Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
The point is that while the scientific method might be more "objective" in arriving at a conclusion, the end result (science) is still subject to the limitations of humans, both in the context of understanding the results of the scientific method and in formulating the methods that arrived at the conclusion.
Essentially, science is as flawed as humans are, despite the scientific method somewhat covering the deficiencies. While there might be progress towards a better understanding of reality, that understanding of reality in itself is questionable because humans are limited. The main problem I'm seeing with those who bring up science as some perfect alternative to religion is the seemingly "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) belief in science, a system that is as flawed as humans.
|
Okay, I can follow that though I think it can easily be used an excuse by some to ignore logic and the scientific method. I'd rather use the scientific method as my tool than the alternative.
And @Zakoo, yeah, if I understand what "anti-clerical" means, yes I take a really dim view of large-scale institutionalization of religion. It is a magnet for powermongers who abuse spirituality to dictate and hold power. Eternal damnation for not doing what they say is a powerful tool with the fearful.
I completely understand the origins of religous thought and if it had stayed "by the campfire" (localized), it certainly soothes the night fears of the darkness. When some guy says "stone that lady or the night things will come" and he gets to loot the corpse as well as pass the plate... we gots a problem
