| | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
| |
|
| You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
| absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
| fact.
|
| Oh really,
| and you know that how?
|

You just told me. You say science is the opposite
of religion. That's a dogmatic statement, worthy only
of dogmatic, atheistic hysterics like Daniel Dennett
and his ilk, who are frightened by anything that falls
outside the purview of scientific materialism. The only
way it could be construed as coherent is if I assume
you mean that religion is no more and no less than
blind belief and that science is totally free of belief.
So you've dismissed much of the activity of humanity
throughout history as merely blind belief, apparently
without research or evidence.

Your implication that science is not subject to belief
can only be taken as irrational dogma. Science is practiced
by people, who are subject to irrational thought and
belief -- both conscious and non-conscious. Worse,
we're all subject to believing we're capable of logical
thought when we're often not. Further, science is limited
in its scope to what it can observe objectively. Do we
have astral bodies? Does God exist in any sense? The
true scientist would say we need other tools to ask
those questions because they're outside the scope of
science. But what more often happens is that the
scientist simply rules those questions irrelevant, by
virtue of their being unscientific! That's exactly the same
mind as the cardinal (pope?) who proclaimed that he
had no need to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm
the existence of craters on the moon because he already
knew that God would not create an imperfect moon with
craters. You *know* science is true and religion is
false, which is simply dogma.

| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Unlike it's opposite.
|
OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
scientific topic?