|
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Subjecting the whole world to some distant authority that they have to believe in because they lack the scientific training to comprehend it is not moving towards a goal of universal love, but rather one of universal fear. |
"Subjecting the world to some distant authority that they have to believe in". That sounds an awful lot like religion to me, not science. Ins't God a "distant authority"? Science asks us only to question the nature of things, which leads me to my next point:
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I think that it was the word "science" in Harris' lecture that set off alarms for you. Like I have said many times in this thread, what is meant by science in here is not science itself but its methods of observation and learning and therefore aim to reach objectivity instead of having values surrounded by subjectivity forever. |
What exactly is science? Whereas religion can easily be classified as a group of related beliefs, practices, rituals etc, the only defining characteristic of science is that of asking questions. There's really no other way to codify it. Whereas religion asks many things of followers, science asks people only to think critically and observe. In essence, it's asking people to examine the evidence and make up their own minds, which is surely the best path of action.
However, science cops criticism because people begin to follow scientific views without understanding them, in effect making their beliefs as flimsy as religious ones. Incorrect:
1. At least the findings or beliefs of science can be questioned, unlike 'faith' which is sacrosanct.
2. Even blindly following the word of someone like Richard Dawkins without ever having heard him speak or reading a single word of his would be better than following the church. Any given clergyman is likely to believe in something which he has no evidence for. Even the most idiot scientist, who makes false assertions, at least bases their assertions on experience and solid fact.
Plus, I think a scientist has less reason to lie. A clergyman is trying to enforce morals, whereas a scientist is only trying to enforce truth. A scientist would never tell you that hell exists so you'll stop shoplifting.
___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide
|