balehead wrote: That there are so many people in this country, who equate science and fricking religion. That is the thinking of a theocrat.
Nope. Definition of theocrat, one who believes in theocracy. Definition of theocracy from Websters:
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy .
Nothing scientific about it.
Definition of religion, also from Websters.
Main Entry:
re·li·gion Listen to the pronunciation of religion
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date:
13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Looking at the last couple of definitions, science could fit in here.
This is so deeply ignorant and scary.
Hey, I may be deeply ignorant, but I'm not scary
Science does not claim to NEVER get anything wrong-but the thing about science that makes it fundamentally different from religion, arts etc., is that there are objective realities that are empirically measurable and the process is self-correcting.
Weeeelll..according to Gurdjieff, there is a spiritual 'objective' reality, and few are capable of comprehending it, scientists included. But that brings me to my point, that true religion is about the experience of that objective reality.
Self correcting denotes something that has a self that is able to observe and correct. Science, by nature, is an activity done by people, so, technically, science is not self correcting. People, however, may correct their scientific processes.
Americans (most people in the world really- thanks to the preponderance of theocrats in this world) are deeply ignorant about the workings of science. And this is pushed and fostered by the right wing Republican party in this country (and generally conservative groups across the globe). The objective is to foster suspicion of science and scientists and make people even less grounded than they are. There is a reason over 80% of scientists vote Democratic.
That might be proof right there that science needs help
. I would prefer that they vote green, which is slightly more scientific, and definitely environmental.
Anyway, I don't really disagree with much of your post, and I am nitpicking, but it is Sunday, and it's nice to discuss things here.
ONe of my bones with scientists on a lower level is that they are so fundamentally attached to their reasoning process that they could just as well be fundamentalists, it's just that they have made Reason their God. And they will argue for their points just as forcefully as any religious (or political) fundamentalist.
What I like about the spookier, higher level scientists and theorists is that the division between science and religion gets really thin. I'm thinking Einstein, Fritzoff Capra, a lot of the quantum folks. A lot of the higher level 'religionists' get really scientific. (Look up Ibn Arabi, lots of the medieval Sufis were great scientists AND religionists.) ON a higher level, they are NOT mutually exclusive. They dovetail quite neatly.
There is definitely more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy...and that's the beauty of it. Enjoy your day, and thanks for posting. Do more of it