Quote:
Originally Posted by Angst
The advantage of science is that it is self correcting. Although it doesn't always happen immediately, improper reasoning is exposed and correct ideas flourish. When "cold fusion" can't be substantiated, it is rejected. When studying plaque as a cause for Alzheimer's failed, other avenues are examined. Science may not always be right, but it is always moving toward higher and more exacting knowledge.
Religion has no corresponding "correction" method. Hence, the pope has to say AIDS cannot be prevented by condoms, because the church has forbidden the use of condoms. (god cannot be wrong)
In short, scientists are willing to accept when they are mistaken, (if it can be proven), while theologians rarely do. It is the unwillingness to bend in the face of truth, that leads to the "dogma" stigmatism being applied to religion.
|
My point is it's only self correcting when somebody is actively doing some form of experiment that provides a test of existing views from another viewpoint. If nobody those sort of experiments, then no view will change. Being an old Micro/Molecular Biology student, I had my teeth rapped into the fact that even after the microscope had been invented, everybody still believed in Aristotle's spontaneous generation for another 200 years. It wasn't really buried until 1874!
A common joke is that the mark of insanity is doing the same experiment, under the same conditions, over and over again and expecting to get a different result.
My counterjoke is that the mark of being dogmatic is
refusing to do the experiment over again, when the conditions
have changed, because you already know the answer. And on top of it all, refusing to even listen as to
why the conditions have changed, because, of course, they can't!