Natural Order and Science

[little_monkey]

No, I'm not saying that, but thanks for bringing it up. In areas where science has made great strides then I have something that is reliable. Science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered. It's a reality I must consider at all times. What may look as a weakness is really a strength as science has an inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. OTOH, if religion claims to have THE truth, then what if it's wrong, and possibly totally wrong, where does that leave those who have adhered to it all their lives? And then in areas where science is in its infancy or has nothing to say yet, I can still use rationality, logic and empirical method to seek out the best way to choose among the options that life offers me. It's much better than accepting any crackpot theory because there's a problem with that from the get-go - which crackpot theory do I choose since they're all equivalent?

Do not forget about the concept of Eugenics that have took lives of tens of millions of innocent people. Everyone know that the idea of Eugenics came from the Great Theory of Evolution based on Natural Selection. It is unwise to overlook the corruptions that people have introduced in scientific concepts to achieve some political objectives. No matter how atrocious those corruptions were but no one is condemning science based on those atrocities.

However, you are making religious corruptions a base to condemn the idea of God, corruptions that people have invented in religions to achieve their selfish, mean, and greedy objectives.

I think you've failed to comprehend the part in which I said, "science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered."  

I'm not blaming you, perhaps I didn't explain myself enough. Humans are prone to error. Scientists are human, therefore they will err. Religious people are humans, and therefore are prone to err too. But here's the difference. In science there is an inbuilt mechanism in case it is wrong - it's called empirical evidence - if the theory can't explain the facts then the theory needs change, and in some cases be abandoned totally to be replaced by a new theory. But religion doesn't have that feature: it takes its beliefs and morality as eternal, immutable, universal, sacred. But what if it's wrong? They are hundreds of religions on this planet, not counting those who have disappeared. So which one has the truth? Which one has the right morality? On what basis are you going to make those decisions that will distinguish the true religion from all the others? The answer is you have none. Your religion is basically determined from where you were born, who were your parents/guardians, which school you went, and so on, but there is no inbuilt mechanism in your religion for you to use.