‘Science’ is Worse Than Religon

“The funny thing about ideas is that they’re outdated well before they’re abandoned” – DC Hero

In 1543, Nicholas Copernicus published a book that proved mathematically what the Greeks, Indians, Muslims, and an untold number of other ancient civilizations had known but never fully explained: that the Sun is at the center of the Universe. This proof triggered an avalanche of many other ‘it’s about time’ proofs in many unrelated scientific disciplines, which collectively many historians refer to as the Scientific Revolution. This removed some long-held power from the Church, which had previously moonlighted as a place for Scientific ideas in addition to the Spiritual ones.

Now, the major players in all of this business (especially Galileo) realized that:

  1. They were taking power away from the Church that didn’t belong to the Church to begin with
  2. There were things that Science would never be able to explain

I really think Einstein said it best: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.” There are people who really believe that Science can explain everything (the people who have DarwinFish on their cars). What’s terrifying is they’re the ones who don’t know anything about Science, they’re the girls who major in Philosophy and blab on about the power of logic and reason. I’d swear those girls off if they weren’t so damn easy. But really, these people are shockingly similar to those who believe that Religion can explain everything; those people don’t have a grasp of what Religion is supposed to be about. It really boils down to whether you use Religion to explain the explainable, or you use Science to explain the unexplainable. Yeah, that’s it.

Hm, well it seems that if you had a Religion where people blindly accepted things about the Universe, but those things were actually Scientifically accurate, then you would have a Religion that actually worked very well. In other words, the institution of Religion has the capacity to explain the explainable accurately. Now, on the other hand, Science will never have the capacity to explain the unexplainable unless broad, untestable lies are created. However, this is counter to the institution of Science. Q.E.D..

Oh, and can the people who say “Religion kills many innocent people because they’re doing it in the name of God and they believe they’re righteous…”. Um, sweetheart, people die at the hands of weapons, which are the ultimate driver of Science and technology. The Crusades would not have been possible with Stone Age technology. Weapons kill people, Science makes weapons, Science kills people. Q.E.D..

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Science

15 responses to “‘Science’ is Worse Than Religon

  1. Steve Johnson

    I’m thinking this post is tongue in cheek. I mean, are there any chicks out there that are silly and dippy about the power of logic and reason? Aren’t like 99% of chicks believers in psychic powers, magic spirits, the power of palm reading, horoscopes, etc.?

    “Hm, well it seems that if you had a Religion where people blindly accepted things about the Universe, but those things were actually Scientifically accurate, then you would have a Religion that actually worked very well.”

    Well, the problem is that you can’t make a religion that believes only things that are true. What then distinguishes a believer (one of us) from a non-believer (one of them)? Believing things that can be proven? Every reasonable person believes those things. You need some way to tell friend from foe.

    On top of that, you can’t just enshrine a set of scientific beliefs as they exist today and not expect that some of them will be disproven later. Let’s say you created this religion in 1900. No quantum mechanics, no modern synthesis in biology (in other words, no understanding of the relationship between genetics and evolution), etc. Science isn’t a set of beliefs about the world, it’s a set of beliefs about how to find out truths about the world.

  2. ry420guy

    i agree more or less until the last paragraph. this is a silly argument, similar to the one used by anti-gun lobbyists.

    the idea that violence is caused simply by the availability of weapons, rather than an actual motive, is not only illogical but also not supported by any empirical evidence.

  3. Steve, the Religion wouldn’t be based on believing things can be proven, it would just incorporate modern theories into it’s theology. “God created evolution and gravity because…” When new discoveries are made, new Religions would have to be created (Protestants); I think this would happen naturally.

    ry420guy, availability of weapons has been strongly linked to incidence of suicide. This is thought to be because suicides are spur of the moment decisions. Violence against others is presumably less spur-of-the-moment, but I’m sure there’s a correlation between the two.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=suicide&st=cse&scp=1

  4. Anonomys

    I really do hope this post is toungue in cheek but you never know these days.

