Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> I would argue that, in most respects, it is worse. Why? Because the key
> feature of science is, "You could be wrong.", while the key feature of
> religion is, "There is one right and true way, so failing to follow it
> is automatically wrong."

I disagree.

You may be right with some religions, and indeed most particularly with those we
typically think of when we hear "religion": christianity, islam, and judaism.
Most likely all monotheistic religions, for that matter.

From what I know, however, Buddhism for instance is quite a *lot* about *not*
knowing answers, and I guess they're even a lot better than science at dealing
with the concept of absence of an answer; they even have a dedicated word to
represent a non-answer (somethig like "NULL" in C ;)): "Mu".

I'd also guess that so-called "natural religions" are much less focused on being
right or wrong.


Also, I'm not talking about who was more effective at putting a man on the moon.
I'm talking about science having led us to overcrowding, global warming,
exploitation of any natural ressource we can get our hands on, radioactive
waste we have no idea how to deal with the next few million years, and the
like. And I'm asking the question whether the thing we're aiming for with
science is really *good*.

Not that I'd have an answer to this question. But I think it is legitimate to
ask, given the existing evidence.

Maybe an "explanatory" model of the world that focuses on moral lessons instead
of predictions might be of more benefit to mankind. Such a model would have no
need for being perfectly rational. If such a model attributed spirits to each
and everything to teach us respect for the world around us and each other, then
that would be perfectly legitimate.

Again, I'm not trying to give an answer here - rather ask a question, with my
point being that it's a question that science cannot answer either, although it
touches the very foundation of science's claim of superiority above religion.

In other words, science is founded on blind faith that technological advancement
is inherently good. So far, this has yet to be proven, and there is reason to
assume that it is *impossible* to prove. Therefore, science is just another
religion - q.e.d.


And just in case someone is about to claim that at least nobody has ever
committed cruelties in the name of science: Open your eyes.

Animals are tortured in the name of medicine, for instance.

And if you look closely enough, science has actually led to what is commonly
considered one of the greatest cruelties in history: The Nazi-German Holocaust
- driven by belief in the concept of a "Herrenrasse", which was nothing than
Darwinism gone radical-fundamentalist.

Science led utterly astray, for sure. But just the same can be said in defense
of chrisitianity with respect to the crusades. And the same can be said in
defense of islam with respect to terrorism.


So much for the superiority of science.

Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's bad. Maybe it's the best religion
mankind has ever invented. All I'm saying is that it bears all characteristics
of a religion itself.

Post a reply to this message