Science Today Plays A Role Occupied By Religion In Earlier Societie...

» Home » Society

Science Today Plays A Role Occupied By Religion In Earlier Societies

Not as a belief system but as a source of authority. Today's politicians look to science as the final stamp on authority. It is seen as a guide on anything from, nutrition and parenting to criminal justice. However the particular focus of this debate is on climate change. Scientist are using this phenonemon to dictate how we live, just as the Church used religious laws.

Kirsty08

17 Sep 2008 19:26

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

I agree, but by Churches i believe you mean Catholic. Believe me, Baptists and Catholics are completely different. You have to remember Baptists were also killed in the inquisitions as many of the other groups categorized under Christianity, even though we believe differently

ckell663

23 Sep 2008 10:59

1 Comment

Yes, sorry I should have specified.

Kirsty08

23 Sep 2008 12:53

Comment

Agreed, good debate. No ones going to look to a religious book for a stamp of approval in our day to day lives any more but science has a much bigger role to play now.

kddan

18 Sep 2008 12:15

3 Comments

Wishful thinking?

justsumguy

21 Sep 2008 18:32

Comment

Yeah, I agree, people do exactly as science tells them to too, creepy really. I bet if a scientist came out and said "if you continue to use gas ovens you but the earths core at risk" They'd all buy electric ovens.

Hermione82

17 Sep 2008 22:48

Add a Comment

Kirsty08:

First rate job of a debate! Atta girl!!! :-)

I agree. And you made your point superbly. Well-done.

Scorpion

17 Sep 2008 21:49

Add a Comment

Science as you call it is simple a methodology for generating increasingly accurate information. What you are referring to is the political use of scientific data and or the fact that some scientists are rude enough to have their own political ideologies which amounts to the same thing. I think that what offends you is that some scientific data is irreducible. You can attempt to make it a political debate if you like (and many have) but the fact that what is commonly called global warming will lead to large scale complications in food production is an example of an irreducible piece of information. What we choose to do or not to do is certainly debatable. A large object is rapidly moving towards you. You may stand your ground and be crushed or you may move and survive, what you can’t do is argue with the boulder until it gives in and goes around. So in one way or another you will have to compromise your current position. Science doesn’t say we have to save this or that species it merely states that this species is dying out due to these dynamics. Then someone who thinks that this species dying out is a bad thing uses that information to try to effect a change.
So ultimately the difference between science and religion and the societal roles they have fulfilled is that science provides data that you use according to your personal code of ethics, whereas religion provides a code of ethics that you apply to the data you receive. Similar and integral but not the same.

finsch

19 Sep 2008 19:27

13 Comments

You don't understand what I mean.

Scientists debate about climate change but there is one particular view that is being put forward:

We have to tackle climate change and we have to do it by changing our current lifestyles.

However there is disagreement at every point in the debate on climate change. Some say it's not happening, some say it is happening but it's normal, some say it's happening but we can't do anything about it, some say we should invest in empowering humans to deal with global warming etc.

However we're only fed the mainstream views.

I agree that science "should" just provide "data that you use according to your personal code of ethics" However, at the moment, it is not.
Within the scientific community, if one debates any aspect of climate change they are labelled as a denier (one scientist even called them "Hitlers").

Privately scientists can think whatever they like and uphold whatever solutions they choose. Publicly, however, scientists should inform us of all the options and not try and stifle the ones that they do not agree with.

Kirsty08

19 Sep 2008 19:49

Comment

You don't understand what I mean.

Scientists debate about climate change but there is one particular view that is being put forward:

We have to tackle climate change and we have to do it by changing our current lifestyles.

However there is disagreement at every point in the debate on climate change. Some say it's not happening, some say it is happening but it's normal, some say it's happening but we can't do anything about it, some say we should invest in empowering humans to deal with global warming etc.

However we're only fed the mainstream views.

I agree that science "should" just provide "data that you use according to your personal code of ethics"  However, at the moment, it is not.
Within the scientific community, if one debates any aspect of climate change they are labelled as a denier (one scientist even called them "Hitlers").

Privately scientists can think whatever they like and uphold whatever solutions they choose. Publicly, however, scientists should inform us of all the options and not try and stifle the ones that they do not agree with.

Comment

You don't understand what I mean.

Scientists debate about climate change but there is one particular view that is being put forward:

We have to tackle climate change and we have to do it by changing our current lifestyles.

However we're only fed the mainstream views.

