Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Andrian]

So, it strikes me that there are a lot of good reasons to rely on the conclusions of science and more importantly, on the scientific method. Science brings us technology, helps us better understand the world around us, and encourages us to push ourselves toward new heights of discovery and innovation. However, there is a lot of science denial out there, and it makes me wonder what exactly is to be gained by denying our best empirical theories and the methods of skepticism and rationality in favor of creationism, faith healing, homeopathy, and New Age woo.

Now, it seems to me that there are two categories of people who benefit from science denialism - the profiteers, and the consumers, and they profit in different ways.

Let's start with the profiteers. These are the pastors, psychics, authors, etc. who stand to earn money by denying science. For these people, the benefits are obvious. There's money in it, of course, in the form of tithes, book sales, merchandise, hotlines, and other ways of spinning pseudoscience for profit. However, there's also fame and status to be had, especially if you pitch yourself as the scrappy underdog going against the big bad establishment of academia.

On the other hand, we have the consumers. At first, it might seem like these people are just being taken advantage of, and one might wonder why they don't see through the scams. However, I think that the profiteers are selling more than just merchandise and phony services. They're also selling emotional comfort. Psychics make a living off of telling people what they want to hear about their dead loved ones. Faith healers sell sick people hope that they can get well, and well people assurance that there's a cure should they ever get sick. Creationists are selling a complete worldview which is much simpler and easier to understand, with far less uncertainty and the benefit of nostalgia, as most Creationists were raised in their faith.

Obviously, these benefits are all short-term, and in the long term could prove disastrous for humanity if widely accepted. Still humans are great at going for short-term rewards over long-term ones.

I dunno, though. I feel like this explanation is, at best, incomplete. Does anyone else have any insight on what people get out of denying science and/or promoting pseudoscience?

[Renee]

Thank you, Andrian, good write-up.

You ask what is to be added. I say personality, learning styles, perceptual methods and preferences, and intelligence.

These qualities of humans will also help determine whether they are prone to be science-deniers or science-followers.

There are intelligent who deny science, and there are stupid who deny science.

There are intelligent who subscribe to science, and there are stupid who subscribe to science.

There are knowledgeable who deny science, and there are knowledgeable who accept science.

There are ignorant who deny science, and there are ignorant who accept science.

---------------

That said, there is one instance in which only one types participates.

The intelligent and knowledgeable often (not always!) cross the floor, so to speak, from religious to atheist and science follower.

The intelligent and knowledgeable never cross the floor from science-follower to religious.

And there is plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable in both camps to begin with.

[Sy Borg]

In summary, one can make a fine living in religion without having to be a genuine expert as in other fields. In religion there are essentially a lot of people who make weakly-based guesses about reality, built on the sandy foundations of ancient mythological texts.

As a result, the strongest personalities and best networkers win control of the subject matter. Those with strong bodies and personalities but weak intellectual capacities would seem to have the most to gain by denying science. The smarter of them can pose as "experts" within the intellectual sheltered workshop of theism - the proverbial big fish in a small pond.

It should be noted that, conversely, those with weak bodies and personalities but strong intellectual capacities have the most to gain by embracing science - revenge of the nerds :))

[Ozymandias]

Thanks for bringing this topic into question.

I think first I should point out something here about what it means to "deny science". We have this conception, within this conversation and also in society in general, that being religious, spiritual, ritualistic, etc. depends on denying scientific facts. It is not necessarily so. We have things like religion to answer the questions that science cannot, such as the meaning of life or the foundation of morality. A lot of religious people only believe in aspects of theism that may not have been supported by science, but have not been eliminated by science. So wherever science gives us answers for things that religion previously (but incorrectly) explained to people, we should side with science.

