I get it - I get the whole Atheism versus Religion thing. In matters related to science, the atheists generally have it right, and it's not too hard to find someone who is: A) a kook, and B) religious, that is sadly wrong on a given scientific matter. I'm cool with that.
There one thing that bugs me though; this video offers a good example of a bad argument. It is an error to say that because religion has little to offer in terms of scientific thought and progress, it has nothing to offer at all. Religion has a lot to offer*, just not in the realm of science and technology. There are valid criticisms of religion, but criticizing religion for not being scientific is just silly.
Likewise, atheism may be entirely agreeable to scientific thought, but it is the scientific thought and not the atheism that creates progress and technology. Giving atheism credit for science and technology is equally silly.
All I'm saying is that science and religion have to be appreciated on their own merits. And if you just want to see the boobs, they appear at 3:20 into the video. ;-)
* I won't go into what religion offers and/or what it has accomplished, because that is a matter of individual beliefs, and your mileage may vary. I won't get into that argument.
[Hat Tip to One Good Move]
Mr. Talking Tomato Head,
ReplyDeleteHowever, note that science has a much worse track record in one category: self-defeat. Science is always proving itself wrong! As Thomas Kung showed in his Paradigm Investigations, all scientific progress is the reflection of scientific failure.
NS
Noted Scholar-
ReplyDeleteIf a person was to admit when they are wrong about something after a full investigation of the facts, it's considered admirable. When an academic field admits it was previously wrong after a full investigation of the facts, it's considered disgraceful to that field. Why the difference? If everyone learns more and more about themselves as time goes on, why shouldn't the same apply to different studies? Why should growth be stunted in science? And not just science, but arts and language. I merely put in academic fields because on a whole they are comparable when it comes to an ever changing study of them due to an ever changing world.
Hi there NS, it's good to have you back!
ReplyDelete@Sapphire: Well said! I believe NS was hinting at recent articles by John Ioannidis which make the point that most published results are wrong. Finding things that are wrong and replacing them with something better is the very business of science.
Meant to post this link with the above:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915--most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong.html