Comment

A)	I think you’ve been somewhat misled about where the bulk of the current scientific debate on global warming lies.
B)	 It is an inalienable right to have an opinion. It is no more inappropriate for a scientist who has access to a lot of information that it is for an actor who has access to almost none. 
C)	I think that you’ll find the actual scientists generating the data are extremely specific about what they are and aren’t saying when wearing the official scientist hat.
Do you feel that the President is saying the government supports the Yankees if he goes to a baseball game? I think it also interesting that you use the word fed in reference to what information we receive, because as far as I can tell the bulk of the ‘information’ that is fed to us comes from political sources. The nearly all actual information ,mainstream or not, is easily accessible but very few people choose to seek it instead getting their little infonuggets from a variety of sources; politicians, actors, radio personalities, and newspapers to name a few, none of which are scientists. 
I’m certainly not trying to imply that every scientist walks that sometimes very fine line perfectly but I think that we as a group do a pretty decent job. We have an in place code of ethics and for the most part we adhere to it.

Comment

A) I'm referring to everything I read in the paper and see on the news, obviously if I look up on it myself i'll find different approaches. However the majority of people do not look up on it as we are encouraged to trust the scientists.
B) Of course it is a right to have an opinion. I'm talking about science as a collective group not individuals. The science community is stifling debate by penalising all those that disagree as 'deniers', one comment made was "The debate about climate climate change is well and truly over" which is a very unhealthy thing to say. This is not just the scientists fault because as a society, we ellevated science to a positon of authority, which it shouldn't be.
C) Yes of course they are specific about what they say, they don't want to be labelled as a denier.

We get our information from politicians who uphold science as a source of authority and impose green taxes.
Even celebrities make an effort to appear "eco friendly"
I think we need to be careful about the position we give to science as a society. We should use it to inform us but not dictate to us how to deal with problems.

Comment

My point is that the sources you refer to take specific pieces of information out of context, and then they make unsupported claims based on those specific items and then make calls to action based on the unsupported claims. The quote about the debate being over you reference was referring to the existence of long-term climate change and whether anthropomorphic activities were in fact having an effect, and insofar as that statement goes was largely correct. It is the nature of scientific debate that unlike political debate it develops as new information is gathered and even often reaches conclusions. There are still some scientists that debate the existence of evolution but they are few and far between and have brought no new useful data to the argument with which to change anybodies mind. 50 years ago there was a huge ongoing debate in the world of astrophysics between the big bang and the steady state universe view. Then shortly after the background cosmic microwave radiation it died away completely as this was strong evidence of the big bang theory. So it is developing in the field of climatology, as most climatologists are satisfied that certain things have been adequately shown to be true.

Scientists are not responsible for how other people report their findings, only how they report their findings. If you wish to hold someone accountable speak of the people who assume an eco friendly actor has any clue what their talking about.

Comment

Well I'm talking about society a whole, the people who renounce science are generally a very small minority.

I understand that there is more to this debate, however I think we are trying to associate science with morality when it is impossible to do so. I also think that scientists, not necessarily as individuals, but as scientific bodies are putting themselves across as sources of ethical guidance and not just sources of knowledge.

We are being told by science what to do, it is not just offerering suggestions. We are being told to turn our computers off when we're not using them, to drive less, to recycle, etc.

Science has brought us technology which is supposed to make our lives easier. However, now people are using science as a way to preach frugality in an age of abundance. Scientists are not working on ways to empower us to deal with global warming, only to try and stop it from happening by changing our lifestyles. I see this as only offering us one option and so imposing their subjective views on us.

Comment

To some extent we are just repeating ourselves. No one is making you do anything about Global warming, least of all scientists. I’m sorry if you feel the scientific community should waste a bunch more time debating stuff that most of us feel has been sufficiently supported given current information. Try to remember that if relevant new information comes about that casts a doubt on earlier work then it will be up for debate again. In the meantime also keep in mind that the field of climatology is over 30 years old and is much more developed than people give it credit for. Much of what is still being bandied about as current debate by certain parties such as the Oregon petition was thoroughly discredited 10 years ago. The fact is that our ability to produce accurate and highly detailed climate models has grown exponentially in the last 10 years and a number of hypothesis have been conclusively supported in this way and through new ways of tracking long term climate changes in the past and correlating and calibrating with the predicative computer models.

I think we are going to have just disagree on this. I do think you should examine your intellectual’s disdain for scientists I think a large part of your debate could be paraphrased as, ‘scientists are great as long as they know their place.’ I also disagree that those that renounce science are a very small minority. 50 million Americans don’t believe in evolution.

