At its core, science is just a methodology... a tool set used to explain physical phenomena.
Science is NOT a religion.
Let's be clear... I'm not bashing science. It's a wonderful tool for exploring the physical world. But that's all it is.
Why, then, do perfectly rational people tie themselves to it like people who practice religion?
They venerate scientists as Masters of the Universe in much the same manner the religious do for priests as Masters of the Spiritual.
Science can NEVER answer the meaningful "why" something happens. It can only ever answer the "how" something happens.
The most obvious example is that...
Science cannot tell us why the world came into being; it can only tell us that it may have at some point.
How something happened is not why something happened.
One of the dumbest things to happen in this regard in recent memory is the ridiculously stupid "debate" between Bill Nye & Ken Ham.
If you were one of those people who supported and cheered for either camp...
You've been duped!
Nye used science to explain the "why" and Ham used religion to explain the "how" and the people cheered![File footage of people taking crazy pills before the debate.]
Unfortunately, it's becoming extremely popular to bash religion and spirituality because it lacks scientific scrutiny.
But that, in and if itself, makes ZERO sense. Why would anyone use a methodology of "how" to explain the "why"?
And there in lies the fallacy.
Personally, I'm not a fan of people like Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins because they represent a sort of 'cult of personality' for the Cult of Science.
They arrogantly use science as a weapon against people who use spirituality to explain the "why" (Not to ignore those religious folk that use religion to explain the "how", but this about the Cult of Science, something few people are willing to take on. Organized religion is low hanging fruit and is so last century.).
Watch this video and tell me Neil isn't seething with scientific arrogance. He's dripping with disdain for anyone with views that don't conform to the Cult of Science.
You may agree with the things he's saying, I know there are many things I do, however the manner in which he expresses it is pure condescension.
And that's the problem. His talk isn't about science.
It's about mocking the beliefs of other people. Too many skeptics, scientists, and you regular folk embrace a holier-than-thou attitude about their world view.
There should be another amendment added that effectively separates Science and State in the way that it does for Religion and State (granted the state should be dissolved completely but that's another day).
No, you don't have a right to force your science on other people who don't want to accept it.
But then again, that's what the politicization of "climate change" is all about.
People want to force their view of climate change down the throats of other people using the violence of the state. To them, it doesn't even matter that climate science is about as accurate as the science of stock market prediction.
All that matters is that science says so and you need to be forced into accepting it regardless of your individual rights.
Any time the state gets involved with science... someone is about to lose their rights. It's no different than anti-abortion laws. It's institutionalized religious views imposed on other people without their consent.
Science is the how.
Religion is the why.
There's no real competition.
Those on either side who claim there is has an agenda and they need to be exposed.
