BlogPost #2/T.A.

Science is not merely a religion, it is the official "state religion" of most countries on earth today.  It is the official source of established truth.  It is only scientific truth, as provided and interpreted by accredited scientists, which is legally acceptable in courts of law in the United States and in other developed countries in the world.  Science now tells us what is proper and legitimate for us to believe, just as the Catholic Church used to do when it was the official belief-system or paradigm provider in the centuries before the Renaissance.

In the Middle Ages, for example, religions were founded on ancient traditions, going back to pagan times, and many truths about the natural world were based on untested concepts delivered by authorities who could not be opposed or questioned.  With the rise of a more rational and logical approach to finding truth, based on the principle of testing concepts through the scientific method, truth became more objective, verifiable and determined by a wider consensus.  Its priesthood, however, retained many of the same powers and prerogatives of traditional religious authorities.

Traditional religions are more mystical and "right-brained", if I may use that term, while the religion of science is obviously "left-brained" in the same psychological sense.

BlogPost #1/T.A.

In this first blog entry I would like to give you my thoughts on why I think science is a form of religion, a fundamental precept of the Third Millennium Church of Science, Technology and Spirit, which from now on I may also abbreviate as the 3MCSTS.  Many people believe that science and traditional religion are opposed to each other presumably because the latter is based on beliefs handed down from antiquity by authorities without proof and the former is based on beliefs established by rational thought based on experiments which are reproducible independently by any number of persons who wish to do so and are, therefore, held to have been proved.

To start with, both are belief-systems.  Their methods and results are different but both purport to be interested in determining the truths of life and existence for humankind.  Science has been more effective in shedding light on how things in the natural world work while traditional religion has involved itself more with the moral and philosophical issues concerning and confronting mankind.  But science is never finished in its quest for knowledge and its beliefs have changed drastically over time.  As science continues to grow beyond its materialist beginnings into less tangible and more metaphysical areas of study, such as quantum physics, it looks and acts like a religion more and more.  Science also has a "priesthood," of its own, scientists, and has even held inquisitions against those the priesthood held to be "pseudoscientists," such as Immanuel Velikovski, in much the same way that the Catholic Church prosecuted and intimidated it's "heretics," such as Galileo.

In earlier times, science seemed to be the best support that atheism could ever have, and there seemed to be no place in science for a belief in God.  But now we have the scientific concept of "Intelligent Design" and a way of understanding God from a logical and rational point of view.  I think it is a better point of view because it is logical and rational and doesn't just depend on 'blind' faith in arriving at a similar conclusion.

Science and religion are not merely compatible, science is an updating of spiritual understandings for our modern technological times.  They are not in opposition to each other but rather in a temporary period of competition.  Traditional religions will never be without value for their spiritual and moral message but they are obsolete and will increasingly be supplemented by scientific ideas and principles.

S