Worship of Science?
58I'll say up front that I'm an atheist so I will likely have a different view point than the person asking the question.
The original question posed was "why have Americans replaced a relationship with God for a worship of science?" There are a couple of assumptions built into this question.
- Americans had a relationship with God
- Americans worship science
I have a couple of problems with these assumptions.
FIrst, a real relationship with God takes work and effort. My personal experience is that most people don't like asking let alone answering the tough questions and inconvenient truthes that come with a disciplined religious belief. A personal relationship with God is harder; you have to dig deeper and be more honest about your weaknesses. So I remain unconvinced that most people ever had a real relationship with God. (Notice I'm not arguing that we don't have a relationship because God doesn't exist but rather that we are too lazy or cowardly to ask and answer the hard questions in life.)
Second, I think that Americans do not worship science; they have faith in science. Worshiping science may be less dangerous. The whole point of science is to be skeptical. We need to ask questions and actually attempt to understand science. Instead many say things like "I just don't get it and never will" so they are left with only 1 option - belief or faith in science. This is really only marginally less dangerous than an unthinking belief or faith in the pope or your local preacher. An unquestioning faith in anything another man tells you is just plain dangerous.
Relationship with God
For me, the phrase "a relationship with God" reminds me of statements from a lot of religions and philosophies. The strongest connection I draw is with the idea of finding Enlightenment in Buddhism. And this is hard work.
I think a belief or an assumption that people used to have that relationship but don't today is a little like people always assuming things used to be better in the good old days. We forget that in the good old days black people were lynched in the South, women couldn't work, and hitting your kids was a pefectly acceptable way to raise your children. It's not all good we've just forgotten the bad stuff.
I look back at my college years as being nothing but fun. I also remember wanting to get the hell out of there when it came to graduate. I've obviously forgotten the parts I didn't like.
A sidenote...
In the original question there was also comment about health care and the cost effectiveness of keeping grandma alive. The unfortunate reality is that we have finite, limited resources. Spending $100k to extend grandma's life a couple of years may mean we can't save a premature baby or a kid with leukemia. If I had to make that decision it wouldn't be hard. You save the kids and celebrate the last moments of a long life with grandma.
My father works as a doctor in nursing homes. There are a lot of old people that don't want any kind of extraordinary measures taken to keep them alive. However, when they are unconscious from pneumonia or some other ailment the nursing home and doctors frequently have to ask the family. Often the family isn't willing to let grandma go.
Health care is a mess. Adding a profit motive to insurance companies is retarded. Grandma shouldn't be killed but spending extraordinary amounts of money to keep an elderly person alive for a couple of months or years when they will spend most of that time unconscious or in pain just doesn't make sense.
There are premature babies to save. There are kids with cancer to save. There 30 and 40 something parents with cancer and small kids to save. Should we let all of them die in order to save grandma?
Save the kids, it's the lesser of 2 evils.
CommentsLoading...
Sorry it took me so long to approve your comment. I didn't realize i hadn't checked my comments in so long.
I've heard the argument of teaching anti-God with science and there are parts I agree with and parts that I do not.
First, our critical thinking skills as a nation are very poor. Evolution as a scientific theory has been scrutinized for 150 years. The data collected to date suggests that Evolution is a force to recognized and dealt with. The evidence in favor of Evolution is compelling but not conclusive - that's why Evolution is a scientific theory not a law. That's also why I suggest to both sides of the argument that a thorough, vigorous debate on Evolution in school would serve both sides of the argument better than our current tactics. Evolution should be taught in all its glory and flaws - that is what science is about.
Second, these argument, in my experience, typically come with the argument that a lack of God in classroom is the same as endorsing a no-God world view. A lack of God in the classroom is not the same as teaching that no God exists. Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and Wiccans don't get their beliefs taught in our schools but that doesn't make them less religious. In fact, being in the minority probably has the opposite effect.
Teaching evolution is not anti-God just good science. And a scientific theory such as Evolution which has survived 150 years of scrutiny is not the same as the "theory" of intelligent design. ID is conjecture. It has not met any of the criteria of the Scientific Method. The primary argument is that certain organisms are "too complex" to have arisen by evolution alone. However, I know of no testable hypotheses or even a solid mathematical argument based on quantified complexity. (Sorry I'm an engineer.) Anyone who brings ID into science class should be prepared for ID to face the same scrutiny Evolution has for 150 years. My guess is that supporters will probably find that scrutiny even more offensive than the teaching of Evolution.
Ultimately few aspects of faith and religion will ever meet any of the criteria of the scientific method. If they did then it wouldn't be a matter of faith but rather facts. Ignorance of inconvenient scientific data isn't the answer. Acknowledging and teaching your children your belief system in the presence of these facts is the answer. Anything less and they are handicapped in their faith.
