Post by Nakor on Apr 1, 2010 15:30:56 GMT -5
I hear this one a lot in religious debates, in a few forms. Other variants include "science has been wrong before" or "science can never be 100% certain." These statements (with the exception of pure math, which can be conclusive) are true, however they can be a bit misleading. Now I'm not going to use the odds of science or religion being right or wrong for my argument; while the odds are a valid point, I think there is actually one greater point that goes unnoticed due to the odds being cited so often as the best reason for trusting science over religion (or vice versa against said odds).
The reason I will always trust science over religion is that science is self-correcting. Religion is not; religion is self-defending. This is an inherent difference in how science and religion handle being shown that they are wrong.
Now, before we begin, this is not an attempt to disprove the existence of gods or anything of that sort. It is intended only to show that where there is a contradiction between religion and science, that science should always be trusted. Where there is no contradiction (or at least no contradiction we are yet aware of), you are welcome to think as you'd like.
That said, let's start with science.
As the religious often point out, science has in the past -- and in all likelihood will in the future -- come across some new data or experiment or proof that totally overhauls a lot of what we thought we knew. So how does science react when some scientist comes up with proof that disproves a lot of older theories or laws? Science gives that person its utmost praise and rewards. An example of someone who did this was Albert Einstein, and we all know how the scientific community revered -- and continues to revere -- him.
Why? Why is science so happy about being proven wrong? It may not make sense at first, but in actual fact it makes a lot of sense. Science is happy that someone proved these old facts wrong because they were wrong, and knowing that they were wrong brings everyone that much closer to the truth. And that's what science is all about -- finding out the truth. If the scientific community is wrong about something, they want to be corrected; they want to learn! And to that end data is constantly analyzed and scrutinized, and when someone finds a contradiction that throws out old rules, that someone is honoured and respected for doing so.
Now let's see how religion handles being proven wrong.
You've probably heard of Galileo, the man often credited with debunking geocentricism (the belief that Earth was the centre of the universe around which everything orbited). But he was not actually the first one to come up with this idea; many people came before him. For example, Galileo's friend Giordano Bruno had written about these ideas before him. Not many people have heard of him though; the church had him executed in the year 1600 in a way I won't describe here.
So Galileo knew what he was up against, but he also knew he was right, and tried to continue the research. Eventually he was brought to trial and at age 70, upon threat of death, he got on his knees and recanted his claims. Even then he was put under house arrest for the rest of his days. A few decades later the pope (Alexander VII) banned all books that claimed the Earth was in motion.
Eventually of course the church lost this battle; we all now know the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. In fact, in 1992 Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Galileo had been treated wrongly, and in 2008 they erected a statue of him within the Vatican. We know now that we're not at the centre of the universe; in fact, we're hurtling further and further away from it. But it took decades upon decades longer than it should have for these ideas to take root, all because they disagreed with what the church and the bible said.
Nowadays of course the church could not get away with threats of imprisonment or death to stop science, but it doesn't stop the church from using obfuscation to try to hang onto their ideals. Concepts like Intelligent Design or Metaphysics are masqueraded as sciences when in fact they are no such thing; to be a science something must be repeatably testable and verifiable, and these things are not remotely testable or provable. Despite lacking the power the church had in human history it continues to fight against anything that questions its beliefs. It tries its hardest to keep everything the same, rather than correcting itself when shown it is wrong.
Why? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's fear, maybe it's desire for things to be the way its people wish they were, maybe it's just a lack of understanding, maybe it's just the sheer weight of dogma.
Regardless of the reason, however, one thing is clear. Science can be wrong, but when it is shown it is wrong, it accepts the new data and even goes so far as to reward the one who offered the correction. In doing so it constantly grows, reducing the remaining errors and increasing knowledge at an amazing pace. Religion can also be wrong, but when religion is shown to be wrong we so often see it fight tooth and nail with whatever tools it has at its disposal to obscure any proof against it and maintain the status quo. It did so with geocentricism then, and tries to do so with creationism now.
