It’s not a psy-op, this has been going on for as long as I can remember. If anything, it’s regaining the traction it once had before the atheist community imploded with sexism and large taking heads fell out of favor.
Some people seem to like using “science” as a counter religion
But it is a counter to religion at the most fundamental level: The scientific method sets out to find answers and the religious have answers and don’t care to investigate. One is based on confidence (belief based on previous evidence) and the other in faith (belief without evidence). And I could go on. The two are irreconcilable unless you’re willing to suspend your beliefs when dealing with one or the other, which is precisely what religious scientists do.
It is not a “counter to religion”. Religion and science are both ways to find explanations for things, but they’re not a binary nor even on the same spectrum. They both have aspects to them with no parallel from the other. Science doesn’t define morality and religion doesn’t engineer buildings for example.
I said “counter religion” because people treat it like a stand in for religion. Science fundamentally doesn’t declare truth. Scientific theories can and have been wrong, yet some people act as though it’s unquestionable and anything not scientifically proven isn’t true. Those people also tend to really identify with believing they’re right, almost exactly like any smug religious person.
I do mean that science is a direct counter to religion and without having to treat it as a religion. But if anyone is treating science as a religion they don’t fundamentally understand science. The only way science can replace religion afaik is in the feeling of awe and wonder that it inspires. We have studies of that.
Science fundamentally doesn’t declare truth.
But it does, and it goes beyond that: it makes predictions. That’s the real power of science. Without having an accurate model of reality you can’t make an informed prediction, which means the majority of its proposals must be grounded in fundamental truths about the world. Also, don’t forget science is integrative unlike religion, meaning a lot of scientific principles in one area will inevitably pop up in other areas without conflict.
yet some people act as though it’s unquestionable and anything not scientifically proven isn’t true
I’ve yet to meet someone like that. Are you sure you’re not misinterpreting their stance? I can think of times when I was in that position and the other person thought I was being a scientific zealot simply because I wasn’t allowing them to use a weak justification for their point, which is fair if you’re claiming things without evidence.
It’s not a psy-op, this has been going on for as long as I can remember. If anything, it’s regaining the traction it once had before the atheist community imploded with sexism and large taking heads fell out of favor.
But it is a counter to religion at the most fundamental level: The scientific method sets out to find answers and the religious have answers and don’t care to investigate. One is based on confidence (belief based on previous evidence) and the other in faith (belief without evidence). And I could go on. The two are irreconcilable unless you’re willing to suspend your beliefs when dealing with one or the other, which is precisely what religious scientists do.
It is not a “counter to religion”. Religion and science are both ways to find explanations for things, but they’re not a binary nor even on the same spectrum. They both have aspects to them with no parallel from the other. Science doesn’t define morality and religion doesn’t engineer buildings for example.
I said “counter religion” because people treat it like a stand in for religion. Science fundamentally doesn’t declare truth. Scientific theories can and have been wrong, yet some people act as though it’s unquestionable and anything not scientifically proven isn’t true. Those people also tend to really identify with believing they’re right, almost exactly like any smug religious person.
I do mean that science is a direct counter to religion and without having to treat it as a religion. But if anyone is treating science as a religion they don’t fundamentally understand science. The only way science can replace religion afaik is in the feeling of awe and wonder that it inspires. We have studies of that.
But it does, and it goes beyond that: it makes predictions. That’s the real power of science. Without having an accurate model of reality you can’t make an informed prediction, which means the majority of its proposals must be grounded in fundamental truths about the world. Also, don’t forget science is integrative unlike religion, meaning a lot of scientific principles in one area will inevitably pop up in other areas without conflict.
I’ve yet to meet someone like that. Are you sure you’re not misinterpreting their stance? I can think of times when I was in that position and the other person thought I was being a scientific zealot simply because I wasn’t allowing them to use a weak justification for their point, which is fair if you’re claiming things without evidence.