• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is spiritual knowledge seen as less correct then knowledge from science?

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.

You have to differentiate between objective and subjective in practice. For objective science is generally better, where as spirituality is better as long as it is kept subjective. The fun starts when you try to use the one for the other.

As for value that is subjective and science as science says nothing about the value of anything including science. But some non-religious believers don't get that. They actually believe that they can in effect show that science is more valuable using reason, logic, evidence and/or what not.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.
Scientific knowledge is objective (doesn't depend on the observer), reproducible (the experiments that led to the knowledge can be repeated) and falsifiable (an experiment that leads to a different solution invalidate, or more often, expands on, the theory).
How does spiritual knowledge fare under these criteria?
If you don't value objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability, what are your preferred criteria for knowledge?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Scientific knowledge is objective (doesn't depend on the observer), reproducible (the experiments that led to the knowledge can be repeated) and falsifiable (an experiment that leads to a different solution invalidate, or more often, expands on, the theory).
How does spiritual knowledge fare under these criteria?
If you don't value objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability, what are your preferred criteria for knowledge?

But how does that make it more valuable? And please only use science! Or admit that valuable is subjective!
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.

Well your last sentence might be true, and I suggest you look at all the beliefs we once had - regarding virtually anything - which have been overturned by newer and better understanding, often through science, so why would religious beliefs (from any age) be the exception?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Well your last sentence might be true, and I suggest you look at all the beliefs we once had - regarding virtually anything - which have been overturned by newer and better understanding, often through science, so why would religious beliefs (from any age) be the exception?

Well, we are playing objective versus subjective. Science et al rule objective. But for subjective beliefs about the subjective science is utterly useless.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, we are playing objective versus subjective. Science et al rule objective. But for subjective beliefs about the subjective science is utterly useless.

Well I am trying to place such beliefs in perspective - related to what we tend(ed) to believe about all other things - often being as ludicrous as so many religious beliefs - so why not ask the question? We use the same brain to answer such questions but apparently we can be so sure for one but abysmally wrong over others - I smell an issue. :oops:
 

chinu

chinu
Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?
There's NO difference between today's scientist and the early men who discovered fire by rubbing stones.
Then and now, scientists are just mere simple people. nothing special.

And, even thousands years back science believers, or say people use to refuse and acknowledge spiritual teachings. That's why almost all spiritual teachers faced tough times in the past too.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Well I am trying to place such beliefs in perspective - related to what we tend(ed) to believe about all other things - often being as ludicrous as so many religious beliefs - so why not ask the question? We use the same brain to answer such questions but apparently we can be so sure for one but abysmally wrong over others - I smell an issue. :oops:

Could you rephrase that, please? :)
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.
Everyone who is not a total hypocrite is a "science believer". As Dawkins once said, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite."

But if, by "science believer", you actually mean a scientist - or even just a scientifically literate person - then as I have pointed out to you already once today, there are plenty of those who are also religious believers.

The only meaning I can attach to your term "science believers" that allows what you say about them to make sense is if you really mean "physicalists". If that is what you mean, please say that and not "science believers".

Physicalists take a a particular type of Occam's Razor approach to human experience, discarding any idea that does not meet scientific criteria. That is a perfectly sensible worldview to take. There is no reason at all to take an idea seriously merely because it has been around for a long time. After all, that is true of all sorts of stuff that today we regard as nonsensical.

In fact, there is an argument for being more suspicious of ideas, the older they are!
 

chinu

chinu
Have you discovered anything of value - which presumably the scientists did/do - in which case they might be less simple than imagined?
I think you missed to understand the message I want to convey.

The early man who discovered fire by rubbing stones was also as important as any of today's world famous scientist.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Could you rephrase that, please? :)

Why would we accept certain religious beliefs (in the past) when we had so little knowledge of so many other things? It would seem to me that people in such times were just as accepting of nonsense as they were of any truths, probably a lot more so, such that this is the reason why religious beliefs prospered but the actuality of living - with all the lack of knowledge then, over virtually everything else - didn't progress at all (relatively speaking). Why expect any religious belief to have truths when related to such?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Everyone who is not a total hypocrite is a "science believer". As Dawkins once said, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite."

But if, by "science believer", you actually mean a scientist - or even just a scientifically literate person - then as I have pointed out to you already once today, there are plenty of those who are also religious believers.

The only meaning I can attach to your term "science believers" that allows what you say about them to make sense is if you really mean "physicalists". If that is what you mean, please say that and not "science believers".

Physicalists take a a particular type of Occam's Razor approach to human experience, discarding any idea that does not meet scientific criteria. That is a perfectly sensible worldview to take. There is no reason at all to take an idea seriously merely because it has been around for a long time. After all, that is true of all sorts of stuff that today we regard as nonsensical.

In fact, there is an argument for being more suspicious of ideas, the older they are!

Well, that is not science. That is philosophy/religion. And that is not the only version. That are also those who believe that science is objective useful and better that other human behavior.

I short and we have been here before. If you start looking at the posters on this forum, you will find this difference between the 2 kind of science. Practical science and science embedded as a part of a correct* worldview. It doesn't have to be correct*, it can be objective, true, rational and so on.
 
Top