So even if science might be wrong, it's still much wiser to stand on the side that is willing to man up, correct and update itself in the pursuit of truth when proven wrong, rather than the side that tries its hardest to maintain the status quo irregardless of the truth when proven wrong.
That is why, in any dispute between science and religion, I will always heed science.
The reason I will always trust science over religion is that science is self-correcting. Religion is not; religion is self-defending. This is an inherent difference in how science and religion handle being shown that they are wrong.
Now, before we begin, this is not an attempt to disprove the existence of gods or anything of that sort. It is intended only to show that where there is a contradiction between religion and science, that science should always be trusted. Where there is no contradiction (or at least no contradiction we are yet aware of), you are welcome to think as you'd like.
That said, let's start with science.
As the religious often point out, science has in the past -- and in all likelihood will in the future -- come across some new data or experiment or proof that totally overhauls a lot of what we thought we knew. So how does science react when some scientist comes up with proof that disproves a lot of older theories or laws? Science gives that person its utmost praise and rewards. An example of someone who did this was Albert Einstein, and we all know how the scientific community revered -- and continues to revere -- him.
Why? Why is science so happy about being proven wrong? It may not make sense at first, but in actual fact it makes a lot of sense. Science is happy that someone proved these old facts wrong because they were wrong, and knowing that they were wrong brings everyone that much closer to the truth. And that's what science is all about -- finding out the truth. If the scientific community is wrong about something, they want to be corrected; they want to learn! And to that end data is constantly analyzed and scrutinized, and when someone finds a contradiction that throws out old rules, that someone is honoured and respected for doing so.
Now let's see how religion handles being proven wrong.
You've probably heard of Galileo, the man often credited with debunking geocentricism (the belief that Earth was the centre of the universe around which everything orbited). But he was not actually the first one to come up with this idea; many people came before him. For example, Galileo's friend Giordano Bruno had written about these ideas before him. Not many people have heard of him though; the church had him executed in the year 1600 in a way I won't describe here.
So Galileo knew what he was up against, but he also knew he was right, and tried to continue the research. Eventually he was brought to trial and at age 70, upon threat of death, he got on his knees and recanted his claims. Even then he was put under house arrest for the rest of his days. A few decades later the pope (Alexander VII) banned all books that claimed the Earth was in motion.
Eventually of course the church lost this battle; we all now know the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. In fact, in 1992 Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Galileo had been treated wrongly, and in 2008 they erected a statue of him within the Vatican. We know now that we're not at the centre of the universe; in fact, we're hurtling further and further away from it. But it took decades upon decades longer than it should have for these ideas to take root, all because they disagreed with what the church and the bible said.
Nowadays of course the church could not get away with threats of imprisonment or death to stop science, but it doesn't stop the church from using obfuscation to try to hang onto their ideals. Concepts like Intelligent Design or Metaphysics are masqueraded as sciences when in fact they are no such thing; to be a science something must be repeatably testable and verifiable, and these things are not remotely testable or provable. Despite lacking the power the church had in human history it continues to fight against anything that questions its beliefs. It tries its hardest to keep everything the same, rather than correcting itself when shown it is wrong.
Why? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's fear, maybe it's desire for things to be the way its people wish they were, maybe it's just a lack of understanding, maybe it's just the sheer weight of dogma.
Regardless of the reason, however, one thing is clear. Science can be wrong, but when it is shown it is wrong, it accepts the new data and even goes so far as to reward the one who offered the correction. In doing so it constantly grows, reducing the remaining errors and increasing knowledge at an amazing pace. Religion can also be wrong, but when religion is shown to be wrong we so often see it fight tooth and nail with whatever tools it has at its disposal to obscure any proof against it and maintain the status quo. It did so with geocentricism then, and tries to do so with creationism now.
So even if science might be wrong, it's still much wiser to stand on the side that is willing to man up, correct and update itself in the pursuit of truth when proven wrong, rather than the side that tries its hardest to maintain the status quo irregardless of the truth when proven wrong.
That is why, in any dispute between science and religion, I will always heed science.
)