Replies

beez, most of ordinary life is based on what Santayana called 'animal faith'. Far be it from me to deny the obvious. However, scientists are (or ought to be) ultimately willing to over-throw their pet theories if evidence and argument convince them that they're mistaken. The key is to come up with theories capable of being mistaken (Popperian falsifiability)! Science does this almost all of the time; religion, I'm afraid, never does.

However, scientists are (or ought to be) ultimately willing to over-throw their pet theories if evidence and argument convince them that they're mistaken. The key is to come up with theories capable of being mistaken (Popperian falsifiability)! Science does this almost all of the time; religion, I'm afraid, never does.

Really? Explain how evolution is testable (you can't). Science proceeds one death at a time.

The key is to come up with theories capable of being mistaken (Popperian falsifiability)! Science does this almost all of the time; religion, I'm afraid, never does.

That is, if you are trying to construct a model to describe and explain things, so you can (pick one):
a) Feel intellectually superior (see Scholasticism)
b) Control things (see Industrial Revolution)
c) Make money and retire (see Business School)

Keep in mind the words of Leon Lederman, Nobel Physicist:(IIRC)

"Science is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."

Religion relies on authority. Word of God, divine revelation, what have you.
The problem is, anyone can *claim* to have had a revelation.

Not to say that all revelations are necessarily false, but how do you tell the difference?

OTOH, remember the sarcastic definition of a skeptic:

A skeptic is someone who denies the existence of whatever he cannot explain away.