Your phrasing is interesting: “which is right?” What does “right” mean in these circumstances? What has to happen to prove religion “right”? What is “proof”?
Personally, I’m more interested in which is correct, by which I mean: what gets results? Which allows us to see beyond our petty human concerns, in to the wider universe, the past, and the future? Which provides us with useful information and resources, to improve our lives in substantial, measurable ways?
As I’ve said before: science is not some “construct” that you are obliged to accept or reject in totalis. It’s a method, a set of principles that include scepticism towards arbitrary claims, observation, experimentation, working to reduce errors and deriving useful explanations and predictions. You can use the scientific methods to examine anything, including people and their beliefs.
You are free to ignore it, as many do, but that leaves you at the mercy of those who would take advantage of your ignorance. Do you believe everything you see on TV, or do you think about how they show what they appear to show? I find it continually amusing to see apologists for religion using the products of science – paper, the telephone, television, the Internet, etc. – to argue against science itself. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, eh?
Posted: January 1st 2009
See all questions answered by brian thomson