It cannot be disputed - science is better than religion.
By that I mean knowledge is better than superstition, because that's what those words really mean in today's English. It's better to know than to believe. No one can dispute that, it's self-evident.
religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
science: a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Belief is basically worthless, only knowledge has any real functional value. Belief is of no use to the scientist, it's only a hindrance.
Science - knowledge - is what it's all about on planet Earth... That's why were here - to learn the truth - and act on it.
But is modern science 100% scientific, or is it a bit superstitious too?
superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
It seems that a large part of modern science is founded on a principle which is supernatural, and quite unscientific.
It's a principle so embedded in science, that people take it for granted and crucially: Never think it through for themselves...
This is modern science's embarrasment, and it makes it a superstition, and a religion, and not science at all...
Yes, modern science is a religion, because it believes in a supernatural deity - beyond the laws of nature.
This deity is called 'Chance' and she is invoked by scientists, just as any supernatural spirit may be, by any priest.
Chance is the 'anti-christ' of science, it's nemesis, it's antithesis... Chance negates, undermines, and overturns science.
It's a completely illogical concept.
random: made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.
Without method.
Or, to use the 'scientific' term (rolls eyes):
acausal: not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect.
If something is truly random, and has no cause, then it is outside of the laws of nature, and outside the scope of science.
All knowledge comes in the form of cause-and-effect, and science can only deal with cause and effect.
Every scientific paper ever written deals with causes and their effects. This is all that science is and can be.
If something existed that was a causeless effect it would break science.
It would also have to be outside nature - because everything we observe in nature is the result of a prior cause.
The only alternative theory for the creation of the Universe put forward by modern science is that the Universe was created by a 'random quantum flutuation', and that evolution progressed by 'random' mutation.
'Random' is the only alternative put forward. No other.
That's because, logically it's a binary choice. There can only be two options... They've got nothing else.
The Universe had to have been created by something, and that something had to be either intelligent, or unintelligent. These are the only possibilities.
Random is an unintelligent creator: Something that can effect changes to nature, without being part of nature, but without any reason or plan.
This is ridiculous, and an insult to logic and my limited intelligence.
Given the choice between an intelligent creator, and random static as the cause of reality, only one makes any sense at all.
I'm happy to debate this with anyone who can formulate a proper argument. Please try to prove me wrong.
Thanks for reading.
:)