    “There are people who really believe that Science can explain everything (the people who have DarwinFish on their cars). What’s terrifying is they’re the ones who don’t know anything about Science, they’re the girls who major in Philosophy and blab on about the power of logic and reason. ”

    Everything can be explained by the laws of the natural world using logic and reasoning. However, scientists and science minded people will never claim to know all the answers but they work at it so one day they will get a better understanding. The Einstein quote is testament to that in that science minded people accept that they don’t know everything but refuse to be complacent in their endeavor for knowledge. On the shoulders of giants are we as a civilized society able to break barriers in the physical world.

    “It really boils down to whether you use Religion to explain the explainable, or you use Science to explain the unexplainable. Yeah, that’s it.”

    I can see where you might think this way. Thousands of years ago, caveman saw lightning and an angry god had to be the most logical reason. Science is based on reason and logic. Religion is based on faith. They are two very different concepts. While in the early stages of development and civilization, science and religion were the same thing, both have taken a much divergent path. Mainly religion was created to address spirituality and in my opinion has veered far from that path and has become “the opiate of the people” to keep the disenfranchised in their place. A pretty useful tool for the ruling class who have been “ordained” by god to lead.

    “In other words, the institution of Religion has the capacity to explain the explainable accurately. Now, on the other hand, Science will never have the capacity to explain the unexplainable unless broad, untestable lies are created.”

    Religion does not have the capacity to explain anything. Once again, that is faith and that is not an “accurate explanation”. Science will at least admit it’s wrong and work from there to get to the answer. Ask someone from the 1600’s how birds fly and if man would ever fly himself. Would you accept those answers knowing what you know today?

    “Um, sweetheart, people die at the hands of weapons, which are the ultimate driver of Science and technology. The Crusades would not have been possible with Stone Age technology.”

    The Crusades did happen with stone age technology, or pretty close to it (swords and bows?). The ultimate driver of science is to gain greater mastery of the physical world. Cave man did not create spears and clubs to kill other people initially, rather to be more effective in hunting food. Then it was used on other humans for protection of resources. Both of these are logical reasons that help ensure the survaival of an individual and by further extension a species. This is merely an extension of nature coupled with man’s ability to create and pass down learned skills to future generations. The concept of killing because of differing ideaologies not based on survival is what religions foster.

    “Weapons kill people, Science makes weapons, Science kills people. Q.E.D..”

    Really?!?!? Sorry, but this is an illogical blanket statement and does NOT belong in the realms of science.

  5. Really?!?!? Sorry, but this is an illogical blanket statement and does NOT belong in the realms of science.

    Haha, you are correct, Sir.

    I like some of the points you make here, as it seems you agree with me that the religious hatred of science (and the other way around) is foolish. You also make the point that religion has veered off of the spiritual course. I would say that this does not apply to all religions, but I do agree.

    What I am saying is science is veering off the scientific course when people see it as a replacement for religion, and the people who do this are more or less uninformed as scientists.

    Cave man did not create spears and clubs to kill other people initially, rather to be more effective in hunting food.

    Be careful in your assumptions. There isn’t an anthropologist in the World who could make that statement. Jane Goodall was the first to observe Chimps use tools. She also saw one group systematically murder off another group using stone weapons in a 3 year period in the mid-70s. Chimps do not hunt for their food, they are hunter gatherers.

  6. ry420guy

    Yes, there is a correlation between the availability of firearms and violent crime. However, it is actually negative, not positive.

    Following the slippery slope you’re taking us on, it would seem that animals could never kill each other, as they are not scientifically adept like humans.

  7. That guys argument on concealed weapons makes sense, but it ignores all the other factors of why violent crime went down from 1977 to 1994. Everybody has a theory on why it happened from cracking down on drugs to legalization of abortion. I’m not convinced the laxing of gun control laws was the biggest violence-relevant change happening during this time period.

