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

[Magic Man]

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.

There's a good bit to unpack here first. You first have to define "spiritual wisdom". To me it's not a useful phrase, because it's way too vague with too many problematic connotations. If you're referring to religion and the associated beliefs, that's one thing, and it's pretty easy to determine why that's less valuable than scientific knowledge. If you're referring to thoughts and views on morality and how to interact with other people, especially in society, then I don't find the term "spiritual wisdom" helpful, as it implies too much more.

Second, you have to not use loaded phrased like "science believers" and "refuse to acknowledge". There's no such thing as a "science believer". There are people who understand science and realize what a great tool it is for us, and there are people who don't. "Science believers" is just an obvious attempt to discredit people who value science as no better than "religious believers" or other "believers", which is ironic, since it inherently means that "religious believers" are problematic.

Some teachings that date back thousands of years are useful. People have had a lot to say about the human condition for thousands of years, and many of those things are wise and helpful even today. They have their place, but not really because they're "spiritual". The "religious" and "spiritual" aspects are not useful only really the parts that inform our morality and ways of living together in society. Also being thousands of years old isn't inherently an advantage over being hundreds of years old.

Science is invaluable. It gives us an objective way to learn about the universe and understand it. It gave us medicine, cars, planes, space travel, and many, many other things, as well as just a better understanding of thing we all live in. That's why it's seen as so valuable by reasonable, rational people.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, heard about them, mostly referred as religious teachings. They are rarely true but obviously useful. They have been successfully used as tools of oppression for millennia.
Why are they seen as less correct. The teachings have been tested and found lacking.

Wrong wrongedy wrong

 

[Hawkins]

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.

Science is about what is behind a repeatable phenomenon. Such a phenomenon can repeat infinitive number of times in front of humans for them to predictably identify what it is. Religion, like history, is about one time events encountered or experienced (i.e., witnessed) by the supposed eyewitnesses. It is not a repeatable phenomenon subject to human speculations. Again like history, it is about how humans rely on their faith to believe, even in the case that it is a truth.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong wrongedy wrong

An insightful critique of the argument that is sure to convince everyone who reads it.

 

[ppp]

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.

Your premise is false. Most people who accept science also follow some sort of teaching that is labeled as being spiritual.

But for many of us who don't..

Spiritual teachings contain a lot of marketing and self-promotion.

Spiritual teachings tend to be authoritarian in nature - both fideistic and feudalistic in structure. With special people to dispense special wisdom, having no mechanism to test claims made about objective reality. Or they claim that everything is subjective while simultaneously trying to make objective statements and (separately) ought statements. It's a mess.

Spiritual teaching contain a lot of good stuff and lots of s...stuff that is not good at all. They nature is indistinguishable from a human construction.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

It really depends what you require of the knowledge.
If I want to fix my car, I'll take science over prayer. If I want to heal my kid, same thing.
But if I want to consider human nature, and the 'larger' truths, I'll...well...personally I wouldn't take 'spiritual' knowledge, but I certainly wouldn't be limiting myself to science.

 

[Heyo]

As an example, try being a scientist and not believing in dinosaurs, or believing in ancient aliens. 200 years ago, nobody would hassle you for your private beliefs. Wilhelm Reich was a crackpot who believed in a blue sexual energy (which made the sky blue!) called orgones. He was (largely) allowed to do his research. Today, if you don't follow the orthodoxy, you are stripped of all funding.

200 years ago nobody knew about dinosaurs.
If you don't believe in dinosaurs today, you are like a kid that refuses to do calculus because you don't believe in fractions.
There are things you have to learn before you can go on and investigate open questions. Scientists don't want to get held back by ignoramuses. That's why you should not take calculus if you don't understand fractions.

 

[Magic Man]

Bible, Quran, and so on are spiritual teachings, sure you heard about them

If that's what you mean by "spiritual teachings", then the reason people see scientific knowledge as more valuable than them is that the Bible and Koran are not useful. There are some teachings in them that can be helpful, like don't murder and such, but those teachings can be gotten from non-religious and non-spiritual sources just as easily. Mythology is fun and helpful in some ways, but only as long as it's kept in context and not taken literally. Even then it's still not as helpful as scientific knowledge.

 

[icehorse]

If you despice religion that much,how did you end to in a religioues forum? That is a mystery to me.....

It's not that black and white for me

There are some behaviors that religious people have that I think cause problems. I like to debate these problematic behaviors. One example is when religious people try to co-opt spirituality

 

[exchemist]

No, he is asking how come some people use science, not your science, to claim that other worldviews are wrong.
It is not just this thread.
Try to open your eyes and follow some of the reasoning of the "objectivists". That is where it ends. All knowledge, truth and so on must be objective to make sense. The joke is, that the claim is subjective.
Learn to spot the following:
The misrepresentation of subjectivity as objective is not limited to religious people. It is also present in some non-religious people.
In sociology the principle is this as paraphrased: "Unreal beliefs can have real consequences".
The idea that you should only look for the misrepresentation of subjectivity as objective in religious people is, what stops you to understand the question?
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?
You can't answer that with science, yet in this thread and others the "objectivists" try and they fail, because "value" as per the question is subjective.

No need to lecture me on what I already saying. Thanks.

 

[exchemist]

Not precise enough. .. understanding some aspects of nature.

Pfft.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pfft.

How non-subjective and with science that answer is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Of course it's not right.

LOVE trumps science. No scientist tells their spouse they need peer-reviewed papers proving love (or justice or math or logic or God) exists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I like all your emotions.

