True, true, science is powerful, but the problem is viewing science as absolute truth instead of consensus and as the only means of acquiring knowledge. The pitfalls of science are hardly ever mentioned...
1. science came from religion and is a religion. The scientific method is at the heart of science, and it starts with a hypothesis, which is just a belief. It's an amoral religion. It doesn't concern itself with morality. Meaning it doesn't know right from wrong. Science must be paired with some kind of system of morality.
2. Science is close to useless when dealing with immaterial realities like consciousness because immaterial things can't be measured (quantified, experimented). Gaslighting as all-knowing, science simple ignores the things it can't comprehend or says they don't exist.
Most of this is just...wrong.
Science did not emerge from religion. Rather, it is more akin to its antithesis. Science progressed IN SPITE of religion, which has attempted to eradicate scientific thought from the beginning. A charlatan promising a life in heaven for following the (which version...?) Bible does NOT want anyone to be thinking logically, which science encourages.
Second, an hypothesis is not "just a belief". It is an educated guess, based on observation. Religion, at least the big three, are based not in fact, but in faith, a.k.a. whatever some white dude in the middle east tells you is the word of God.
Finally, immaterial realities like consciousness are not explainable by science. Neither was the Black Plague during the time it was busy wiping out most of the population of Europe. It is explainable today.
One point we might agree on, somewhat: "lay" people tend to either believe science is the bastion of all, irrefutable, infallible knowledge, or the church is.
Who says science must be paired with some system of morality? WHOSE morality?
Morality is simply an arbitrarily designed value system, sometimes, but often not, based in some instinctual need or taboo. For instance, it is possible to have babies if one has sex with one's sibling. Its consideration as immoral around the globe is not based in what is right our wrong, rather it is based in a deep rooted fear and revulsion of two-headed babies.
Faith in science conceived of by humans should be limited. The science could be wrong. Shock therapy used to be in vogue at one point, as was bleeding as a means of medical treatment.
Religion, on the other hand, might as well be substituted with any comic book of your choice. Actually, Scientology, a growing and very influential religion, was developed from the plot of a science fiction story.
It (religion) is spurious, arbitrarily contrived bullshit meant to explain what neither religion nor science can confirm nor deny, the existence of an Almighty. Furthermore, its dual purpose, as conceived, is to enslave the minds of the gullible.
It works.
That said, I would rather cast my vote with PROPERLY CONDUCTED scientific inquiry than faith in a blonde Jesus.
Glad it wasn't!!