    And I’m arguing that scientific adeptness makes us much more efficient at killing each other. Since 1492, the genocides not caused by diseases and pathogens where over 100,000 people were killed happened after 1915 (notably the Armenians, Russians, Jews, Hindus, Sudanese, Ugandans, Hutu, Bengalis, Cambodians, and Chinese). It’s not like world populations or tensions suddenly increased, it was just the advent of modern weaponry (submachine guns were invented). If you think all those “revolutions” would be happening in Africa right now if they weren’t being fed modern weapons, you’re lying to yourself.

    The book I got this data from is ‘The Third Chimpanzee’ by Jared Diamond, which is a fantastic book for anyone interested in the similarites/differences between humans and other animals.

  8. Anonymous

    “What I am saying is science is veering off the scientific course when people see it as a replacement for religion, and the people who do this are more or less uninformed as scientists. ”

    These days there is a lot of animosity between the scientific and the conservative, religious communities. I believe this is what you are referring to when you say that science is attempting to replace religion. Actually I see it the other way around. It is religion that is trying to replace science. Kansas school board? Refused to teach evolution and wanted to insert intelligent design in it’s stead. As a proponent of science, I honestly don’t care if you worship Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or the crazy bum down the street who consistantly smells like urine. That’s your decision. But these days the conservative, religious community seem to be forcing their views on everyone via incidents like the Kansas School Board one. In my eyes this is a direct affront to the Consitution of separating church and state and a morally reprehensible way of spreading a groups ideology. Also, this does our country a great disservice to not teach our kids correctly on the laws of nature and science. And while very kid will ace science exams (because of course, the answer to all the questions is always… C. Jesus), this ignorance will start a new dark ages for this country while others eventually take our place as the leaders of innovation and technology. A science minded individual will not say there is no supreme being because it’s impossible to test at this time. But the ultra-conservative religious person will say there is no science because it makes little baby Jesus cry.

  9. K

    Your post is BS and erroneous by many standards. Religeon is about faith and guidance. Some people have taken it to extremes. Science is observation and experimentation. Some people without the proper grounding have taken it to extremes. Your statements about science and weapons over-reach, and demonstrate that you haven’t really thought about this topic (I’m not sure the heart shunt joining a subclavian artery to the left pulmonary artery was invented for war.)

  10. I agree with you. Even I get irritated by these science-fanatics.

  11. FrankiePebbles

    This makes sense. Got nothing to add to this. I have just added you to my “hazardous soup” as a link, however. (Only for the reason that sometimes you make sense. Of course you remain the same uptight asshole.)

  12. Anon, I think there’s some push from both sides, yes. For some reason don’t fear the encroachment of Religion on Science’s territory because they have been losing so decisively over the last 400 years. Science becoming a pseudo-religion really worries me though.

    K, if you don’t think medical progress has been made as a direct result of treating war wounds, you’re just flat out wrong.

    Frankie, thank you for the backhanded compliment. Based on the theories of random processes I know, I am bound to make sense every once in awhile.

  13. ry420guy

    Now that I think about it, in order to support the title of this post, you would have to say something good about religion. Really all you’ve given us are imperfections in science (even science admits it’s imperfect, see Gödel’s incompleteness theorems). On the other hand, a strict interpretation of the Old Testament, New Testament, or Qur’an would have you condemned to Hell based on the content of this website. C’mon now, is science really that bad?

  14. i’ve always been wary of any one/group/cult/institution with an inability to admit that they MIGHT be wrong…..or that there may be a different explanation

  15. dyank

    I agree…if everyone in the world grew into the ideology that there is a possibility that what they believe may not be 100 percent accurate…the world in turn would have a lot less war…a lot less death.

    It should also be noted that every major war (to my knowledge at least) in the history of the world was essentially fueled by religious disagreements/ideologies.

    On the other hand, to be fair, every major invention in the history of science was either invented for, or eventually used for militant purposes…this is not because science fuels war, war would occur regardless of the creation of weapon…psychologically humans seem to want to kill each other. Weapons just make this desire a more efficient process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s