Now let us do this as for proof or if you like rational and only rational arguments and evidence. You prove that your world view is correct and mine is wrong. If you can do that, I will learn from it.
Note that you are going up against 2000+ years of trying to do that and the result of try to do this, is not what you would like:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It is simple:
You are right with proof, rational arguments and evidence, yet I am still here.
Now in the end, what your model can't explain is relativism.

Regardless, you and ALL of the rest of us will continue go about the business of surviving each day much more easily given the discoveries and implementations of scientific ideas of all of those who have gone before us. As for the religious and spiritual ideas of all of those who have gone before us... mileage on those ideas varies to an extremely high degree.

Just as I don't need to accept your aesthetic interpretation of a particular painting, I do not, in any way, need to conform to your ideas of any spiritual anything that you may believe exists. Even YOU have been equating these things with your list of "what science can't account for." And this necessarily means I am free to disagree with you, and even call your ideas bunk.

However, YOU would be hard-pressed to avoid the conclusions come to by observed and measured expressions of data that have been used time and time again to produce reliable results. So you CAN'T call the ideas come to in the realm of electrical conduction (for example) "bunk." Not without looking like an irrational fool. So there you have it - your "spiritual" ideas can be called "bunk" and NO ONE can help you sell them without appealing to something no better than aesthetic preference. But the same cannot be done to scientifically founded ideas without losing so much face that your cheek-bones end up showing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Regardless, you and ALL of the rest of us will continue go about the business of surviving each day much more easily given the discoveries and implementations of scientific ideas of all of those who have gone before us. As for the religious and spiritual ideas of all of those who have gone before us... mileage on those ideas varies to an extremely high degree.

Just as I don't need to accept your aesthetic interpretation of a particular painting, I do not, in any way, need to conform to your ideas of any spiritual anything that you may believe exists. Even YOU have been equating these things with your list of "what science can't account for." And this necessarily means I am free to disagree with you, and even call your ideas bunk.

However, YOU would be hard-pressed to avoid the conclusions come to by observed and measured expressions of data that have been used time and time again to produce reliable results. So you CAN'T call the ideas come to in the realm of electrical conduction (for example) "bunk." Not without looking like an irrational fool. So there you have it - your "spiritual" ideas can be called "bunk" and NO ONE can help you sell them without appealing to something no better than aesthetic preference. But the same cannot be done to scientifically founded ideas without losing so much face that your cheek-bones end up showing.

Well, my spiritual ideas are subjective and I don't claim that they are objective, so as long as I can differentiate between objective, intersubjective and subjective, I will do fine.

We are playing the meaning of life, the universe and everything. And my spiritual belief that 42 is the correct answer, will work fine and it has for over 20 years now.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

The difference is so plain, it's ridiculous, and yet people apparently need it explained to them thousands upon thousands of times.

Religious knowledge is only possibly "correct." Meaning you can't even know, for sure, that it is correct or not, to any actual degree. You have no way to measure, observe or demonstrate the correctness of the ideas.

Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is reliable, testable, its conclusions reproducible, useful to any/all people, universally applicable, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The difference is night and day as to the actual, reliable utility of the two forms of information and study.

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.

Why do you list spiritual teachings' extreme age as a positive thing as compared to what you are calling "science?" Science has produced more universally applicable information in its relatively short "lifetime" than religion has in thousands and thousands of years. That's the takeaway here - not that science is some younger, petulant child.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Scinetific knowledge is precise, consistent, and verifiable. Whereas "spiritual knowledge" can be whatever you pull out of your ***. For example, I can say that bananas are evil because their phallic shape can causes impure thoughts and lead people astray from the righteous path, and that could be regarded as "spiritual knowledge" even though it's actually silly nonsense in reality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We are playing the meaning of life, the universe and everything. And my spiritual belief that 42 is the correct answer, will work fine and it has for over 20 years now.

But in the end it means just as much as the fact that you think a particular painting is beautiful. You may find that information interesting and useful, but I DON'T. I don't care whether you find a particular painting beautiful. It doesn't interest me. Let it interest you all you want... just don't keep expecting me to accept your ideas when I tell you your tastes are crap. That's where we are at with these types of threads - some of which you have started just recently. You're trying to convince me that I should accept anything and everything you want to tell me, and I am giving you a stark and definitive "NO" in response... and then giving you the reasons. And then you get upset, when YOU were the one putting your ideas out there and expecting everyone else to tow the line.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference is so plain, it's ridiculous, and yet people apparently need it explained to them thousands upon thousands of times.

Religious knowledge is only possibly "correct." Meaning you can't even know, for sure, that it is correct or not, to any actual degree. You have no way to measure, observe or demonstrate the correctness of the ideas.

Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is reliable, testable, its conclusions reproducible, useful to any/all people, universally applicable, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The difference is night and day as to the actual, reliable utility of the two forms of information and study.

Why do you list spiritual teachings' extreme age as a positive thing as compared to what you are calling "science?" Science has produced more universally applicable information in its relatively short "lifetime" than religion has in thousands and thousands of years. That's the takeaway here - not that science is some younger, petulant child.

Yeah, I know all that! Yet there is no scientific theory of everything and there is no objective "we" in humanity, so as long as you claim that science can do everything for a "we", you are up a creek without a paddle.

You and I will never become in the strong sense a "we", because that is not how biology. The replication of the fittest gene is what gives rise to subjectivity and all these debate. So science is on my side. I am as natural as you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But in the end it means just as much as the fact that you think a particular painting is beautiful. You may find that information interesting and useful, but I DON'T. ...

Yes, that is subjectivity. And you can't eliminate that, neither in you or me, because nature doesn't work like that.