[thechat] Mythology was comics
DC
DC_the_gasman at Bigfoot.com
Thu May 24 05:10:32 CDT 2001
Mind if I butt in to this interesting thread?
At 2:09 am -0400 24/5/01, matthew garrett wrote:
> > From: "isaac" <isaac at members.evolt.org>
>
>> i apologise - we were discussing religion and i assumed that anyone reading
>> my email would naturally realise that i meant faith in religion, etc.
>
>I know that we are discussing religion, I just wanted to make the point that
>science is a religion too. In that it promotes and perpetuates a system of
>beliefs about the universe we live in. It gives non-believers something to
>believe in. It gives us faith.
Before I say anything else I should say that I *do* have my own
religious beliefs, - I'm not a materialist, OK?
Science is *not* a religion, and the occasional statement that it is
one is pernicious. (Which is not to say that some people might have a
religious attitude towards it, but that is beside the point - the
same can be said WRT Star Trek, pop & film stars, and some political
ideologies.)
Science is a system of interrogating the universe, with one basic
assumption: the universe behaves consistently (a necessary assumption
if science is to work at all, and so far it seems to hold). There is
no system of beliefs, and no absolute truth. The current
understanding of reality provided by science is definitely wrong in
some areas - it will be interesting to see which ones - and some
scientific notions will get overturned, or found to be a subset of
something larger (as happened to Newtonian physics when Einstein came
along). There is *no* foundational set of beliefs one must subscribe
to (unlike almost every religious path), no argument from authority,
no Bible or Qur'an.
All there is is a set of techniques for avoiding error - the scientific method.
It is highly unlikely that, say, the Second Law of Thermodynamics or
the Theory of Evolution will be overturned because so much study by
so many scientists working over so much time has confirmed their
validity - but it is not impossible, and if some shattering new
evidence appeared which *did* suggest that one or both of these was
completely erroneous, then the error *would* be corrected no matter
that these are foundational to our whole understanding of the
material universe. I grant you a lot of scientists would be upset and
reluctant - they are, after all, only human - but that wouldn't stop
the shift in scientific theory.
What science perpetuates is *understanding*, not belief. Maybe *some*
"non-believers" have a semi-religious view of science, but that
doesn't sound like many scientists I know. Or many non-believers, for
that matter. (I'm trying hard to think of an exception, but I can't.)
Most "non-believers" I know cope very well without a religious faith,
and quite a lot of them have very little trust in science. I suppose
they have their own views about the way the world works, but I can't
see how a sapient lifeform could do otherwise. If they have faith in
anything, it seems to me it is often in themselves, or in a political
system such as capitalism or communism or socialism.
I went on a bit longer than I intended. Sorry :)
DC
More information about the thechat
mailing list