Finally, man has limited resources. God has given us free will. And God isn't taking an active and obvious role in these decisions. They are tough decisions. Eventually resources run out and people are always forced to make these decisions with or without God's input.
Also, the Hippocratic oath states - do no harm. The morality and harm/no harm question can be a very messy one. Consider this - a 90 year-old patient goes into a coma. Prior to going into the coma they lived in constant agonizing pain, suffering from dementia and memory loss, unable to control their bladder and at a nearly complete loss of anything we would recognize as dignity. Is it more harmful to let them pass peacefully or to take every extraordinary measure, bankrupt their family, and bring them back from the brink to live another handful of months in agonizing pain with no dignity? I don't consider that to be a simple question. I do however know that a little cheap treatment for a child will typically mean decades of healthy living and a lot of expensive treatment for the elderly will only give a few more years at best. If I only have $100 then I think the only moral choice is to spend it on the kid.
Is it moral for a doctor to extend an elderly patients life for a few months at the cost of saving a child? Is it really doing no harm to bring them back from the brink? Sometimes a natural death is the best option.
Thanks for the question and sorry it took me so long to approve your comment. I didn't realize I hadn't checked my comments in so long.
I've heard the argument of teaching anti-God with science and there are parts I agree with and parts that I do not.
First, our critical thinking skills as a nation are very poor. Evolution as a scientific theory has been scrutinized for 150 years. The data collected to date suggests that Evolution is a force to recognized and dealt with. The evidence in favor of Evolution is compelling but not conclusive - that's why Evolution is a scientific theory not a law. That's also why I suggest to both sides of the argument that a thorough, vigorous debate on Evolution in school would serve both sides of the argument better than our current tactics. Evolution should be taught in all its glory and flaws - that is what science is about.
Second, these argument, in my experience, typically come with the argument that a lack of God in classroom is the same as endorsing a no-God world view. A lack of God in the classroom is not the same as teaching that no God exists. Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and Wiccans don't get their beliefs taught in our schools but that doesn't make them less religious. In fact, being in the minority probably has the opposite effect.
Teaching evolution is not anti-God just good science. And a scientific theory such as Evolution which has survived 150 years of scrutiny is not the same as the "theory" of intelligent design. ID is conjecture. It has not met any of the criteria of the Scientific Method. The primary argument is that certain organisms are "too complex" to have arisen by evolution alone. However, I know of no testable hypotheses or even a solid mathematical argument based on quantified complexity. (Sorry I'm an engineer.) Anyone who brings ID into science class should be prepared for ID to face the same scrutiny Evolution has for 150 years. My guess is that supporters will probably find that scrutiny even more offensive than the teaching of Evolution.
Ultimately few aspects of faith and religion will ever meet any of the criteria of the scientific method. If they did then it wouldn't be a matter of faith but rather facts. Ignorance of inconvenient scientific data isn't the answer. Acknowledging and teaching your children your belief system in the presence of these facts is the answer. Anything less and they are handicapped in their faith.
Finally, man has limited resources. God has given us free will. And God isn't taking an active and obvious role in these decisions. They are tough decisions. Eventually resources run out and people are always forced to make these decisions with or without God's input.
Also, the Hippocratic oath states - do no harm. The morality and harm/no harm question can be a very messy one. Consider this - a 90 year-old patient goes into a coma. Prior to going into the coma they lived in constant agonizing pain, suffering from dementia and memory loss, unable to control their bladder and at a nearly complete loss of anything we would recognize as dignity. Is it more harmful to let them pass peacefully or to take every extraordinary measure, bankrupt their family, and bring them back from the brink to live another handful of months in agonizing pain with no dignity? I don't consider that to be a simple question. I do however know that a little cheap treatment for a child will typically mean decades of healthy living and a lot of expensive treatment for the elderly will only give a few more years at best. If I only have $100 then I think the only moral choice is to spend it on the kid.
Is it moral for a doctor to extend an elderly patients life for a few months at the cost of saving a child? Is it really doing no harm to bring them back from the brink? Sometimes a natural death is the best option.
wow, well I'd have to say that as far as evolutionary evidence and God in schools goes, I think the way they have been teaching it in schools is wrong they do not fully detail the subject of evolution they only hit the strong points and call it a theory and say it disproves God and that is offensive and unconstitutional in public schools. Also if a rich man dies who does his inheritance go to... his sons... that being said the men and women with the initiative to form this country formed it on founding Christian beliefs and i think had no idea it would have turned into what it is today, had they known they probably would have written the constitution in a little more detail so that what they meant would not be later manipulated to humor a straying society. As far as the whole grandma thing goes, you make ALOT of sense, i think a whole new twist to that story would be played out if they incorporated alternative medicine therapies as seriously and commonly in all hospitals and clinics as they do with the conventional modern medicine.
