|
Science versus theology (or reason versus objectivism): first of all the conclusions of science are fallible - so anything that pretends to have infallible conclusions is not a science - or put another way the discoveries of science are based on testing and retesting conclusions and there is no point at which it is just crazy to continue to have questions or doubts and search for possible alternative explanations. There are of course more and less concrete ideas in science based on which ones have held up under the most tests and never failed to prove true. New but rational - probable - ideas are hypothesises. Once the hypothesises has been around long enough and proven itself it becomes a theory. And over time if it proves itself as a theory it becomes a law. But even scientific laws have later been disproven and replaced. To say anything is at a point where it can no longer be questioned or challenged is to say it is not based on science - but on faith. (This not to say faith is bad - just that it can't be treated the same way as a science.) None of this is to say all things in science are equally questionable - the point of having hypothesises, theories, and laws is to give people an indication of how concrete an idea is. It makes far more sense to build a building using the scientific and mathematical laws of physics than on whatever really cool whims pop into your head as you build randomly. The point here is nothing in science is unquestionable - but it still may be so improbable that it is wrong you are seriously wasting your time to question it. For top scientist who know what they are doing questioning the fundamentals is a good practice - for the average layperson who does not have the back-ground or tools to know why science is leaning in a particular direction it is probably best to trust those who know what they are doing. If faith is something that disgusts you for some reason - don't feel bad - just become a scientist. |
||