http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/
Printable View
LOL! Thanks for posting that, it was good for a Friday Funny :)
I don't even know how to respond to this religiously biased musing.
1- The anthropic principle is that the universe seems just right for humans to have evolved in. Which is exactly what it would look like to any evolved species as evolution is the principle that the fittest, the best suited to their environment, survive. If the universe was not suited to life, we would not be here to know it.
2- Science tends to cast out religion, certainly, because science deals with reality on a certain set of epistemological standards. Religion, and bad science, fails to meet those standards and so is disregarded. Why would scientists want to waste their time constantly going over the same arguments? If a theory has been proven wrong, or so unfounded that it should not have been suggested, of course they choose to ignore it.
3- Science likes to tear down its own saints. Look at Watson and Crick being vilified for being mean to Franklin. This point has little to do with science and more about the human love of hero worship.
4- Science makes up stories? Yes, we call them theories. These stories should be closely fitted to the known facts, and be testable against future findings.
5- Science has a priesthood that should not be questioned? Have you been to a scientific conference? The question and answer sessions make gladiatorial combat look serene as each scientist tries to pull apart each others theories.
6- Science is based on theories and paradigms. If a theory works better at explaining the universe it can take some, usually older, scientists a long time to accept the novel theory. That is a human failing, not scientific. Once a new theory has been shown to better explain things you can bet that the upcoming researchers will explore that instead.
7- Science does not bend to social will; some governing bodies will. The scientific method is the scientific method. In your point about the classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder you fail to say what the definition of psychiatric disorder was at the time. If it included a phrase such as 'socially unacceptable behaviour' then, by that definition homosexuality was a disorder as it met the criteria of being socially unacceptable. But that's not a scientific change, that is societal. As a side point, most definitions of insanity have to reference societal norms because otherwise religion would fall well within the remit of madness.
8- Most of science is very well founded. Quantum theory is founded on data so precise it boggles the mind. Some theories still await testing, but that's why science is still active.
9- If you find you are doing science based on faith, you are doing it wrong. You might blunder into evidence in support of your theory but it will be accidental.
I know some of these arguments might have the look of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, but really the examples put up by the author were well outside the usual definition of science.
Pretty interesting that a "Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences" chose to be TOTALLY ANONYMOUS. Then again, people never lie about who they really are on the internet.
Sincerely,
Baron Poobert, KBE
Archbishop of Canterbury
http://www.abload.de/img/bitch01koq.gif
Ya don't say.
The Coors Light neon sign really adds to the presentation. NOT! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
Thanks for the chuckle.