Can science serve as a religion?

Science is the religion of the secularized part of the world, wherein the scientists thus are the priests.

The problem with this religion is that science is consistent ONLY as long as you DON’T believe in its statements, ie, have a critical attitude against them. As soon as you turn from a critical attitude into believing in them, you also enter the same fundamental contradiction as in all other beliefs, because it resides in that classes (ie, the classes words denominate) are fundamentally contradictory (see Russell’s paradox), and thus that this contradiction isn’t linked to WHAT you believe, but to WHETHER you believe.

Instead, science is ONLY relevant as a practical endeavor. It can find methods to manipulate reality and construct technical means to build a society, but it CAN’T explain reality. The notion that it can explain reality is just one God among all other Gods, whereof none will ever be found. It means that cladistics and particle physics are just two expressions of the (contradictory) belief (“contradictory” in parenthesis, because “belief” is contradictory per definition) that science can find its God.

Fact is that science CAN’T explain reality, because it can’t find the truth, because there is no truth to be found (ie, the place for truth is void), independently of what cladists and particle physicists believe. We can thus use science to handle reality, ie, as a tool, but we can’t use it to explain reality. Science can thus serve as a religion only insofar that its God is just as contradictory as all other Gods are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s