In God We Trust. In Science Too…


Here at our small, but increasingly influential think tank, in God we trust.

In science we trust also.

In scientists… we don’t trust.


I’m a scientist, and I’ve never, ever encountered one single, solitary scientific discipline whose adepts didn’t treat it like a religion.

You know the ones on which you are not allowed to pronounce yourself unless you’re in complete agreement with the current dominant thinking:

  • Evolution
  • Environmentalism, including:
    • Global Warming
    • Global Cooling (yes, it was global cooling before it was global warming!)
    • “Climate change” (a scientific nonsense term)
  • Education
  • Even Physics! Go ahead… try to suggest that you’re skeptical about relativity!
  • And so forth…

— xPraetorius

 

13 thoughts on “In God We Trust. In Science Too…

  1. That’s a fair distinction- whether we trust in science or scientists, still the result by comparison to trust in God, must of necessity be flawed, however good.

    If our trust in science and our trust in God we’re equal, then we could honestly worship science.

    We cannot. Nature does not have the Intelligence to receive accolades, nor can science accept adoration-

    And you were careful to point this out -xp. Good stuff- short and potent.

    1. Thanks, CS! I have only a limited trust in science. It’s a good methodology for studying God’s universe, but people often make of it something that it is not. It’s a tool. And like any tool, it can be used for good or ill. And it’s often used for ill.

      Science is not the answer. Science is nothing more than a way to measure things, a way to find some answers that may or may not be true. God, however, is the final answer to all questions. His answer is always true, always worthy of complete and perfect faith. Perfect faith: something we fall so short of! It’s right to believe in science but to have faith in God. A huge distinction.

      I believe in science, but I have a very, very healthy respect for its limitations, which are nothing more nor less than our own human limitations.

      We’re the ones who “do” science, and as a result, science is inevitably flawed, limited, incomplete.

      We inject science with all our own imperfections. We have no choice. The result is that science is filled to overflowing with corruption, greed, selfishness, glory-seeking, political chicanery and other sludge.

      As a scientist myself, I have to recognize that science, and scientists, do, though, get a lot of things right.

      I’m listening to my new (temporary) favorite song — Bamboleo — on a computer system that is a marvel of scientific achievement.

      It’s also a testament to the limits of science. As brilliant as this computer system is, it’s light-years removed from the complex, astonishing, breathtaking beauty, and the incomprehensible essence, of a mere rose.

      Still and all, here I am, basking in Bamboleo, thanks to scientific achievement. And I’m thanking God for having gifted so many people with the intelligence, the imagination and the creativity to have come together to make this astonishing machine that allows me to listen to Bamboleo over and over until I’m sick of it.

      But only God is God.

      Best,

      — x

  2. We are so ready to place ourselves in the trust of the science that allows humans to fly.. but so ready to deny it when it comes to our environment simply because of some political ideology in the conclusions?

    1. Good question. My only response is that we do entrust ourselves to science that we observe has been proven valid many, many times before. Flying, computers, automobiles, trains, tall buildings. Things like that.

      However, the science of environmentalism is so riddled with corruption and fraud that it’s become a pseudo-science. Or junk science. It would be absolute folly to allow our governments to upend out lives based on the conclusions from those who have already shown themselves to be frauds.

      Environmentalism is not a plane ride. It’s not a computer system. It’s a guess as to how the planet’s climate will behave in the next 10, 100, 1,000 years. And it’s proven itself wrong time and time again.

      Worse, anytime it’s been challenged, the mandarins of environmentalism have treated their stated conclusions as if they’re inviolable holy writ!

      They’ve treated these conclusions as if they’re absolutely unchallengeable, and that is as unscientific as it can be.

      Well, are we doing science, or are we doing religion? For environmentalists, it appears that they’ve lost the distinction.

      And don’t get me started on the hogwash that is “Climate Change!” The climate does nothing but change! That’s absolutely all it does! And everything that ever happens on the planet, and much of what happens in outer space changes the climate! When you wiggle your little finger, you change the climate. The climate changes depending on where Jupiter is in its orbit. As well as Mercury, Venus, Mars, the moon, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the individual rocks in the Oort Cloud!

      To pretend that we know the extent to which we, and all the rest, are changing the climate with our vehicles and factories is massively presumptuous. We don’t know. We can’t know. Not yet.

      However, your point is a good one. We do, I think, obviously need to clean up after ourselves, and there’s nothing wrong with seeing that we do that.

      Best,

      — x

      1. You said..
        “To pretend that we know the extent to which we, and all the rest, are changing the climate with our vehicles and factories is massively presumptuous. We don’t know. We can’t know. Not yet.”

        Please explain to me the hows and the why that environmental science…. alone in all the scientific disciplines, has ended up being a political issue. More to the point, please explain to me how of all the scientists studying science it’s environmental scientists that are some how biased to some grand environmental conspiracy? Makes absolutely no sense.

