Too Simple to Be Wrong: Atheism's Bronze-Age Goat Herder Conceit

[NoOneMan]

39. Would you listen to my "feelings"?

Along the same note, one of the best ways to tear apart a theists' conception of reality is using the arguments of religious philosophy (instead of showing them carbon dating).

In general, my response is 3 fold:

1) We should not confuse science with technology and culture. While science can be used for tool development (technology), in its rawest form it is about understanding and observing the reality. Nothing about science itself dictates that we should be where we are today (science doesn't tell us to exploit the earth, but it can be used to determine how best to). So, my disdain is more for the institutions who have decided to implement science in the manner they have that has materialized this reality. Civilization has used religion--when it was still relevant enough to work--in egregious ways as well.

2) Even if your point stands, it does not necessarily speak toward the aggregate benefit of science. Our ability to understand how much we have destroyed the world (with IPCC reports and other data points) is neither good nor bad. Now, our ability to use that data and act in a beneficial manner would be important, though its questionable if science can mitigate this significantly, or if our civilization would use science to do that (if it threatened civilization). Ultimately though, the manifestation of this level of science is a civilization on the brink of billions of deaths and ecological destruction. The use of science to determine where our scientific civilization has brought us is...rather moot.

3) A more primitive person with a connection to their land doesn't need science to tell them their ecosystem is out of balance right now, meaning modern science is not completely necessary to understand the pertinent issues of the day. On the other hand, its entirely necessary for me to relay those to you across cultural boundaries (it creates a universal language to convey what is happening objectively)


As I originally said, both tools (science and religion) have been used by civilization to dominant the globe and bring destruction. Science does not act on its own; it needs actors to develop and implement it. It is neither good nor bad. But people are beginning to think that it is a spring of cornucopia goodness, but this stands contrary to reality (as science reveals). This means our scientific civilization is diverging from the findings of science with their believe in its "good" nature. This means a new religion is basically forming.

Sure, I use science to determine what the reality is. Science may even paint a picture that our ways of technology and perpetual production are destructive. But civilization largely ignores that, and looks for answers in technology that contradict this idea. They struggle for "progress" (more technology) to save them from a reality that is nearly unavoidable. Its a bit disturbing.