Comment

I don't feel the scientific community should do anything except let those who don't agree with the consensus speak, instead of labelling them as "deniers and, in one case, "Hitlers".

I was listening to a debate on this on the radio, there were three scientists and a political commentator. Two of the scientists were talking about their views on climate change which was different to the mainstream view. They believed that global warming was happening however they did not agree that we are properly testing all of the options, we are just focusing on giving up things. One was a very prominant German climate scientist, Hans von Storch. He said "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
Then he went on to say ""Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." and "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

I know that science can give us the facts but this does not give them the right to dictate policy. The UN climate chage head said we should all go veggie for a day, I find it insulting that a scientists is telling me what meals to have.

The population of america is over 300 million, so 50 million is quite a minority. More people are religious in the USA than in most parts of Europe and Oceania.

I do think scientists are great as long as they know their place, which is not telling me what to do. I champion science as a pure objective way of tackling our problems, I disagree with scientists using science to impose their ethical views on us.

Comment

I'm getting weary of this conversation especially since you keep saying the same things. I think you feel if you just repeat your self indefinitely it will make sense eventually. One last time into the breach.
A)	1 in 6 people is not a very small minority and probably is significantly larger group of people than have gone completely green.
B)	Scientists have no mechanism for not letting people speak; somebody had to have their say first in order to be called Hitler. Science debates have a history of getting inappropriate; we are nerds not public speakers.
C)	Sadly ultimately even science is a service industry, public attention means funding. You can’t do any work if you don’t have the funding. You want to end that, talk to your politicians. 
D)	As far as I know no scientific board can dictate anything to anybody, only advise and suggest. Were you actually forced to just eat veggies for a day? Do you think there was a major one day drop in meat sales? Did anyone you know stop eating meat for a day? So what does this say for the massive authority that the science community wields?
E)	No scientist I have ever heard is suggesting study be halted in fact quite the opposite. Just very few including your German doctor continue to argue that there is not a significant anthropogenic climate change coming. That is the consensus; everything else is still up for grabs. 2 years ago the president of the United States hadn’t admitted that. Many people on this site still have not admitted that. However pretty much all the climatologists have reached a consensus on that. 
F)	No one is preventing any climatologist who still feels there is no anthropogenic climate change coming from talking just as no evolutionary scientists are preventing intelligent design ‘scientists’ from submitting work supporting their ideas. It’s just that neither group has contributed anything of worth.
G)	I personally intend to never, “know my place.” 
H)	By impose our views you basically mean speaking our minds when asked, because as I have said over and over we have no way to impose anything.

Almost the entire public end of this debate has taken place between politicians and T.V. and radio personalities. Most of the information they use is 10 years out of date if not completely false. I think you need to consider listening more to scientists rather than spend your time getting huffy in one happens to make a remark that offends you delicate sensibilities about class structure and where the plebian scientist falls on that scale.

Comment

I repeat myself because you don't refute my points.

A) I accept that it is not a small minority in America, but it is in most societies as America has a large religious group of society
B) I think it was pretty clear that I meant they penalised them if they dared to go against the grain.
C) UN scientists are there as inter-government workers so they are pretty much guaranteed funding. Most publicly funded scientists are funded by scientific governmental bodies. The government, of course, as a vested interest in telling us to drive less and be less wasteful. It directs our attention from their failings in other areas and makes them look like they care about us. If it is the case that scientists are so dramatic about climate change in order to get funding then I would be even more offended. That tells me that they are not researching things they are passionate about, only researching what will get them funding. That has biasness written all over it. Now instead of simply stating the facts they make out like the world is coming to an end in order to get funding.
D) I am offended by the fact that a scientist is telling me what meals to eat and when, and that if I do not follow his "advice" I am a selfish indulgent pig who does not care about the planet. He also said that it's something we should be doing anyway, which I think is very strange.
E) I'm not talking about scientists halting studies. Not many scientific bodies would fund a study that rejects the consensus and those that are privately funded are rejected and the investigators are denounced and shamed as "deniers".
My "German Doctor" does not argue that there is not a significant anthropogenic climate change coming, he argues that there is one coming:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we ARE facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

You say everything else is up for grabs, but then why do we have to search for scientific experiments that show that humans can not stop climate change, humans did not cause climate change, etc.
It is not because there is not a lot of scientists who think this, there are a lot. However the authoritarian governments and scientific bodies have chose a line to follow and so that is the information we recieve.
F) Again, I'm not talking speciffically about climate change "deniers" (as you probably call them) I'm talking about anyone who disagrees with the consensus on climate change at any particular stage.
G) Well I actually think you do know your place, or would you not feel stupid telling a stranger what they should have for tea tonight?
H) A scientific body, which is supposed to be separate from morals and politics and any other agenda, preaching ethical values is imposing their views on us. Not as privately speaking individuals, but when you speak as the UN Head of Climate Change, and not as though you are expressing a personal oppion, you have to realise that your words will be taken as the views of the body you represent.

