To be honest, I think you are giving Science more credit than it actually has. I am not saying that it is wrong, but you are assigning traits to it that Science actually doesn't possess. Religion is useful, Science is useful, and both have a place, as long as it encourages people/individuals to be better today than yesterday.
izzeme wrote:
because science actively searches for answers while trying to steer clear of bias and willing to accept outcomes that challenge the hypothesis, science is by definition more correct.
This doesn't actually apply to Science currently. Bias still plays major part and anything that challenges that bias is opposed. Look at the effort taken to finally have scientists accept the norse/Viking voyages that occurred before Columbus. Look at the effort regarding studies over the Bering land bridge and how carbon-dating of sites in the Americas show arrivals before the land bridge. Despite this science, there is still strong opposition among scientists to accept anything information that challenges the Bering Land Bridge theory.
izzeme wrote:
i am not claiming that science has, or even will ever have, all the answers, but neither does religion. at least science tries to find out
Science has been shown to be unwilling to find out. There were entire sections of our current sciences that were not only denied by past scientists but those scientists refused to accept any testing regarding those theories.
Fnord wrote:
Science encourages curiosity, and allows for correction or elimination of previously accepted theories. One demonstration trumps invalid belief.
Scientists have been shown to be unwilling to accept challenges to theories. Many of our current science was originally opposed, sometimes violently, by past scientists.
For a long while once the theory was made, the Bering Land-bridge had a crushing grip on how the peopling of the Americas took place. Despite evidence demonstrating that humans were present before the land-bridge, scientists absolutely to take seriously anything uncovered and regarded all information contrary as being fakes or hoaxes.
Much of our current mainstream science exists because of struggles waged between different groups of scientists about whether it was true or not. In some cases, the only reason the science even exists today is due to the fact that those opposed died or lost their support. The existence of lead poisoning was denied despite scientific proof. Other scientific proofs we take for granted were denied by scientists before.
Science has only recently been willing to accept new information regardless of bias and pre-conceived notions. That is recent, not further back and science still struggles with Bias.
Science is also limited in being able to measure only the perceivable to us world. Until microscopes, atoms couldn't be observed. Anything that cannot be observed directly cannot be determined by science. Science can measure the measurable, but beyond that, it breaks down. Yes, we mathematically guess about things/materials/science, but we haven't been able to test it yet.
Given how immature Science still is, I wouldn't put much faith in it being able to answer religious questions that aren't directly measurable by instruments.
Like how the others on this thread are actually real people and not cut-outs/etc produced by simulation of real existence being experienced by someone. Science is even debating whether we exist in a simulation or if we are real.
06 Oct 2014, 9:52 pm
