If we look at the world in terms of subjective and objective reasoning, science is just as much of a religion as any other faith based system.
The advent of science (along with math) during the Enlightenment in Europe was an attempt to liberate humanity from the mythology based Church. It sought to explain the world in a new set of objective “truth” terms. But just like any other new ideology, in its attempt to be objective it just guarantees its own subjectivity. Basically, science is a system based in observation, experimentation and deductive reasoning. But all of this is still within the confines of human perception. So to assume science as truth would be to validate man’s ability to perceive. It’s like saying “We can only see red, therefore everything must be red”. Like a man who lives inside of a room, and knows of nothing outside of the room, so to him, the room is everything. Science becomes just another victim to logical positivism.
In science’s attempt to be a panacea, to get out of the oppressive faith based systems of religion, it’s created its own system with its own terms and assumptions. When science assumes its own truth and negates any possibilities outside of itself, it becomes a religion.
no, everything he percieves is the room… that’s something entirely different than the room being everything
scientifically, he just can’t say anything senseful about the world outside
i don’t see how that is religious…?
alarm bells are ringing. Talking about the enlightenment doesnt exactly endear me to believe that what you say is relevant to modern science.
Stating such you are already assuming that man’s perception ISNT valid. Valid for what though? Isnt validity also one of those fuzzy human notions?
If we determine the rules for validity, then we are pretty stupid creatures if our best definition sorts our whole experience entirely into pile “invalid”. Not exactly helpful is it?
Why isnt the room everything? Why must there always be more than we can observe? What evidence do you have for its nature, and how the hell can you sensibly speak of something beyond experience?
Except of course if its not falsifiable, then its not science.
If science assumes it already has the answers, why do they do all these experiments then? Why are they constantly probing their own assumptions as to the nature of things in really quite bizarre theories?