I already told you, I was listening to a debate the other night (It actually took place last year) which included THREE SCIENTISTS, all of which were active researchers in climatology so there was nothing 10 years old about it.

I think scientists are very very important to society. That is why it upsets me to see them trying to play us to get attention and become famous, by completely dramatising the issue and masquerading as lifestyle experts, by pretending they have the legitimate authority to tell us what the right lifestyle is. Yes they are suggesting, but they do so in a way that sends the people on a guilt trip if they have to drive their car more than the recommended amount of time.

Comment

A)	I reckon we’ve covered this one enough.
B)	All groups tend to be intolerant of people who go against the grain; the difference is that scientists will actually change their tune if someone turns out to be right.
C)	The bias is not in the results of the research but what gets chosen to be researched and your average scientist has little to say about this. This is decided by the funding bodies. They are not overstating the case they are talking about some of the worst case scenarios. Additionally, the fact is the longer we wait to change our contribution the harder and less effective those changes will be.
D)	Lump it.
E)	I specifically included your German doctor as someone who was not denying certain basic facts. Are you under the impression that “certain privately funded scientists” are unbiased? Most of the groups you are talking about are either nothing more than thinly veiled energy lobbyists or just haven’t come up with anything useful. How would you go about proving we can’t do anything about it? You try to research ways to effect a change and then fail. 
F)	Trust me there are plenty of dollar bills out there for any climatologist who is willing to try to show Global Warming doesn’t exist. The fact is no one is able to make a serious case given our current information.
G)	I wouldn’t bother because I don’t expect the human race to pull their collective heads out of their collective butts so they might as well have whatever they want for tea.
H)	The UN Study of Climate Change was specifically asked to analyze current data, doing no actual research of their own, and MAKE SUGGESTIONS. If you don’t like the suggestions have a spine and don’t do them.

I wasn’t referencing your specific debate but the greater body of public debate.

Comment

A) sure.
B) Science is supposed to be group that is tolerant of people that go against the grain, that is what made it different from other groups like religion. "the difference is that scientists will actually change their tune if someone turns out to be right."  I think most prominent scientists would be pretty embarrassed about changing their tune if someone turns out to be right, especially after calling people "Hitlers".
C) It is the scientific bodies I am referring to. Prominent scientific spokepeople for these bodies are power hungry and attention seeking.
D) No
E) You said "Just very few including your German doctor continue to argue that there is not a significant anthropogenic climate change coming.".  No I'm not under that impression, it is natural for people to have biases, I accept that. However we only get one side of bias information, whereas we could several peices of bias information to complete the picture. They could go about investing time into equiping us to deal with it, not avoid it.
F)  For God's sake, I'm talking about any disagreement. Not just that climate change does not exist.
G) Would you feel stupid?
H) No the Head of Climate Climate change didn't give any other suggestions. They told is what we must do if we want to decrease our carbon output. When he was talking about it he made out like anyone who refused was the most evil person alive. Just like anybody who refused to go to church was the most evil person alive.

I don't deny science has a key role in modern society, but I don't agree it's analogous to the impact of religion back when churches ruled the world. Science does not persecute, restrict, impose, or coronate. Science does not have military crusades. People don't crawl on knees for pilgrimages to science museums. People don't shape their lives and afterlives around rules or promises of science.

Yes, science is very important, but it is not in the same role occupied by religion in earlier societies.

And in reference to climate change, science holds the most sway on the debate because quite frankly science is the only tool actually measuring and calculating and trying to understand what is happening. Religion is utterly unequipped to analyse or deal with it. And I'll remind you science is what resulted in the excellent weather tracking and prediction which we all enjoy on the evening news in modern times. If it were in the hands of religion we would all be listening to crickets and watching clouds and never quite sure if a hurricane was two days away or coming at all. Science has massive credibility on the issues of weather and global warming, religion has squat.

Grenache

18 Sep 2008 15:36

46 Comments

Excellent points. Science provides people with a way of looking at reality, it doesn't impose ridiculous religious explanations for things that cannot be questioned and gets you ostracized or worse should you doubt it.

Cephus

18 Sep 2008 16:51

Comment

I think that science does persecute, restrict and impose.

