Am I the only person that finds it kind of odd in the way some people, esecially self- described arheists speak of or use the term science. It seems to me that there is a sort of distance when referring to it as something that is not a branch of inquiry that describes and explains the natural world. These same people seem to almost deify or make it something that is beyond human understanding or capability. I guess what I am trying to say is that science is not some god and we should choose what we say carefully before we sound like the very people we think irrational. Watch some videos on YouTube and maybe that will shed some light on what I am trying to convey. There are other things that I have found kind of disturbing, for example confusing natural science itself with philosophical subjects but that's for another message.
To me, science is merely a method that has proved itself successful - a method for simulating the perfect human perceiver (who then observes the world he lives in and tells us what he perceives).
The scientific apparatusses plus the independent verification by many are, after all, just that: The attempt at looking at the world in the closest-to-objective way we can achieve.
I wish the fundamentalists would understand that.
Can't remember who said this, but the simplest definition I've seen is that science is an epistemological methodology.
Follow us on:
From the officers:
The ACA Lecture Series continues Sunday, March 8th at 12:15pm at the Austin History Center, 9th and Guadalupe. The building opens at noon. Ryan Bell will talk on "My Year Without God: Now a Permanent Condition."