November 6, 2011
written few weeks ago
“The difference between a principle of religion and a principle of science is in case of religion it is the same prinicple that produces a believer on one hand and atheists and non-believers on the other. For a principle of science there is a varying degree of acceptance but that comes from how much someone is capable of understanding these priniciples, not from a personal wish.”
Most people think religion is anti-scientific and science is anti-religious but the mere fundamental thing is to realize religion is an index of our ignorance. Is science an index of our knowledge? Does the ignorance that props up in science a license to nurture ignorance and call it religion? The more unprepared we are to accept the growth of human progress the more it shows up on our sleeves, or whereever. It is not to say all the vocal supporters of this are all scientific but they certainly have a newfound way of looking at the world where the paradigms of science takes them away from an orthodox obstinate stupidity of the social misthinking they grow up in. Science causes irrevocable rifts in our understanding whether it is knowledge or ignorance.
Suppose you are given a key to a room that has treasure. Then you are asked to be responsible with this, the resources. You go ahead and without a sanction of the cause you are supposed to maintain you distribute some of the treasure to whoever you wish. That is the problem with the scientists in academics who believe in religious doctrines. This kind of religious belief has got nothing to do with the fact that you are a scientist. It is only your personal choice. SO to say science accepts the usefulness or value of religion is a bloated misuse of the cause and responsibility of science. Because you have a key to it does not mean you are absolved of the cause to sanction a relationship between science and religion. They are completely distinguishable value systems as long as they are to be appreciated in isolation from each other. Having said that there is an intersection of values. This intersection is a mere coincidence not a matching of value. eg in a religious doctrine we often preach what is good and what is not good. In a scientific value we do the same what is “with reason” and what is “without reason” that is what is good and bad. As far as we do it with objective subjectivity we have a better chance of getting closer to the truth of matter but a shear misuse of reason lands us in hot water. SO there is also a need for good and bad in science but this is no way a religious morality. Because at the base of what is good, acceptable and supported by reason there is science, another good, acceptable and supported by reason principle. Science builds on itself towards science. But religion can make you wishful without any honor for science. In an ideally religious world there is no science. In a practical world there is. In an ideally scientifc world religion and it’s ideals do not matter. In a practical world they are just there. We can’t do anything about it.