything. Just because you don't see the creator doesn't mean it wasn't created.