I think that last piece is where the essence lies- a lot of people get into the mindset that if they side with science when it contradicts what their religion has told them, they are under a dilemma between the two and they leap to the false conclusion that they need to:

A) deny that one aspect of science and keep their religion
B) deny all of science and keep their religion
C) accept that one aspect of science and deny their whole religion

It is the third option they're afraid of, because it's scary. We, as humans, are terrified of having to lose such a big part of our lives as religion. It provides us with three of the five basic human needs (according to Maslow's Heirarchy): safety, love/ belonging, and self actualization. What a lot of people (mainly those who fail to think critically about philosophy) don't seem realize is that they can keep their religion and accept proven science; they just need to evaluate their religious beliefs. If one aspect of your belief has been disproven, you need to figure out where you or your church went wrong, and move on from that.
If one particular aspect of science is proven wrong, like if researchers find out that a certain theory was wrong, we don't say "Well, I guess all of science is wrong and ridiculous", we evaluate where we went wrong, and improve from it. Thus, the scientific world becomes stronger. As religion is also a method by which to know things, we should follow the same logic.

So, to answer the question: Many people deny science because they are aligning it against their religion. They think that unless they deny the science with a radical fervency, they will lose their friends, family, and overall life purpose. This is more of an instinctual thought (because of how our minds work under Maslow's hierarchy) which is why these people don't realize it. I think it's very understandable that they would deny direct facts under such a stressful illusion. Science-deniers are under the impression that by denying science, they have hugely impactful facets of their life to gain (or rather, keep).

[Spiral Out]

Does anyone else have any insight on what people get out of denying science and/or promoting pseudoscience?

Well, as pointed out before, it depends on what you mean exactly by "denying science". If you're speaking of monetary gain, then I can think of far better ways to spend $13.25 billion other than on finding some particle that will not help Humanity in any way anytime soon, if ever. We could "deny the science" of supposedly (it's a fake, they had to pretend to find something in order to justify the absurd cost of building the damn thing) finding particles and save $13.25 billion.

ibtimes.com/forbes-finding-higgs-boson- ... ion-721503

"Electricity costs alone for the LHC run about $23.4 million annually, while each year's computing costs have been estimated at $286 million each year. The collider is a delicate machine that requires constant upkeep."

And I wonder just how much the operations of the LHC contribute to climate change.

What can people gain by denying science? How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

A colossal failure of Humanity in my opinion.

[Andrian]

Well, as pointed out before, it depends on what you mean exactly by "denying science". If you're speaking of monetary gain, then I can think of far better ways to spend $13.25 billion other than on finding some particle that will not help Humanity in any way anytime soon, if ever. We could "deny the science" of supposedly (it's a fake, they had to pretend to find something in order to justify the absurd cost of building the damn thing) finding particles and save $13.25 billion.

(URL Removed due to permissions)

"Electricity costs alone for the LHC run about $23.4 million annually, while each year's computing costs have been estimated at $286 million each year. The collider is a delicate machine that requires constant upkeep."

And I wonder just how much the operations of the LHC contribute to climate change.

What can people gain by denying science? How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

A colossal failure of Humanity in my opinion.

Um... I'd LOVE to see your source for the claim that the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a fake.

As for the cost of the investment in the LHC, I would consider it well worth it. Physics has been one of the most productive fields of science in terms of producing new technologies, and I don't think that's about to stop any time soon.

I won't argue that the things you mention are important, but cutting science funding (in areas other than cancer research, apparently) in favor of them is a step in the wrong direction if you ask me. If you want to cut down on frivolous spending, go after sports or the War on Drugs, not science.

Trips to Mars and building massive telescopes have their practical uses, too. Space exploration is going to be vital if the human population is to continue to grow. At the very least we'll need to begin mining asteroids for resources at some point. Also, astronomical observations have given us insights into physics, which I once again remind you is a field which produces a LOT of new technology. Those big telescopes helped validate Einstein's predictions regarding Relativity, a theory which has directly led to technologies such as GPS.

[LuckyR]

Does anyone else have any insight on what people get out of denying science and/or promoting pseudoscience?

Well, as pointed out before, it depends on what you mean exactly by "denying science". If you're speaking of monetary gain, then I can think of far better ways to spend $13.25 billion other than on finding some particle that will not help Humanity in any way anytime soon, if ever. We could "deny the science" of supposedly (it's a fake, they had to pretend to find something in order to justify the absurd cost of building the damn thing) finding particles and save $13.25 billion.

ibtimes.com/forbes-finding-higgs-boson- ... ion-721503

"Electricity costs alone for the LHC run about $23.4 million annually, while each year's computing costs have been estimated at $286 million each year. The collider is a delicate machine that requires constant upkeep."

And I wonder just how much the operations of the LHC contribute to climate change.

What can people gain by denying science? How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

A colossal failure of Humanity in my opinion.

Hhmmm... sounds like science to me.

I think you may be missing the OP's point (or maybe I am). My take is that he is referring to say, Climate Change deniers. To be fair, IMO there is nothing special about denying Climate Change science. If you are a coal mine owner denying science is NOT the issue, money is the issue. If I sell salami sandwiches and an article is published that states that cured meat causes cancer in beagle dogs, guess what? I am going to say that there is no evidence that it is a problem in humans so ignore that and order a side of fries with your sandwich. It isn't about science it is about protecting my personal self interest. If my cross street rival meatloaf sandwich place says 6 out of 7 of those in a survey like meatloaf more than salami, I am going to deny that and hit back with a False News story that meatloaf is made from horse meat. It's greed not antiscience.

[Sy Borg]

How about something actually worthwhile like spending that money on finding a cure for cancer, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, providing healthcare for veterans, etc. instead of useless trips to Mars, hunting particles, building massive telescopes and other wastes of time and money.

A colossal failure of Humanity in my opinion.

Many of these experiments are of great interest and value to the military, with each nation working towards an advantage, lest they make themselves vulnerable. Throughout history, many of the most powerful and life-changing discoveries were serendipitous or found during "blue skies research".

Increasingly I am of the opinion that if humanity was capable of doing any "better" at this time, it would have done so. This is how far we have come, given current limitations. There will always be failures and successes. I doubt that will change no matter how far we might advance.

Agree with Andrian's idea about saving money (and lives and families' happiness) by stopping the war on drugs. Alas, this is how far we have come in that area too. It's one of our many failures.

[Spiral Out]

Um... I'd LOVE to see your source for the claim that the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a fake.

The problem in such things is that those faithful to science cannot be swayed by critical thought any more than those faithful to a god can be swayed by logic. They simply become denial-deniers. It's pointless.

As for the cost of the investment in the LHC, I would consider it well worth it. Physics has been one of the most productive fields of science in terms of producing new technologies, and I don't think that's about to stop any time soon.

Yes, that's quite unfortunate. It's really quite simple: take all of the money spent on space exploration, particle accelerators, etc. and then we might see science make a real difference for Humanity. The starving and homeless do not care if we think we're "unlocking the mysteries of the universe". The even greater mystery in need of solving is how we can ignore the plight of our fellow Humans while spending absurd amounts of money on things that don't matter.

I won't argue that the things you mention are important, but cutting science funding (in areas other than cancer research, apparently) in favor of them is a step in the wrong direction if you ask me. If you want to cut down on frivolous spending, go after sports or the War on Drugs, not science.

I wouldn't stop at sports or the ridiculous "war on drugs". Let's add religious groups, political organizations and the military industrial complex to the mix.

Trips to Mars and building massive telescopes have their practical uses, too.

No they don't. There's nothing practical about them.

Space exploration is going to be vital if the human population is to continue to grow.

That's a fantasy. There's no way Humans are cooperative enough to achieve extra-planetary colonization. That's a pipe dream. It's an excuse for geeks to spend our money on their pet projects.

At the very least we'll need to begin mining asteroids for resources at some point.

Doubtful.

Also, astronomical observations have given us insights into physics, which I once again remind you is a field which produces a LOT of new technology.

Like what? How have any of these 'new technologies' helped feed the hungry, house the homeless or provide care and compassion for the elderly?

Those big telescopes helped validate Einstein's predictions regarding Relativity, a theory which has directly led to technologies such as GPS.

Who cares? I got around perfectly well before GPS. I can read a map.

[Andrian]

Um... I'd LOVE to see your source for the claim that the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a fake.

The problem in such things is that those faithful to science cannot be swayed by critical thought any more than those faithful to a god can be swayed by logic. They simply become denial-deniers. It's pointless.

As for the cost of the investment in the LHC, I would consider it well worth it. Physics has been one of the most productive fields of science in terms of producing new technologies, and I don't think that's about to stop any time soon.

Yes, that's quite unfortunate. It's really quite simple: take all of the money spent on space exploration, particle accelerators, etc. and then we might see science make a real difference for Humanity. The starving and homeless do not care if we think we're "unlocking the mysteries of the universe". The even greater mystery in need of solving is how we can ignore the plight of our fellow Humans while spending absurd amounts of money on things that don't matter.

I won't argue that the things you mention are important, but cutting science funding (in areas other than cancer research, apparently) in favor of them is a step in the wrong direction if you ask me. If you want to cut down on frivolous spending, go after sports or the War on Drugs, not science.

I wouldn't stop at sports or the ridiculous "war on drugs". Let's add religious groups, political organizations and the military industrial complex to the mix.

Trips to Mars and building massive telescopes have their practical uses, too.

No they don't. There's nothing practical about them.

Space exploration is going to be vital if the human population is to continue to grow.

That's a fantasy. There's no way Humans are cooperative enough to achieve extra-planetary colonization. That's a pipe dream. It's an excuse for geeks to spend our money on their pet projects.

At the very least we'll need to begin mining asteroids for resources at some point.

Doubtful.

Also, astronomical observations have given us insights into physics, which I once again remind you is a field which produces a LOT of new technology.

Like what? How have any of these 'new technologies' helped feed the hungry, house the homeless or provide care and compassion for the elderly?

Those big telescopes helped validate Einstein's predictions regarding Relativity, a theory which has directly led to technologies such as GPS.

Who cares? I got around perfectly well before GPS. I can read a map.

I... am staggered by this. I hardly even know how to respond to someone so willfully ignorant of reality, but okay. I'll do my best to unravel this mess.

I'll take your lack of a source and change of subject as an admission that you have no evidence that the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a fake. Evidence or it didn't happen, bro. Science isn't a religion, it's a firm refusal to be swayed by anything less than good evidence. The only people who truly embrace science are those who are willing to change their minds if presented with good reasons to do so.

Your dismissal of physics research as being valuable to the poor and the ill is utterly ridiculous. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and advances in physics lead to advances in other sciences, as well. Let's consider refrigeration, which allowed for storing food longer. That was produced by an understanding of physics. Do I really need to explain how the ability to prevent food from going bad helps alleviate hunger? Computers are a product of the understanding of quantum physics, and in the relatively near future we might see quantum computing take off, further improving the speed and efficiency of computers. And before you dismiss computers as unnecessary to things like curing disease, let me point out that computers are basically necessary for research into diseases and for finding cures for them. 3D modeling allows biochemists to understand the structures of proteins. Genetic algorithms explore vast fitness landscapes to find optimal results. Even the development of online gaming has led to advances in medicine, with games like eteRNA and FoldIt allowing players to find solutions to real-world problems in their free time. Computers have allowed scientists to accomplish things in a matter of hours that might have once taken months. All of this comes back to physicists doing costly experiments for which a lay person such as yourself wouldn't be able to see any practical use. It's often only in hindsight that we can fully appreciate the value of research.

Your dismissal of space exploration is as mind-boggling as your dismissal of physics. I don't see how you can argue that people won't be able to colonize other worlds when we've already crossed oceans to colonize other continents. It's all just the same thing on a different scale. If people can work together well enough to cross the ocean and settle in an untamed foreign land, then why couldn't they work together well enough to cross the vast expanses of space and settle on an untamed foreign planet? As for asteroid mining, efforts to begin doing that are already in the works. There's a lot of valuable stuff out in space, and if we can figure out how to get it, it could potentially raise the standard of living for everyone. Reducing the scarcity of resources is a good thing.

I believe that science is a good thing because it has proven itself repeatedly. It's given us innovations in transportation, communication, agriculture, medicine, and pretty much everything in-between, and literally everyone on the planet benefits from these innovations. Granted, some benefit more than others, but that isn't because we're spending too much money on science. It's more because of economics and politics, as well as the quirks of human psychology. Scientists have been and are working on fixing these problems. As I've pointed out, innovations in one field of science often enable advancements in other fields of science. If anything, we ought to be increasing science funding so as to speed up advancements in technology that will save lives.

If you want to put a dent in poverty, don't start by trying to impede scientific progress. Get your priorities straight.

[Renee]

Thanks for bringing this topic into question.

I think first I should point out something here about what it means to "deny science". We have this conception, within this conversation and also in society in general, that being religious, spiritual, ritualistic, etc. depends on denying scientific facts. It is not necessarily so. We have things like religion to answer the questions that science cannot, such as the meaning of life or the foundation of morality. A lot of religious people only believe in aspects of theism that may not have been supported by science, but have not been eliminated by science. So wherever science gives us answers for things that religion previously (but incorrectly) explained to people, we should side with science.

I think that last piece is where the essence lies- a lot of people get into the mindset that if they side with science when it contradicts what their religion has told them, they are under a dilemma between the two and they leap to the false conclusion that they need to:

A) deny that one aspect of science and keep their religion
B) deny all of science and keep their religion
C) accept that one aspect of science and deny their whole religion

It is the third option they're afraid of, because it's scary. We, as humans, are terrified of having to lose such a big part of our lives as religion. It provides us with three of the five basic human needs (according to Maslow's Heirarchy): safety, love/ belonging, and self actualization. What a lot of people (mainly those who fail to think critically about philosophy) don't seem realize is that they can keep their religion and accept proven science; they just need to evaluate their religious beliefs. If one aspect of your belief has been disproven, you need to figure out where you or your church went wrong, and move on from that.
If one particular aspect of science is proven wrong, like if researchers find out that a certain theory was wrong, we don't say "Well, I guess all of science is wrong and ridiculous", we evaluate where we went wrong, and improve from it. Thus, the scientific world becomes stronger. As religion is also a method by which to know things, we should follow the same logic.

So, to answer the question: Many people deny science because they are aligning it against their religion. They think that unless they deny the science with a radical fervency, they will lose their friends, family, and overall life purpose. This is more of an instinctual thought (because of how our minds work under Maslow's hierarchy) which is why these people don't realize it. I think it's very understandable that they would deny direct facts under such a stressful illusion. Science-deniers are under the impression that by denying science, they have hugely impactful facets of their life to gain (or rather, keep).

Ozymandias, I love your answer.

Your answer is methodical, systematic, and accurate. Both in measurable facts and in psychological theory.

I'd only add that those religious, who fear accepting science (or any or certain aspects of it), fear not only for the loss of social support and emotional well-being, but for supernatural reasons as well: they figure they would lose their preferred status of getting into heaven if they admittedly contradicted the words of what they consider the holy scriptures.

This is a big and real fear. Bigger than the fear of social isolation, or self-hatred or fear of losing a sense of purpose in life.

There is a big part of your solution which I am afraid is impossible. You said it so eloquently: """"" What a lot of people (mainly those who fail to think critically about philosophy) don't seem realize is that they can keep their religion and accept proven science; they just need to evaluate their religious beliefs. If one aspect of your belief has been disproven, you need to figure out where you or your church went wrong, and move on from that.
If one particular aspect of science is proven wrong, like if researchers find out that a certain theory was wrong, we don't say "Well, I guess all of science is wrong and ridiculous", we evaluate where we went wrong, and improve from it. Thus, the scientific world becomes stronger. As religion is also a method by which to know things, we should follow the same logic. """"

Due to a belief in the INFALLIBILITY of the scriptures, this unfortunately can't be done for all aspects and facets of the belief. That's why the big arguments against reason and fact re: evolution.

Some things were done, and helped to be done; for instance, suicide was legal and allowed and even supported and encouraged by the early Christian church, until an epidemic threatened, under which too many young people committed suicide to get to heaven quicker. This was outlawed by a Caesar or Pope, and thus has since then Western Civilization been looking at suicide with a frown.

But there are others that can be helped. For instance, abortion. Fundamentalists support the death penalty but abhor abortion, because aborted fetuses are considered alive, but not baptized. Executed adults are Christians, so God's pleasing has been done to completion which calls for more and more people to turn to Christianity before their deaths.

My proposition of quick-fix with regards to abortion (and I wrote to the Vatican about it; no reply has to date come to it) is to allow fetuses to be baptized before abortion. This move would satisfy both the pro-lifers (those particular ones, the majority, which are pro-Christian-lifers) and the pro-choicers. It would lift the burden of guilt of those pro-choicers who are pro-lifers in the bottom of their hearts.

-- Updated December 10th, 2016, 12:52 pm to add the following --

As for the cost of the investment in the LHC, I would consider it well worth it. Physics has been one of the most productive fields of science in terms of producing new technologies, and I don't think that's about to stop any time soon.

Yes, that's quite unfortunate. It's really quite simple: take all of the money spent on space exploration, particle accelerators, etc. and then we might see science make a real difference for Humanity. The starving and homeless do not care if we think we're "unlocking the mysteries of the universe". The even greater mystery in need of solving is how we can ignore the plight of our fellow Humans while spending absurd amounts of money on things that don't matter.

With all due respect, you are both committing a huge logical mistake with your arguments.

You both believe that the money spent on building the Hardon Collider was money that was swallowed up and disappeared.

Well, money does NOT disappear. Never.

The scientists, technologists, builders, mechanics, electricians and moulders, die makers and drillers, ALL got paid. That's where the money went. Then these people got THAT awfully big lot of money, and spent it -- on houses, cars, CHARITIES OF THEIR CHOICE, new clothes, FEEDING THE POOR.

You both committed a blindness in economic insight. Sorry, not to blast you two, but to show you that just because money was spent on this science project, the hungry was fed, the unhoused was housed, and the unclad was clothed, without any interruption of services due to building the Hardon Coolaider, or due to space exploration, or due to building telescopes or stethoscopes.

The argument "why was this money wasted on science and not used to feed, house and clothe the poor" is simply an ill-gotten, logically fallacious argument.

[Andrian]

With all due respect, you are both committing a huge logical mistake with your arguments.

You both believe that the money spent on building the Hardon Collider was money that was swallowed up and disappeared.

Well, money does NOT disappear. Never.

The scientists, technologists, builders, mechanics, electricians and moulders, die makers and drillers, ALL got paid. That's where the money went. Then these people got THAT awfully big lot of money, and spent it -- on houses, cars, CHARITIES OF THEIR CHOICE, new clothes, FEEDING THE POOR.

You both committed a blindness in economic insight. Sorry, not to blast you two, but to show you that just because money was spent on this science project, the hungry was fed, the unhoused was housed, and the unclad was clothed, without any interruption of services due to building the Hardon Coolaider, or due to space exploration, or due to building telescopes or stethoscopes.

The argument "why was this money wasted on science and not used to feed, house and clothe the poor" is simply an ill-gotten, logically fallacious argument.

This is a good point, and I agree with it to some extent. I never meant to come across as saying that there wasn't economic benefit to building the LHC or sending probes to Mars or whatever. However, there is still the question of whether those resources could be better allocated, which is the point of the whole discussion. Building the LHC doesn't directly help the poor so much as, say, microinvestments in developing nations or providing a living wage to everyone might. The economic benefit to the poor from building the LHC is tangential, and could just as easily have been accomplished by building roads, monuments, or whatever else governments spend their money on. My argument is focused around the fact that advancing physics is going to help the poor more in the long run than direct aid would. The LHC is an investment that is very likely to eventually produce significant returns that everyone will benefit from, and not just because people were employed in building it.

[Ozymandias]

I'd only add that those religious, who fear accepting science (or any or certain aspects of it), fear not only for the loss of social support and emotional well-being, but for supernatural reasons as well: they figure they would lose their preferred status of getting into heaven if they admittedly contradicted the words of what they consider the holy scriptures.

This is a big and real fear. Bigger than the fear of social isolation, or self-hatred or fear of losing a sense of purpose in life.

There is a big part of your solution which I am afraid is impossible.
Due to a belief in the INFALLIBILITY of the scriptures, this unfortunately can't be done for all aspects and facets of the belief. That's why the big arguments against reason and fact re: evolution.

Some things were done, and helped to be done; for instance, suicide was legal and allowed and even supported and encouraged by the early Christian church, until an epidemic threatened, under which too many young people committed suicide to get to heaven quicker. This was outlawed by a Caesar or Pope, and thus has since then Western Civilization been looking at suicide with a frown.

But there are others that can be helped. For instance, abortion. Fundamentalists support the death penalty but abhor abortion, because aborted fetuses are considered alive, but not baptized. Executed adults are Christians, so God's pleasing has been done to completion which calls for more and more people to turn to Christianity before their deaths.

My proposition of quick-fix with regards to abortion (and I wrote to the Vatican about it; no reply has to date come to it) is to allow fetuses to be baptized before abortion. This move would satisfy both the pro-lifers (those particular ones, the majority, which are pro-Christian-lifers) and the pro-choicers. It would lift the burden of guilt of those pro-choicers who are pro-lifers in the bottom of their hearts.

I fear we're getting a bit off topic, and moving more into philosophy of religion, but the matter still needs to be clear in order for it to apply to the OP's question, so:
I do like the pre- abortion baptism idea, but I wouldn't call it a solution to abortion in general. It's still the loss of a human life, which should only happen if absolutely necessary.

Yes, the problem with altering one's belief system to fit to science is often directly against tenets or clauses of claims of infallibility. However, as someone who was raised a Christian but has respect for science, Biblical and church infallibility is the first thing I determined to be false. The Bible has contradictions within itself, thus it literally cannot be infallible. After all, the entire European Renaissance and Enlightenment arose out of the questioning of church infallibility, so why should we not continue to call it into question? Having a fallible belief system does not make my religion wrong or unholy, it only makes it better, because I then have room for improvement. I can determine what is good, and whittle my beliefs down to the important and true stuff.

To get back on track, religion does not have to be infallible; and if it contradicts with science, it should be admitted to be fallible. That's my perspective anyway, though this is certainly a subjective claim. Many people hold that their religions are correct over science in any contradictions, and that's not theologically bad, but it is still anti-science, which as I've said before, is a very bad thing for society.

[Felix]

Oh I see, Renee, it's irrelevant what we invest our money and resources on; could be developing military technology that kills people more efficiently, building more prisons, seeking the ultimate boundaries of the subatomic world, determining the precise chemical composition of Saturn's rings, etc., etc. As long as the activity helps grow the economy and the workers in these industries donate a portion of their income to charities, it's fine. That's perfectly logical....

[Ozymandias]

Oh I see, Renee, it's irrelevant what we invest our money and resources on; could be developing military technology that kills people more efficiently, building more prisons, seeking the ultimate boundaries of the subatomic world, determining the precise chemical composition of Saturn's rings, etc., etc. As long as the activity helps grow the economy and the workers in these industries donate a portion of their income to charities, it's fine. That's perfectly logical....

You're making harsh exaggerations. The point is that science is a big part of many economies, both local and global. If you are making the claim that it doesn't help anybody to spend all that money on science, you're not looking at the whole picture.

For example: Los Alamos, NM is a pretty small town revolving around LANL, where they research atoms and nuclear such and such. Lots of it is secretive, lots is blue skies, and it's funded by the government. Sure, you could choose to pull all their funding out and use it to feed a bunch of homeless people, and that would be very good for those homeless people. However, if you did that, and shut down the research lab, you would kick the backbone of Los Alamos's workforce out of their jobs, likely hurting, if not destroying, the economy. Your idea for helping people by spending less on money could really just create ghost towns, damaged economies, and even more homelessness. If you want to argue against science from an economic standpoint, you should go at it from another angle.