I find the general attempt by many in society to link science and religion to be worthless. It's like trying to combine football and the Ice Capades because they are both arena-based entertainment. Other than paying way too much for a hot dog and a soda, there's nothing there to work with.
Religion is not only a belief, but a belief in questions that are too stupid to be contemplated. To try and find something real inside a belief in the creatures made up by human minds is not a valid endeavour. It's an attempt to justify something that has no basis for making the attempt. We are waaaaaaay past the time when we only had the tools of bare human observations, hallucinations, and unsubstantiated conjecture to determine the nature of the universe. We not only have the scientific method--which has never been shown to be faulty--we also have instruments that can determine things like the chemicals that make up a star thousands of light years away and can see the physical structure of molecules. We have much better information now; to try and keep the outdated religious-based stuff alive is just nuts, IMO. Would anyone keep drinking water that was contaminated with human waste after having learned of it?
As far as believing in general goes, we should drop it completely. It's something I've done on purpose to the point where I believe nothing at all. I don't even use the word. I either know something or I don't, I either think something or I don't. I don't believe anything. It does make me a little nuts in a pet peevish way when scientists say they "believe" something to be true. If I had the clout, I'd start a campaign to get scientists to quit using "believe." The contextual meaning of the word is not appropriate within the world of science.
I don't see how science can be seen as a religion. Other than religionists trying to create a false link in order to try and find something with which to do battle, I have seen nothing to justify the assertion. For one thing, science is subject to peer review to try and catch bullshit. While some stuff does make it through the initial process sometimes, it always gets cleaned up eventually. There is no such process in a belief system. They are set, never to change. That's why we get so many splinter groups, including tens of thousands of sects of Christianity, for example. Can you imagine a world where scientists would continually break into separate groups to maintain an ever-growing set of falsehoods? Some do, and they are called pseudo-scientists and quacks and remain on the margins of not only the scientific community (if allowed in at all), but of society in general. Beliefs are not subject to scrutiny by "true" believers and maintained as a badge of honor.
If a group of believers in anything is touting their position simply by the strength of their beliefs rather than logic or evidence, then it can be determined invalid with no further inquiry. Things that are purely observed or thought up by humans should always be assumed to be wrong. Studies have continually shown that our minds do not perceive the world correctly a lot of the time. From mistaken observations to the mixing of dreams and reality, we can really fuck things up when it comes to making conclusions. We need verifiable evidence from mechanisms and processes that leave us out of it. Only then can we begin to develop theories that have any hope of being close to accurate. Before the telescope, electricity, computers and a ton of other things, the stuff humans decided was correct was largely wrong--including the existence of deities controlling things.
The universe has no homunculus at the helm. If there was, there would be some proof of it. There's not. To hang on to the past is in some ways hopeful and soothingly nostalgic, but we now know how wrong those people could be having nothing to help them out in making determinations. We need to say goodbye to them and continue to move forward and accept all the new information that will come our way that updates what we now think we know. To assert that the past trumps the present means that everyone should just go home, get a cow and start making your own butter--if you can get online to find out how.
Religion is not only a belief, but a belief in questions that are too stupid to be contemplated. To try and find something real inside a belief in the creatures made up by human minds is not a valid endeavour. It's an attempt to justify something that has no basis for making the attempt. We are waaaaaaay past the time when we only had the tools of bare human observations, hallucinations, and unsubstantiated conjecture to determine the nature of the universe. We not only have the scientific method--which has never been shown to be faulty--we also have instruments that can determine things like the chemicals that make up a star thousands of light years away and can see the physical structure of molecules. We have much better information now; to try and keep the outdated religious-based stuff alive is just nuts, IMO. Would anyone keep drinking water that was contaminated with human waste after having learned of it?
As far as believing in general goes, we should drop it completely. It's something I've done on purpose to the point where I believe nothing at all. I don't even use the word. I either know something or I don't, I either think something or I don't. I don't believe anything. It does make me a little nuts in a pet peevish way when scientists say they "believe" something to be true. If I had the clout, I'd start a campaign to get scientists to quit using "believe." The contextual meaning of the word is not appropriate within the world of science.
I don't see how science can be seen as a religion. Other than religionists trying to create a false link in order to try and find something with which to do battle, I have seen nothing to justify the assertion. For one thing, science is subject to peer review to try and catch bullshit. While some stuff does make it through the initial process sometimes, it always gets cleaned up eventually. There is no such process in a belief system. They are set, never to change. That's why we get so many splinter groups, including tens of thousands of sects of Christianity, for example. Can you imagine a world where scientists would continually break into separate groups to maintain an ever-growing set of falsehoods? Some do, and they are called pseudo-scientists and quacks and remain on the margins of not only the scientific community (if allowed in at all), but of society in general. Beliefs are not subject to scrutiny by "true" believers and maintained as a badge of honor.
If a group of believers in anything is touting their position simply by the strength of their beliefs rather than logic or evidence, then it can be determined invalid with no further inquiry. Things that are purely observed or thought up by humans should always be assumed to be wrong. Studies have continually shown that our minds do not perceive the world correctly a lot of the time. From mistaken observations to the mixing of dreams and reality, we can really fuck things up when it comes to making conclusions. We need verifiable evidence from mechanisms and processes that leave us out of it. Only then can we begin to develop theories that have any hope of being close to accurate. Before the telescope, electricity, computers and a ton of other things, the stuff humans decided was correct was largely wrong--including the existence of deities controlling things.
The universe has no homunculus at the helm. If there was, there would be some proof of it. There's not. To hang on to the past is in some ways hopeful and soothingly nostalgic, but we now know how wrong those people could be having nothing to help them out in making determinations. We need to say goodbye to them and continue to move forward and accept all the new information that will come our way that updates what we now think we know. To assert that the past trumps the present means that everyone should just go home, get a cow and start making your own butter--if you can get online to find out how.
No comments:
Post a Comment