It persecutes those who don't agree with the scientific consensus as "deniers", which I think is analogous with religion during the time of the inquisitions. The scientific community restricts people as it censors experiments that produce controversial findings.

People do shape their lives around science, they recycle, drive less, fly less, etc.  All because science tells them to.

I'm not arguing against science as an objective source of knowledge. However it is no longer an objective source of knowledge. Science can inform us of climate change and give us a range of options, however it is imposing it's dicisons on us, it is telling us what to do just as the church did.

Science is over reaching it's legitimate role, for example, the scientific consensus on climate change is that 2 degrees over the normal industrial level constitutes dangerous climate change.
Is it up to them to agree that?  Climate is dangerous for some people in many parts the world, it is pretty insulting to them for us to say that 2 degrees change is what constitues danger.
Also, 2 degrees would be pretty safe for many people. Scientists can contribute to debates about danger, but it is not up to them to tell the world what is dangerous. It has to be a decision reached by what is most important to the people, not what scientists deem important.

Also, what is the value of climate?  Obviously climate change would bring benefits to some people. As humans, we have an innate ability to adapt to our surivial, we are also very good at contesting our natural restraints. Why don't we have a more positive outlook on the issue, instead of doom, doom, doom?

Comment

Well first of all, tough!  Religion and politicians and non-scientists are FREQUENTLY stepping into scientific issues and meddling with them, and now you're crying foul because you think science is pushing back... and winning.  Second the scientists researching global warming may be interviewed or show their data or state their opinion in movies like An Inconvenient Truth but it's not scientists who run the cameras and assemble it all and market the final movie.  Someone in hollywood made good money from that movie and I'll bet it wasn't the climatologists consulted within it.  Your angst towards science itself is misplaced.  Third you say science isn't there to convince us but there's a small army of special interests trying to convince us science is wrong about issues - global warming, stem cells, and more - if science is simply a data generator they'll end up closed, broke, and locked in stockades for daring to question religion.  Which brings us finally full circle to your original heading for this debate.  Is science playing a role occupied by theology in earlier societies?  Absolutely not.  In fact science is right now as we speak and in the many examples you have given standing up to non-science which is more interested in controlling people and making money.  You just can't stand the fact that right now people trust a scientist more than their minister or their President.

Comment

You're being irrational. I am in favour of purely objective science, it has done wonders for us globally. However I think current scientists are degrading science by making it something that it's not, that is, subjective.

I don't have a problem with science, just like I don't have a problem with religion. My problem is with people using them to dictate our lives for us. With the church it was through God, a higher life from who would punish if we didn't behave. Then science came along and put a stop to it, religion no longer governed society as it was no longer the only way of explaining things. Science was pure and objective with no agenda and no desire to force us into conformity.

However that has changed because now scientists are using science to dictate how we live and make choices for us. This is what I don't agree with, not science. It's not about science pushing back, it shouldn't be pushing anywhere, it is what it is, simply the facts.

A lot of people are trying to convince us that mainstream scientists are wrong, are often fringe scientists who disagree with the consensus and disagree with the way science is over reaching it's role. It is good that people disagree with the consensus as this gives us options, which science is supposed to do.

What I am saying is that science is just science. It is not good or bad because it is purely objective.

I actually have great faith in science to get us through challenging circumstances such as global warming. Not by making us change our lifestyles but by being creative and thinking of new ways for us to tackle climate change.

Science should not be seen as a source of authority, as it is now, but as a helpful tool.

Comment

Actually, the topic heading says religion. Was it edited?

I understand where you're coming from Kristy but science isn't anywhere near the use of religion to dictate how people live.

I would like to clarify something about "religion". The acknowledgement of something other than this reality of death is one of the most powerful forces within humans. While some humans claim to be above such nonsense, the fact remains.

This being a fact, it is one of, if not the best force to manipulate for power. The best tool for doing this? Organized religion. The better organized, the better tool. People of power have been using religion to manipulate their subjects for a very long time.

So far, science has not dealt with something other than this reality. It's basis is this reality. It simply cannot wield the power of the afterlife. If it ever advances to the point where it can deliver eternal life, then it will be comparable in being used as a tool of manipulation.

That being said, we have entered into the information age. Science has made amazing advances. This adds up to science being an attractive tool for manipulation. Much like religion, the closer it is to the truth, the more attractive it is as a tool for manipulation.

In both cases, it is the failure of the people to study their religion and science which leaves them open to manipulation.

Anyway, nice topic and science has a long way to go before it can come close to being used like religion has.

Comment