Isn't modern science overrated?

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

It seems to come in handy when you’re having unexplained chest pains, or you’d like to travel across the country in under 6 hours, or you’d like to register your opinion about science’s overratedness to millions of complete strangers.

Snap! :smiley:

It justifies atheism and therefore all kinds of sin. It also seems to be a means of making fun of people who question our culture’s worship of modern science.

1 Like


Basically this. :smiley:

Nah, I kid. It brings us lots of pretty neat stuff. Like computers and medicine and what-not. Honestly, Science isn’t any kind of institution. It’s just the method we use to find out stuff. We need to ‘worship’ it - it’s important for us to keep finding out, eh, stuff. And things. Without science, we’d just be making things up, and that’s just gosh-darned silly!

Oh, and no, science does not justify atheism. It doesn’t really prove or disprove God.

Most certainly science is arrogant, assumptive, and limited as to its ability
to perceive. Scientists are paid via grants and organizations which promulgate
their own perpetuation. In a sense, they cannot admit they are wrong, or their
theories are only conjecture, because they would be out of a job.

1 Like

And yet scientists admit that they’re wrong or that they don’t know all the time.

No, they present their theories as facts, regardless that they are not logical.

Science does not justify atheism, when in fact the two previous Popes have said that science and Christianity often strengthen each other (if I recall correctly, someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Modern science, and how it has developed to help us as a whole, is a good thing.

I’ve read before (I cannot recall any specific instances at the moment, but I hav read it in my science schoolbook) that scientists often publish their theories so they may be given constructive criticism by their fellow scientists if any of their theory is incorrect; only arrogant scientists (and there are a few, just as there are arrogant people in any group) would present their theories as outright fact when they first publish it.

Easy for me.

Science has made the good life accessible, if not to everybody, at least to a greater number than ever before.

In prescientific times, elites were able to futz around in their heads with “prime movers” and “forms of the good” only by closing their ears to the travails of the hordes of serfs and slaves in the background.

Vive la science!


Science is neutral; it’s just science-usually useful but producing both beneficial as well as harmful results, very interesting at times, at least for awhile or until the next discovery comes along. Anyway it’s simply incapable, so far, at least, of contributing a great deal to the discussion about God either for or against.

Science is a gift of God and works quite well in explaining the natural world. It’s a handy tool but it cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.

The problem arises when people act as if science or the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. I know Philosophy professors who get really hot under the collar when they hear this.

No You are right, but the common assumption among atheists is that it helps prove the non-existence, or provides more grounds for the non existence of GOD, which btw,are both false ideas. I think modern man needs to return to Philosophy. We need to start asking the fundamental questions again or we will continue to be a scientifically advanced but mediocre culture. Very mediocre. Philosophy is the mother of science.

For good reason, Science is great, even I admit it so, but what ever happened to Philosophy, the Mother of Science? All questions come from the basic and fundamental ones.

I think Scientism is what you’re looking for.

Earthly “science” is a scam that does not really exists. Earthly science is an illusion that takes the credit for technology, but take a closer look and you will see that most technology is from sources outside this world.

No, science isn’t arrogant; some scientists may be. Science has cured diseases that have plagued mankind for millennia, and has shown us the glory of God’s creation in achievements such as the Hubble telescope. I have never understood why some peoples’ faith is threatened by the idea that the Earth isn’t flat, that germs - and not evil spirits - cause disease, that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, and that the earth is older than the 5,240 years (or so) calculated by Bishop Ussher.

That’s precisely my problem with it though. If you are like me and really like Aristotle, then you must conclude that the more scientific something is, the less useful it becomes. This is why the most scientific science is only good in itself and has no real application to other things except incidentally.

To me, this is like saying that the servants of a king are absolutely better than the king because the servants are the ones that know how to get things done, even when it is the king who knows “why” things should be done and for what purpose.

As you’re defining it, the most scientific science perhaps starts out that way, but its utility generally grows over time. Think about chemistry - we probably knew about the existence of atoms and elements and the difference between them all for years without having practical applications for it. While this was going on, our understanding of human biology was also growing, to the extent that we realized our bodies are made up of precisely the same elements that we find elsewhere in the world. There’s iron in the rocks. There’s iron in our blood. How is this relevant to anything? Nobody knew for awhile. But eventually, our understanding of elements in chemistry and our understanding of human biology allowed the field of bio-chemistry to develop. Today, what we learn about chemistry can easily be considered in the context of human biology, and vice versa.

But consider something - as our understandings of chemistry and biology advanced to the point where we could use knowledge in one field to apply in another, was that making things “less scientific?” What, precisely, is “less scientific” about accumulating knowledge in various disciplines to the point where we can actually apply it to solving real world problems (like in medicine, for example)? Doesn’t this argument seem backwards to you?

There are plenty of scientific disciplines (theoretical physics, for example), that regularly produce theories that, even if true, seem a bit starved for real-world applications. But I don’t know anybody who actually organizes their life around the assumption that, say, the Multi-verse is true. I don’t even know how one would do that, even if they wanted to.

Is not science important because it helps us to understand nature and potentially use our understanding of nature to help people?

As an aside, science deals with the material world. For some people with the philosophy that everything is material then science can be looked at as an attempt to validate such a belief.

But that is separate from what i would think is the more commonly agreed view of science mentioned first.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit