By
Why Science is Fundamentally Meaningless
https://ift.tt/7cAUhZo
Oooo, I’ve probably got a few raised eyebrows on this one.
It is a rather bold statement.
Notice, however, I was careful to use the word “meaningless” rather than “useless.” “Usefulness” is usually determined by the intention behind the knowledge or action.
If I want to mend a broken bone, for example, and I learn something about the science behind the act of mending a bone, then the science is “useful”—it was useful in the accomplishment of the intention of mending the bone. If I want to kill a huge number of people with a single blast, the science behind an atomic bomb is “useful.”
But is it meaningful?
Considering my article title, I could have qualified even that statement with “beneficially meaningful,” but then the title would be too long.
So, then you might ask, “beneficially meaningful to whom?”—us (humans), animals, the planet, the universe? I may touch on this dilemma a bit in this article, but that question is more for philosophers and theologians. Briefly, I would say what is beneficially meaningful to any one of these things (humans, other animals, the planet, the universe) is also beneficially meaningful to the others.
To put it in religious/spiritual language, it would then resonate and correlate with God’s plan. And what is God’s plan? I think I know, do you? If you don’t know, ask Him. I don’t think it would be right for me to try to tell you, I could be wrong. Being “beneficially meaningful” to humans, animals, the planet, and the universe certainly correlates with probably the most universal spiritual concept: unity consciousness.
Let me pick apart my article title a bit more, so all of this makes more sense.
Science is usually defined as the study of nature. To be precise, here is the Webster dictionary definition:
1. Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
The word “system” in the above covers my word “study,” and the words “physical world and its phenomena,” covers my word “nature.”
It is important to note that nature is generally defined as “the material world” as science has little interest in metaphysics, non-material phenomena, and religion or spirituality. This has not always been the case, and maybe I am too quick to judge. Maybe this Webster definition includes the “science of metaphysics,” but I seriously doubt it.
So, after going over these definitions, why is it so important that we have “knowledge of the physical world and its phenomena”? The knowledge of these things doesn’t seem to be the issue (at least not the one that causes harm in a physical way), it is the use of that knowledge that is usually of concern. And if how we use it, for the most part, is meaningless, then science is meaningless. Why is the knowledge not the problem? Well, in fact, it ultimately is. It is the problem only because humans cannot refrain from acting on knowledge. Our God-given gift of free will ensures that.
So, we are in quite a dilemma then, aren’t we? Do we decide to refrain from educating ourselves about the world around us? Or do we just refrain from using that knowledge in bad ways? Maybe a little bit of both. We typically want knowledge because we believe it will better our lives in some way. If we knew that the fundamental basis of our life was really not in our hands to alter, that it was rather in God’s hands, then most of the things we could gain knowledge over would be pointless to know.
This might be an utterly weird concept to grasp, but if we look at how the rest of the planet (and assuming the universe, too) functions without factoring in humans, it will be a bit easier to understand what I am getting at.
First, consider that mammals are rather close in structure to humans, then consider how they function in an ecological system as well as they do if humans don’t interfere. They know nothing they do not need to know, and all that they know, we could argue, comes through instinct, and genetic “knowingness.” Although we also could argue there is an awful lot they learn through their living experience—they know very little that is not “beneficially meaningful”—they do not know about the science of physics, medicine, how an atom functions, or how cells work. They know or learn what they need in order to survive, find joy and happiness, and procreate. They are in God’s hands. That’s it.
Most humans do not want to live like animals. They feel they are above that. Maybe they were when they were “above animals” in the Garden of Eden before they ate that nice apple pie that Mr. Snake baked for them—from the tree of knowledge, no less. Isn’t that “science”? Or maybe that very thing is what made them feel superior to the beasts around them. Whatever it was, or however it was, they subsequently knew stuff. Science was invented, and here we started around the mulberry bush, waiting for the weasel to pop.
How come this didn’t happen to all humans? I have no idea, I am not an anthropologist and have not read much, if anything, about why some cultures never became mesmerized about knowing so damned much. “Primitive” tribes don’t know much more scientific detail about the natural world than the animals that occupy it with them. If it weren’t for the more “advanced” humans bent on destroying their existence, they probably would have lived for millions of years fitting comfortably within the eco-structures of the world around them. They still would be humans, still “smarter” than the beasts, but whatever knowledge they acquired, whatever science they managed to handle, would not have destroyed them as it has unquestionably destroyed us (or at least on its merry way to do so).
What is the evidence of this destruction? Let me count the ways. Where do I start? There isn’t room here to even begin: atomic war, poisonous food, poisonous pharmacology, poisonous social media, pornography, pollution, AI, robotics, you get the picture. I could go into detail about the price we have had to pay for nearly every seemingly glorious invention science has given us, and yes, we certainly could argue whether the price to pay was reasonable. But eventually we would end up where we are right now.
It all led to this. And this ain’t so good. Suicide rates at an all time high, drug abuse at an all time high, kids so lost they have to identify as a different sex, government so corrupt there is no return to decency. Depression, anxiety, drug abuse, meaningless and purposeless lives. What more can I say? It isn’t good.
So, what is good? Lots of things, of course, but even the good things are not ultimately good. They lead to overpopulation, to the destruction of our waterways, the extinction of countless living creatures, the poisoning of the air, the land, and our minds, which have lost nearly all thought of meaning and purpose.
Think about tribal people again. Think about the sophistication of their culture, their rituals, their magic, their natural medicine. Sure, if a crocodile gets to one of them and rips out one of their kidneys, there isn’t much the medicine man can do. But that is the way of nature, isn’t it? The way of God.
I am not suggesting we toss all of our technology in the dumpster, stop all medical research, and destroy all microscopes, computers and test tubes. No, there is no turning back at this point. We are where we are with our technical acumen, and we cannot undo what we have already done—nor un-know what we already know.
All I am really saying is that this worship of the pursuit to know everything that God created (something Mr. Snake taught us) has got to stop. It is a destructive obsession and a transfer of worth away from the mystery of nature to science, the thing that continually rapes nature just to know how it works.
The post Why Science is Fundamentally Meaningless appeared first on Activist Post.
news
via Activist Post https://ift.tt/kdfAbuD
May 22, 2025 at 06:06AM
May 22, 2025 at 06:10AM
via Comments on: Why Science is Fundamentally Meaningless https://ift.tt/7cAUhZo