In general, religion (including Science) moves along a cycle of induction-deduction. Where you may have qualms with the lack of Scientific rigidity by which I found truth in Christianity (Genesis),* ultimately I arrived at it in likely the same manner which allowed the truth to survive orally for countless generation. Sure, my life is short, my sample experiences are relatively narrow and few in number, but compounded across tribes, cultures, and generations, one can infer that such common subjective conclusions bear a statistical weight whose margin of error is within the limits of respectability, I think.
As such, I may approach consequent experiences from something like a deductive path, having previously found sufficient* empirical corroboration -its a handy short-cut which Science obviously does not enjoy so much. Because with Science, as you said, its fundamental truths tend to be reviewed more frequently than those of a religion like Christianity (even still, wasn't a significant Scientific body of knowledge built upon Newtonian laws?or the Ptolemic solar system? if only to be thrown in the bin later). No doubt these reviews occur most frequently in those places where Science relies heavily on a subjective medium, language, as well as the folly of our own senses in perceiving and interpreting natural phenomena.
And the most reverent of Scientists do hold a Science-based morality that proceeds from the Objective Will. Science's faithful have evangelized the goodness of Free-market capitalism, nuclear capacities, colonialism, eugenics, democracy, involuntary electro-shock therapy, and capital punishment. Scientific morality just tends to operate at a systemic, rather than personal level.
The duality between Science and religion, if we must characterize it as such, is between the objective and subjective (I'm talking out of turn here; I realize many Christians appeal to Genesis only for its descriptions of creation and completely miss the truth of the story. Similarly, Scientists may mistakenly seek personal truths through analysis or dissection, where an inside-out, subjective "religious" approach is more appropriate -again, with a scriptural short-cut available).
*Science arrogantly assumes that the objective realm is the limit of reality, when in fact nothing exists except within a context. As such, subjective approaches are as valid as the objective approach. What truths I find through my own subjective experiences (which may accord with scriptural conclusions expounded for millenia... further, conclusions which Science may have only arrived at recently -that gluttony is to be avoided, for example), its as immediately true and viable as it needs to be.
As such, I may approach consequent experiences from something like a deductive path, having previously found sufficient* empirical corroboration -its a handy short-cut which Science obviously does not enjoy so much. Because with Science, as you said, its fundamental truths tend to be reviewed more frequently than those of a religion like Christianity (even still, wasn't a significant Scientific body of knowledge built upon Newtonian laws?or the Ptolemic solar system? if only to be thrown in the bin later). No doubt these reviews occur most frequently in those places where Science relies heavily on a subjective medium, language, as well as the folly of our own senses in perceiving and interpreting natural phenomena.
And the most reverent of Scientists do hold a Science-based morality that proceeds from the Objective Will. Science's faithful have evangelized the goodness of Free-market capitalism, nuclear capacities, colonialism, eugenics, democracy, involuntary electro-shock therapy, and capital punishment. Scientific morality just tends to operate at a systemic, rather than personal level.
The duality between Science and religion, if we must characterize it as such, is between the objective and subjective (I'm talking out of turn here; I realize many Christians appeal to Genesis only for its descriptions of creation and completely miss the truth of the story. Similarly, Scientists may mistakenly seek personal truths through analysis or dissection, where an inside-out, subjective "religious" approach is more appropriate -again, with a scriptural short-cut available).
*Science arrogantly assumes that the objective realm is the limit of reality, when in fact nothing exists except within a context. As such, subjective approaches are as valid as the objective approach. What truths I find through my own subjective experiences (which may accord with scriptural conclusions expounded for millenia... further, conclusions which Science may have only arrived at recently -that gluttony is to be avoided, for example), its as immediately true and viable as it needs to be.
Comment