The assumption here is that science is a sapient entity that auto rectifies the error of the practitioner when it is, at the end of the day, only a method of observation of the environment.
Every generation, people get complacent over something that the next generation has to figure out. Then, that generatiob over relies on one singular thing, and they grow complacent over that.
Religion, ideology, economics, etc… They all rhyme with the same story of being complacent, and then being put to blame when humanity starts trying to skirt around them.
I don’t think science and religion are comparable, the scientific method is way superior. You can’t pray to god to for actual knowledge, but the scientific method has given us reliable knowledge.
Yet, we have scientists that can be paid off by billionaires, and scientists that are more than willing of pursuing their egos at the cost of that very knowledge.
History shows how many times a person can be factually correct but equally condemned because they didn’t conform to the way of thought of the times.
Science also doesn’t necessarily share our understanding of right or wrong, let alone harm or benefit. Science is based on what we perceive at any given time, and how others after us come to correct or reframe it down the line.
It is incomparable to religion not because of superiority of science but because religion provides what science cannot, that is comfort and assurance and a framework for uncertainty. Without the foundation provided by religion, science goes wild and baseless as supposed intellectuals begin to fight over whose school of thought is correct.
God doesn’t provide you with direct knowledge, he provides you the avenue and opportunity to pursue reliable knowledge. Every law, including that of the universe, has a judicator that presides over it, and to believe it is mere chance that we exist is both baseless and unreliable by logic.
The assumption here is that science is a sapient entity that auto rectifies the error of the practitioner when it is, at the end of the day, only a method of observation of the environment.
Every generation, people get complacent over something that the next generation has to figure out. Then, that generatiob over relies on one singular thing, and they grow complacent over that.
Religion, ideology, economics, etc… They all rhyme with the same story of being complacent, and then being put to blame when humanity starts trying to skirt around them.
I don’t think science and religion are comparable, the scientific method is way superior. You can’t pray to god to for actual knowledge, but the scientific method has given us reliable knowledge.
Yet, we have scientists that can be paid off by billionaires, and scientists that are more than willing of pursuing their egos at the cost of that very knowledge.
History shows how many times a person can be factually correct but equally condemned because they didn’t conform to the way of thought of the times.
Science also doesn’t necessarily share our understanding of right or wrong, let alone harm or benefit. Science is based on what we perceive at any given time, and how others after us come to correct or reframe it down the line.
It is incomparable to religion not because of superiority of science but because religion provides what science cannot, that is comfort and assurance and a framework for uncertainty. Without the foundation provided by religion, science goes wild and baseless as supposed intellectuals begin to fight over whose school of thought is correct.
God doesn’t provide you with direct knowledge, he provides you the avenue and opportunity to pursue reliable knowledge. Every law, including that of the universe, has a judicator that presides over it, and to believe it is mere chance that we exist is both baseless and unreliable by logic.