posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:42 AM
Before we go any further in this discussion, it might help to clarify what is meant by the generic term "science".
The Scientific Method was indeed a system of research developed by philosophers to help view and understand the physical and natural world around
them. If by "science" you mean the Scientific Method, then its not so much something you believe in, as tool to help understanding.
However, if you define "science" as the Academic Community, then you might want to be a little more specific. Are we talking about researchers that
specialize in Life Sciences (i.e. Biology), Physical Sciences (i.e. Physics, Engineering), Earth Sciences (i.e. Geology) or Social Sciences (i.e.
Psychology, Sociology). Each discipline has its own ways of viewing the Universe around us.
Or by "science" do we simply mean the majority of people not actively engaged in research using the Scientific Method, and who are either unsure
about faith, religion, or philosophy; and instead choose to believe everything a "Scientist" tells them without bothering to read or research
further into what they're being told.
I think clarification is important in this discussion because what I might mean by the generic term "science" might be totally different from what
anyone else means by it, which could lead not to honest intelligent discussion, but rather to name callings and recriminations.
As for my opinion on the matter its simply this; Established Religious Organizations ( the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, etc.) and
Scientifically Based Academic Communities have this in common. They are made up by people who spend their whole lives and base their personal
reputations on certain ideas (right or wrong doesn't matter) and world views. As such they are not comfortable with anything or anyone that might
question those views or prove those ideas wrong, so they dismiss anything that's the least questionable or not in their world view. That's why
they're not comfortable with spirituality or philosophy, both of which at their foundations encourage their adherence to constantly question and
re-question ideas and concepts to grow.
Also I believe that the current Scientific Communities have based most their ideas on a more humanistic and materialistic philosophies. Those
philosophies don't really encourage self examination, or personal accountability when it comes right down to it. Those are big parts of spirituality
and philosophy, not religious dogma. If you believe that all your actions and emotions are caused by chemicals and hormones, then its really hard to
be personally guilty for doing various things that may harm yourself or others. And lets be honest, its easier to sleep at night if you can blame
someone or something else for your troubles. However if you have a personal set of spiritual beliefs or philosophy based on an idea or concept greater
than yourself, you have to be honest and accept that with free will comes personal accountability.
That's my view, but I'm always interested to hear other views, that's what makes this site so interesting to read.