Dracula
You are a clever man, friend John; you reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are
( Read more... )
Yes, it can. One of the problems with science in contemporary society is that too many people don't understand what science really is; a methodology for testing a hypothesis. Far too many people who say that they "believe" in science rather than religion are actually making science into a religion; they read somewhere that the established scientific orthodoxy says such-and-such, and they give that the same authority as a holy writ without realizing that it's subject to change as new evidence arises.
As interesting as religion (and philosophy) are, I don't think they can ever "join forces" with science; science deals with objective evidence, while the other two deal with subjective beliefs for which there is no evidence, so there's really no place where the two meet. For instance, if there ever is really objective evidence that an afterlife exists, than the study and testing of that evidence would become the province of science, and not of religion or philosophy.
That doesn't mean, of course, that humanity can survive without some form of philosophy or religion. Science doesn't, and can't, tell us anything about how to live a good life, or how to be happy, or the best way to use the technologies that science develops, or any other ethical and humanitarian questions that can't be "objectively tested".
Reply
Leave a comment