format_quote Originally Posted by
aamirsaab
I want to know why - why is there this inherent bias against religion when it comes to science. I have my assumption that it is down to the fact that you cannot calculate God's power and thus it is an alien concept (or, alternatively, that they don't believe in God - which is a topic in and of itself!). But is there any other reason?
There is no bias against religion in science (although that does not mean
scientists can not be biased against it). It is just that science cannot include God and remain science.
What it comes down to is that there isn't a
single piece of empirical, verifiable scientific evidence in favour of the existence of God. That doesn't mean there are not
other sorts of evidence in favour of God, but science does not and cannot deal with them without totally changing what it is, how it works and the results it gets. As an example, you will be fully aware that a browse through these forums will reveal a great many attacks on evolution. They may well, in some cases, actually present valid points why evolution should not be accepted dogmatically, or might be wrong. But none,
not one, provide any positive evidence
for a creationist alternative. Where similar points are raised in connection with other areas of science such as, say, the Big Bang theory, the results are exactly the same.
It was to answer pretty much this question that the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster came into being. It was not meant to mock or offend anybody, but it was meant to demonstrate that
in terms of science (as oppposed to theology, philosophy, sociology or anthropology - which is the bit those who got upset didn't get)
the FSM explanation of event X has precisely the same credibility as the God explanation of event X. Again, that doesn't mean scientists rank them the same, all but the most die-hard atheists would rank God as 'more probable', but not on
scientific grounds. On scientific grounds there is simply no difference between them.
You may, as a theist, think that means there might be something fundamentally wrong with science. As a Buddhist, if not a theist, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But science cannot be changed easily and the case to do so at all would need to be much stronger than it is now. Such change could be potentially catastrophic to the development of mankind. Again, evolution provides a handy example. The man behind modern 'intelligent design' was forced to admit that a science that could admit intelligent design must logically have to admit astrology as well. And if astrology, what else? Science would stagnate as what gives it is power, the method, cannot operate with such concepts. The result would be scientific stagnation, most likely accompanied by complete intellectual stagnation.