Hi Stephen,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StephenK
Actually no.... science is as much a religion as most traditional religions are...
|
It's nothing of the sort, but there
are some people who are unwittingly trying to make it that way. People like Richard Dawkins don't just defend
science. They also defend various metaphysical beliefs which are often associated with science, but aren't actually science.
Proper science is supported empirical evidence. Religions are supported by faith alone (be it faith in God(s) or faith in the reliability of scripture.)
Quote:
Science is a belief that is often left blinded by his own hubris... I challenge you to listen all the way through Bruce Liptons lecture... he makes one of
the best cases yet for the dangers of science as it's traditionally been practice in relation to the organic organism.... Modern medicine is now the
number one cause of death in the US... because their science is flawed... because their science is religiously adhered to.. because their science is the wet dream of big pharma...
|
I think you're getting science mixed up with the politics and big business here. Science is just a
tool for humans to use as they see fit. Some humans use it to make themselves richer. That's a problem with human nature and the society we live in, not science.
Quote:
Modern biology is built around a mechanical model while physics has shifted to an energetic universe... the drugs that are produced by this
mechanical/chemical approach hardly fair better than the placebo effect.. and in most cases do more damage than good...
The prime assumption that's been made here is that science is on a sound footing... it isn't... and it hasn't been for quite a few years...
|
The "footing" of science is
methodological naturalism. That is to say that when we are doing science, it is necessary to assume certain things about the way reality works. For example, we have to assume that the laws of physics apply consistently everywhere. We also assume that the physical world is all that exists. HOWEVER...this is not the same as
metaphysical naturalism, which goes further and asserts that not only is it useful to think this way when doing science, but that these metaphysical beliefs are actually true statements about the nature of reality. Metaphysical naturalism is not science. It's a sort of anti-religious metaphysical belief - arguably a sort of religion or religious belief.
Quote:
Science needs to revisit it's primary assumptions
|
Science needs to examine the limits imposed on it by its own methodology. There's no excuse for Dawkins not to do this. He's not a philosopher, but he ought to already know that science couldn't possibly investigate the actions of a God whose behaviour was not deterministic. Yet he still claims that if God exists and has an effect on reality, science must in theory be able to find out about it. In order for his position on this to make sense he has to believe in a God which responds to human actions just like a deterministic system. This hypothetical God does not resemble any from any religion I know, or that he knows. What sort of God always blindly follows the commands of humans? What sort of God doesn't have the free will to choose
not to respond in a predictable way? His position makes no sense, but he feels compelled to defend it because the alternative is to admit that there might be things going on in physical reality that science can't ever discover, and for him that would be a disaster.
The problem is that Dawkins is a scientist, but he spends a lot of time talking about religion and philosophy, and he doesn't actually know very much about either subject. He understands religion and philosophy through the eyes of a scientist, and this limits his capacity to comprehend them.
Linear Mode
