some more of my sciene vs religion replies saved here

+Ddub1083 You’re absolutely right, Ddub1083.  +Brian Roper I’m speaking of the sociology of the sciences, not the stated goals.  The goals don’t exist in a vacuum; they exist among people.  They can definitely be equated because of the behaviors of the people who are within them.

Step back a few paces from the ideologies themselves for a moment.

The fastidiousness of those who pursue science (and the devotion of the fans of science) and the fastidiousness and devotion of those who pursue their religions is equatable.

That is what makes them religions.  Again, I am using the broader definition of Religion.  The surprise that I even dare compare the two just proves my point further.  A more dispassionate/objective person would try to understand what I’m trying to say.  The passion for the ideology.

KENNETH UDUT

2:32 AM

+Krickistina plays The quest for understanding and placing things in a context is one of the things that the sciences and religions have in common.  Religions make for poor science, – they’re generally quite old and their science is bad.  But the sciences are becoming religious – in the broader context of religious – and are not doing a good job of it at present.  But the same kind of fight is present within.  The same kind of devotion.  The same kind of passion.  The same kind of need to stay strictly within the bounds of the covenants set.  It’s not true for all who consider themselves religious and not true for all who consider themselves scientific; I’m generalizing quite broadly here; but it’s there.

KENNETH UDUT

2:36 AM

I’ve been kicking around a Sacred Cow here; this is my point; the purity of the scientific ideals; the nobility, the wonder… the awe…. the passion.  It’s religious.

KENNETH UDUT

2:54 AM

+Ddub1083 I would have made a better response to you, as I was enjoying what you were writing, but the parting shot was entirely unnecessary and made what you wrote previously invalid, which is a shame.  I’ve been nothing but polite.  A rational, objective discussion between humans is not so difficult.  I’m a real person here.  Would you talk this way if we were in the same room?  It’s one of the reasons I tend to stay out of religious debates like this, especially between followers of scientism – civility so often goes out the window.  A rational discussion involves attempting to see where the other person is coming from, understanding their points (going back and forth until each understands the other’s position), and then explaining why they’re mistaken and then the other person counters, back and forth.  It’s not difficult.

KENNETH UDUT

2:57 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism – it should be part of basic education for what it is.  It doesn’t invalidate it, but it puts it into proper perspective in the grand scheme of humanity.

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three × 6 =

Leave a Reply