        I’m a “scientist” as well.. have been all my life as a hobby.. and my academics is in the behavioral sciences… and I am into ham radio and computers. My son is in astrophysics. But let’s forget that resume pissing match and just use common sense. Just applying the things I learned in elementary general science class… the more you breath the crap humans toss into the air the more it’s going to affect ourselves and other living things, and the environment. Common sense. (just look how L.A. was cleaned up from the smog of the 70’s). So it truly matters not if you prefer to believe in some “alt-scientific” conclusions for political reasons… it shouldn’t even matter if one believes in global warming, rising sea levels, the sun cooling, or coral reefs diminishing, or not. It’s just plain good common sense to clean up our environment. Your last line suggests you seem to go along with that much.

        1. You Said:
          Please explain to me the hows and the why that environmental science…. alone in all the scientific disciplines, has ended up being a political issue. More to the point, please explain to me how of all the scientists studying science it’s environmental scientists that are some how biased to some grand environmental conspiracy? Makes absolutely no sense.
          My Reply:
          Oh, I don’t think I ever suggested that environmental science “alone in all the scientific disciplines, has ended up being a political issue.” All the sciences — in fact all human disciplines, science being just one of them — are prone to human failings, because it’s humans doing them. But, in the sciences, there are massive political components to environmentalism and evolution, for example. The sciences most riddled with politics are, of course, the social sciences — which is what environmentalism has become. Because this is where the money is. Environmentalists recognized the money and power implications in their science, and turned it into the pseudo-science it’s become. And, like any humans, there were some — many — who succumbed to the temptation to politicize the science.

          The more abstract sciences, the ones having fewer implications for public policy, are less prone — prone all the same, but less so — to politicization. You’ll note that I mentioned the reception you’d receive if you were to pronounce yourself skeptical of relativity. There’s politics in everything people do… people do science, so there’s politics in all of them too.

          Want some more examples of “sciences” that were really politicized pseudo sciences? Okay: Eugenics, Phrenology, Lysenkoism, Biology under the Nazis. Biology under the Soviets and Nazis became completely politicized junk science. No science is immune. However, in the example of, say, computer science: before the internet, the science was concerned mainly with producing better, faster, more powerful computers. Now that the internet has a large and growing social component to it, look at how politics has intruded, and is preparing to intrude much more. If quantum physics — a discipline relatively untainted by outside politics were to discover a social component, politics would intrude on it immediately too. Currently, however, almost the only politics in quantum physics pertains to fund raising for research and internal power squabbles among quantum physicists.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          I’m a “scientist” as well.. have been all my life as a hobby.. and my academics is in the behavioral sciences… and I am into ham radio and computers. My son is in astrophysics. But let’s forget that resume pissing match and just use common sense. Just applying the things I learned in elementary general science class… the more you breath the crap humans toss into the air the more it’s going to affect ourselves and other living things, and the environment. Common sense. (just look how L.A. was cleaned up from the smog of the 70’s). So it truly matters not if you prefer to believe in some “alt-scientific” conclusions for political reasons… it shouldn’t even matter if one believes in global warming, rising sea levels, the sun cooling, or coral reefs diminishing, or not. It’s just plain good common sense to clean up our environment. Your last line suggests you seem to go along with that much.
          My Reply:
          Cool last paragraph! And, yes, you and I are, I believe, largely in agreement on this. I’m guessing that our only disagreement would be in how to proceed in the realm of — ou got it! — public policy. In other words: politics. 🙂

          I have a disheartening link for your perusal Beijing smog.

          I have a friend who lives there, and she wears her mask outdoors all the time, as do so many Beijing residents. L.A. still has bad days too! As a long-time country boy, it breaks my heart.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          Best,

          — x

          1. I don’t agree in the least that even environmental science is some level of false narrative. The practice of any physical science lends itself to being verified or not by others within the community… I don’t one bit believe in wide scale conspiracy theories. So we can settle on the idea we differ that way and will not be changing each other’s opinions any time soon.. nor is that even my intent. We believe the way we believe for any number of presumably logical and illogical reasons. But yes.. we can agree that we need to clean up our human backyards.
            Yes.. that Beijing illustrates man-gone-wild is a perfect example. The arrogance of human progress astounds me each and every example. As I wrote in my last post on my own blog, we have a lot of threats coming down the pike in the coming 18 months.. one of which is internet technology going to 5g. We can’t just let kids (or adults) in their basements or garages keep “inventing” new code and slapping it “out there” as some new social utopia without first reviewing the ramifications. But that’s a whole different argument.

          2. A loaded post, Doug! Thank you for it. I disagree with much, and agree with much. I guess that’s what makes the world go ’round, eh? Let’s hope the ol’ gal has a few more revolutions around the sun, eh?

            Best,

            — x

    1. Hi, Ar! the last one for you that I see was on March 4. Did you post one after that?

      I should say, there aren’t any after that, either in moderation or not, so I wonder if something went wrong in the posting process? That’s happened to me several times, where I’d hit the Submit button, and it would appear to go, but never make it.

      You’re one of my favorite commenters, so I wouldn’t put you into moderation on purpose.

      Best,

      — x

      1. It was later. It was a comment on this very post here.
        I know that it wasn’t you personally because it went immidiately after posting into moderation.
        I thought it might be because of some special characters or something else that triggered an automatism which put it into moderation queue or into the spam queue.

        1. Hmmm… I never found it! As you must know, I welcome all comments from you, so I’d hasten to approve it if, by some weird happenstance, it were to fall into moderation.

          Best,

          — x

Leave a Reply to artaxes Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s