02-11-2011, 02:53 PM
You describe science as it should be, but not as it is. What you described is the ideal which should be aspired to. But there are human elements which divert scientists from doing so in real life. First is the ego, which resists recognition of it's errors, even when shown proof. Ego is very underestimated. Then there is money and prestige. Scientists in the real world are professionals with careers and they must make money like everyone else. Often this is an interest conflicting with objective investigation. Some scientists are really only opportunists and have no scientific aims.
"To the scientist, no authority can be absolute, and everything we claim to know must be questioned." In practice this is far from the truth. Science has long and frequently been the god of many people, who claim it is the last authority. Science has been many people's religion. Science is not the highest authority because (1) it does not encompass all fields of knowledge or arts; and (2) it is a human endeavor and therefore, even with the best will and all honesty, it is inherently limited. The whole reason we have science is that we don't know everything about the world, so science is by it's very nature incomplete and our knowledge from it is incomplete.
Another way in which science can and has become a religion for many people is that many scientific ideas have been imposed by authorities who forbid those ideas to be questioned, regardless of numerous "repeated demonstrations" to the contrary. This is not real science, but a mixture of science with ideology or vested political and/or financial interest. Certain scientific ideas have served as religions for many people, because of their philosophical orientation.
An example of this is the climate change "consensus". Climate change "consensus" treats science as if t is a democracy. If science were a democracy, it would mean that the academics of Galileo's day were right about the universe being geostationary and geocentric, even though scientists changed their minds centuries later. Science is based on evidence and reason, not majority opinion. If one scientist out of a million had a position based on evidence and reason and all the rest did not, that one scientist would still be right.
Your central notion that science conflicts with religion is contradicted by history. Modern western science was founded by devoutly Christian men who based their investigation upon their religious ideas. They were not merely deferring to the dominant religion of their time and country. They had no "difficulty" being religious. There was no conflict with their religion and their science - their science stemmed from their religion.
You are right that religious books are revelatory, sacred and authoritative. But this does not mean that a religious book necessarily contradicts scientific discovery. Your assumption that it does is based on your unstated assumption that all religions are wrong. Therefore you are arguing in a circle or begging the question; i.e. you are assuming the conclusion of your argument as a premise for your argument, thereby ensuring that that conclusion is reached. This is a common logical fallacy, and a very unscientific one - a very biased one. It demonstrates nothing but your bias against religion.
If one religion is right (and only one can be completely right), then scientific discovery will confirm it and not conflict with it. That is, if the God of this religion created the natural universe and made revelations to those living in it, then scientific investigation of the universe will not conflict with those revelations. No modification to the revelation needs to be accepted, because it will not disagree with scientific discoveries.
So your task is to show that science contradicts all religions and, further, that it disproves any conceivable religion, e.g., that it disproves the existence of any kind of God.
"To the scientist, no authority can be absolute, and everything we claim to know must be questioned." In practice this is far from the truth. Science has long and frequently been the god of many people, who claim it is the last authority. Science has been many people's religion. Science is not the highest authority because (1) it does not encompass all fields of knowledge or arts; and (2) it is a human endeavor and therefore, even with the best will and all honesty, it is inherently limited. The whole reason we have science is that we don't know everything about the world, so science is by it's very nature incomplete and our knowledge from it is incomplete.
Another way in which science can and has become a religion for many people is that many scientific ideas have been imposed by authorities who forbid those ideas to be questioned, regardless of numerous "repeated demonstrations" to the contrary. This is not real science, but a mixture of science with ideology or vested political and/or financial interest. Certain scientific ideas have served as religions for many people, because of their philosophical orientation.
An example of this is the climate change "consensus". Climate change "consensus" treats science as if t is a democracy. If science were a democracy, it would mean that the academics of Galileo's day were right about the universe being geostationary and geocentric, even though scientists changed their minds centuries later. Science is based on evidence and reason, not majority opinion. If one scientist out of a million had a position based on evidence and reason and all the rest did not, that one scientist would still be right.
Your central notion that science conflicts with religion is contradicted by history. Modern western science was founded by devoutly Christian men who based their investigation upon their religious ideas. They were not merely deferring to the dominant religion of their time and country. They had no "difficulty" being religious. There was no conflict with their religion and their science - their science stemmed from their religion.
You are right that religious books are revelatory, sacred and authoritative. But this does not mean that a religious book necessarily contradicts scientific discovery. Your assumption that it does is based on your unstated assumption that all religions are wrong. Therefore you are arguing in a circle or begging the question; i.e. you are assuming the conclusion of your argument as a premise for your argument, thereby ensuring that that conclusion is reached. This is a common logical fallacy, and a very unscientific one - a very biased one. It demonstrates nothing but your bias against religion.
If one religion is right (and only one can be completely right), then scientific discovery will confirm it and not conflict with it. That is, if the God of this religion created the natural universe and made revelations to those living in it, then scientific investigation of the universe will not conflict with those revelations. No modification to the revelation needs to be accepted, because it will not disagree with scientific discoveries.
So your task is to show that science contradicts all religions and, further, that it disproves any conceivable religion, e.g., that it disproves the existence of any kind of God.
