And with much less passion this time (sorry if I was a bit...splenetic). This science as a religion meme that keeps cropping up....I've been thinking about it, and I don't think it's true in any sense: however I will say that science partakes of the religion of truth, Inasmuch as 'the truth', or 'what is the case' is a religion. And science is not the only adherent to this religion: History also bows to truth, Metaphysics and Philosophy too: in fact, almost all of our academic and intellectual disciplines concern themselves with what we can ascertain, with any certainty, given our limitations. And if truth is a religion then science is one of its congregation.
Now I'm a musician, poet, writer, and artist: so my relationship with truth is, of necessity, considerably more elastic than that of someone in the rigorous disciplines, but I know folk who are seeking after truth when I see 'em, and I know of the delusions that come from history and tradition. Despite being an artist, and despite general deist leanings (because I cannot believe that this is all there is: for if it is, it's a damn poor show for some folk) If push comes to shove I will always side with the rational and those seeking for truth, rather than those seeking to uphold either tradition, prejudice, non-rational belief: From True Historians showing David Irving for what he is, to Scientists attempting to discover the nature of reality at a very small scale. This is not the first time that Truth and Religion have been in conflict. Of many examples the one that springs to mind is the listing of Emmanuel Kant's work in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (index of prohibited books). The Vatican hated his 'Categorical Moral Imperative' because it synthesised a morality from first principles without recourse to God (and the Vatican in particular). And it probably won't be the last time that religion and the search for truth come into conflict, either, which is why I'm moving towards the Zero-tolerance position, because as the debate is with folk who brook no argument to their opinions, citing divine precedence or inspiration as both unverifiable and absolute, I think the rational should use logic and fact and analysis, and all the other intellectual tools bequeathed them by the search for truth, in rebutting such silliness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 11:30 am (UTC)This science as a religion meme that keeps cropping up....I've been thinking about it, and I don't think it's true in any sense: however I will say that science partakes of the religion of truth, Inasmuch as 'the truth', or 'what is the case' is a religion. And science is not the only adherent to this religion: History also bows to truth, Metaphysics and Philosophy too: in fact, almost all of our academic and intellectual disciplines concern themselves with what we can ascertain, with any certainty, given our limitations.
And if truth is a religion then science is one of its congregation.
Now I'm a musician, poet, writer, and artist: so my relationship with truth is, of necessity, considerably more elastic than that of someone in the rigorous disciplines, but I know folk who are seeking after truth when I see 'em, and I know of the delusions that come from history and tradition. Despite being an artist, and despite general deist leanings (because I cannot believe that this is all there is: for if it is, it's a damn poor show for some folk) If push comes to shove I will always side with the rational and those seeking for truth, rather than those seeking to uphold either tradition, prejudice, non-rational belief: From True Historians showing David Irving for what he is, to Scientists attempting to discover the nature of reality at a very small scale.
This is not the first time that Truth and Religion have been in conflict. Of many examples the one that springs to mind is the listing of Emmanuel Kant's work in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (index of prohibited books). The Vatican hated his 'Categorical Moral Imperative' because it synthesised a morality from first principles without recourse to God (and the Vatican in particular).
And it probably won't be the last time that religion and the search for truth come into conflict, either, which is why I'm moving towards the Zero-tolerance position, because as the debate is with folk who brook no argument to their opinions, citing divine precedence or inspiration as both unverifiable and absolute, I think the rational should use logic and fact and analysis, and all the other intellectual tools bequeathed them by the search for truth, in rebutting such silliness.