Courtney,
You and I have had very different experiences. In my experience, the teaching of evolution never accompanied any mention of God. It was the students who made the leap that it disproved God not the teacher. And if the science and data bring one's belief of God into question that is their conundrum to solve; the teaching of the science should not be modified or ignored to prevent kids from asking and answering tough questions. Asking those tough questions - of God and science - is necessary if you are learn how ot think critically.
Look I had a teacher in an almost all Catholic town require us to say the "Our Father" everyday. Including the Jewish kids and the Asian kid who not Christian. I can tell you what happens a kid says "I don't believe in God can I skip the prayer?" The response from teacher and student alike was not enlightened, understanding, or loving it was more Taliban like.
One last thing... I don't want to be offensive but the argument that the founding fathers intended this to be a Christian country is just a bogus argument in my opinion. I could write several hubs on why it just doesn't make sense but let me just say that the founding fathers were exiled from their home countries because their particular faiths were not popular. Do you really think that people like Thomas Jefferson (who was not Christian) would quietly let the rest insert a Constitutional Amendment that allows for that same religious persecution to happen all over again in the New World? I think it's highly unlikely that the founding fathers were so small minded as to allow for religious persecution - even of non-Christians - to happen in their new country.
as for the school science vs. God thing when children are little everything takes on a literal sense, with age and experience wisdom unfolds the concepts and meanings behind the stories. At the age children are being introduced to theories of evolution it does "seem" challenging to their personal belief that they are being taught at home. until they can fully understand it. But just like with the student in california who sued the school for violating his rights as a christian based on the remark given by the teacher towards his belief in creationsim, if the student arises the question for their confusion the teacher usually remarks with a comment implying creationism as foolishness. which is constitutionally incorrect. besides that what I'm saying is notthat they should teach anything other than the truth. which means children are vulnerable and obviously some study has been lacking, but yes these things do help us with our critical thinking skills, but all scientific theories should be taught until one an be proven sound (creationism is a scientific theory) whether they be challenging one another or not their truths and their variables should be debated openly for the class to study and make educated decisions not stuffed down their throats. so the teaching of science is not wrong, but teaching it in opposition to religious beliefs is ignorant and negligent when scientific properties can be easily identified therein and it is morally corrupt to ignore that. I think with the founding fathers im not talking about persecution but a clearer definition of what is right and wrong, can you honestly tell me you dont feel that our constituion has been raped and manipulated! just look at how life was when our country was founded compared to what life styles is now for americans its a filthy culture, completely unstructured and CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PERSECUTED and having their rights taken from them!
Two points:
First, a hypothesis/model must be tested and shown to be accurate in order for something to be considered science. What is the testable hypothesis of Creationism/Intelligent Design? UFO fanatics have a lot of video tape and unexplained occurrences but the inability to explain something does not prove the existence of UFOs. If the measured data contradicts a particular religious belief then what should we do? If you search hard enough you can find a way to say that just about every scientific theory/hypothesis violates someone's religion. Is their belief less important than yours just because only ten people share that belief?
Second, I have not seen any persecution of Christians. Harassment and irritation does not constitute persecution. Even the elimination of previous privileges does not constitute persecution. Christians (or at least people who call themselves Christians) are still in the vast majority in the US. Not allowing the Ten Commandments on plaques in schools or 10 ft tall granite monuments in courthouses is not persecution it is the protection of the rights of the minority.
I have never had a problem with teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design - not usually in science class - but if it is taught alongside Evolution be prepared for these "theories" to undergo the same level of scrutiny that Evolution has had to endure for over 150 years. Most people with beliefs would not enjoy that level of scrutiny and many would find it offensive.
Eaglekiwi Level 2 Commenter 2 years ago
Enjoyed reading your perspectives on the question presented.
I I was introduced to Jesus Christ when I was in my early 20's and by no means would I describe myself as religious ,no Christianity is ,should be about having a personal relationship with Christ ,and he is not hard.
In my hub , I guess I was trying to show that Religions have come into the education syllabus under the guise of 'Science' ie Evolution/Atheism, other isms....and that irks me. A child can leave a classroom (if God is even still taught in that school) but they cannot leave when Science is on , which is wrong....I loved Science when I was going to school , we learned about Science! not Non-Religious topics.
I agree with your thoughts on prioritising medical care, however that is not mans option to play God nor indeed the Hippocratic oath that Doctors take is it?
Thanks again.