16 February 2011

Actually…

The Social Pathologist, on the conflict between science and faith:

It follows then that science is not opposed to faith which reflects reality, but to erroneous conceptions of it. The battle is not between science and religion but science and bad religion. Faith must be coherent with observed reality.

Actually, the battle is between the pretense of knowledge (AKA “science”) and the pretense of faith (“bad religion”).  This is because most of what passes for science (or, more accurately, scientific truth) is actually complete garbage.  Most studies are non-replicable, and most conclusions are misleading, redundant, or narrow.  In fact, most of what the media pass off as conclusions are, in fact, conjectures.  Thus, most of that which is accepted as truth is mostly imaginative hypothesizing.

Really, I think the Social Pathologist gives too much credence to science.  Of course, he is spot on about bad religion.  Furthermore, bad religion isn’t just I conflict with science, it’s also in conflict with good religion (duh).  Thus, if there is a conflict between bad religion and science, one should look at “good” religion to find the answer, which will correspond with science.  However, it should be noted that if there is a conflict between “science” and “religion,” the first step should be to see if “science” is actually science, and not a pretense of knowledge.

Or, to state it differently, if there is a conflict between “science” and religion, the default assumption should be that “science” is wrong.  This doesn’t preclude religion from being wrong, of course, but given the track record of that which is commonly referred to as “science,” the odds are that the pretense of knowledge is actually masquerading as science.

2 comments:

  1. I agree that there is a lot of bad science out there, but the good science really does reflect reality.

    Or, to state it differently, if there is a conflict between “science” and religion, the default assumption should be that “science” is wrong.

    I'd probably state it differently. If there is a problem with between science and religion then we should try to ascertain what is the truth of the matter. Picking sides introduces bias.

    Thanks for the commentary!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're quite welcome. Thanks for stopping by. By the way, I enjoy your blog.

    ReplyDelete