Quote
It sure looks like every time science learns something new, it frequently doesn't match the Scientific explanation - those three examples are less than 100 years old.
Compare this with the bible... I acknowledge that different believers have expanded the range of interpretations of the literature, but where are the new gospels, the new passages, the supplements reflecting new wisdom?
Those who rant about those who elevate science to a religion are, imo, confusing 'scientific knowledge' with 'scientific method'. The former represents the current understanding of matters arising from the application, to date, of the latter.
There are always going to be humans who cling to the status quo, who cling to paradigms long after they have been shifted. But that is a fault of the human, not of the method. Unlike religion, the scientific method carries within itself the need to constantly re-examine current understanding, and to accept that as our knowledge expands, our theories must be adjusted accordingly. It is impossible to truly apply the scientific method and, at the same time, cling to beliefs that have been shown to be false.
Quote
OTOH, I'm not a Bible literalist; Genesis 1 is a useful myth that can still teach us things that science doesn't seem to be able to (like, dominion over the plants and animals also means responsibilty for same plants and animals), and frankly is more "true", for values of truth including "higher probability of survival in 2000BCE Sinai" than modern science.
This is nonsense: sorry, Michael, I usually agree with much of what you post, but this is silly.
The bible commands us to go forth and multiply. The RC church prohibits most forms of birth control. The bible enjoins us to exercise mastery over all other animals.
We have done this to the point where humans have exterminated thousands of species, and more are disappearing every year. We can date our success as exterminators back at least 12,000 years.
We are now, it seems, changing the climate of the planet, to the point that we are threatening even more species. We may be about to induce a mass reduction in the human population over the next 100-150 years as desertification spreads, and we kill off most of the fish in the oceans.. if not through over-fishing, then by destruction of the temperature- and salinity- dependent plankton populations.
Yes, I know that it can be argued that our 'success' has been due to science.
Well, tell that to the mega-fauna of the Americas in 12,000 BC when humans first spread across the continents.
More importantly, the reason technology was used to almost exterminate the bison and to kill all the passenger pigeons, amongst other matters, was the attitude of society.
Scientists are people: they live and breathe the cultural values of their society. Through virtually all of history, those values have been based on religious teachings.
It was not the scientific method that has brought the earth to its current state, it was the use to which technology was put.. and that use was driven by the values of the society at large.
All used to be taught, and many still believe, that there is some fundamental difference between humans and 'animals'. The last pope criticized Italians for spending money on their pet dogs, which, he pointed out did not have souls.
I suspect that many pet owners would reject the idea that their dog has no soul while they do. But the point is that this type of attitude, based on the belief that we are created in god's image (and the other animals are not) allows people to ignore the welfare of other players in the ecology (a term of science, not religion, btw).
The atheist realizes that we are part of the fabric of life on this planet, and that while evolution has provided us with certain advantages over other animals, we are nevertheless fundamentally the same type of life. We can see that we cannot depend on some supernatural divine being to intercede to bail us out of any mess we may create. We can implement birth control without fearing going to hell. We can recognize that hurricanes will become more powerful and more frequent as the planet warms, without being tempted to blame the victims for having incurred god's wrath.
As for survival skills, you have to be kidding! Give Moses a set of Encylopedia Brittanicas from the mid 1950's and the ability to read and understand them, and make sure that sufficient of his tribespeople share those abilities and are prepared to use the knowledge, and it would have been a Jewish Empire, not a Roman empire at the time of Jesus' birth!
Metallurgy would have led to more powerful weapons. Medicine would have reduced infant mortality and increased adult life expectancy. Agriculture would have led to improved crop yields, and improved animal husbandry. And so on.
And the information of value from the encylopedias would have been generated by the scientific method: the encylopedia wouldn't have given them a single new and powerful prayer.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
