Taking science on faith
An article from the New York Times about how science traps itself into the same corner as religious faith by looking for an external, non-empirical and reasonless agent or laws to explain the universe as it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
It is just as well possible that orthodox science and faith will eventually be superceded by metaphysics which explores and determines what goes beyond matter, energy, time and space, beyond the observable and all things calculable, but neither needs religious contraptions and ethical tenets to explain the being qua being that such a view would be meaningless as they can't be tested out, gives too much credence that an experiment could such a statement to be fallible or statistically correct, as life is immensely complex and consist of agencies and factors which go beyond our control anyway, and an experiment might be tainted by cultural background, not the least the level of technology, or that what can only be experienced by consciousness itself will certainly not be groped by material objects and abstract computing...
Religious faith is however as bad. It's closer to social sciences, conjectural, working from ideas and emotions, quite inductive henceforth that are constructed to schemes and models, which are saved from critical apprehension by a kind of scholastic rethoric recital. Cathechism is a derivation of this theoretical mindset. It doesn't invite to study and research, nor opens it a consciousness that makes one understand what it is all about. It's pure indoctrination. It's only a faith insofar it makes one act blindly or in a state of repression, but where metaphysics would invite someone to contemplate and act according to the nature of things, including oneself, religion tends to put restrictions or condone deeds which have no other reference but the model of thinking itself and the way it colours the world and life itself. It's as much an ideology as any other political current.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
It is just as well possible that orthodox science and faith will eventually be superceded by metaphysics which explores and determines what goes beyond matter, energy, time and space, beyond the observable and all things calculable, but neither needs religious contraptions and ethical tenets to explain the being qua being that such a view would be meaningless as they can't be tested out, gives too much credence that an experiment could such a statement to be fallible or statistically correct, as life is immensely complex and consist of agencies and factors which go beyond our control anyway, and an experiment might be tainted by cultural background, not the least the level of technology, or that what can only be experienced by consciousness itself will certainly not be groped by material objects and abstract computing...
Religious faith is however as bad. It's closer to social sciences, conjectural, working from ideas and emotions, quite inductive henceforth that are constructed to schemes and models, which are saved from critical apprehension by a kind of scholastic rethoric recital. Cathechism is a derivation of this theoretical mindset. It doesn't invite to study and research, nor opens it a consciousness that makes one understand what it is all about. It's pure indoctrination. It's only a faith insofar it makes one act blindly or in a state of repression, but where metaphysics would invite someone to contemplate and act according to the nature of things, including oneself, religion tends to put restrictions or condone deeds which have no other reference but the model of thinking itself and the way it colours the world and life itself. It's as much an ideology as any other political current.
Comments