DH, you framed the Science as Religion discussion much the way I frame the discussion about subscribing to religion being stupid. Hats off! "On one side there are smart people who believe in gawd and use religion/spirituality as moral compass so to speak. And then you have fundamentalists, and they got to go." And, as you have framed the science as religion discussion I may agree with you....
Wha wha WHAT!?!!?!?!?!!?
Some people put there faith in science the way some people put there faith in relgion but (playing devil's advocate) the difference in degree is staggering. The people who were drivingthe stem cell truck, as much as I can remember, always caveated with, the discoveries may not happen in this lifetime but if we don't start now it might be two lifetimes and needless millions dead. Contrasted with a faith healer or people who refuse medical attention and substitute it with prayer.
I've only ever cared about what people's perceptions of things are in as much as it matters in real outcomes. As you know, I've never been an Obama sucker because I thought he was the 2nd coming of Christ, or super liberal (which wouldn't be a good thin anyway), or 'not a politican.' But as long as the masses thought that, who am I to tell them he's not??? Especially when the mass was rooting for the guy I wanted in office.
The same can be said for science as religion. I don't know if your assertion about most people treating it like religion is true. This is a neat new twist you've put on our discussion so I'll have to let it roll around in my brain for while. But it doesn't matter. Science ISN'T a religion, no matter how many people treat it that way. And if they want to do that, I'm not gonna stop them, as long as they're voting the way I want them to. Sure I'd love it if more people critically analyzed issues before forming concrete opinions. I also wish hot chicks would dig smart guys instead of assholes. I digress. Think of a political discussion with two other people and one's a moron. The three of you have unique views but on any POLAR issue, it must be 2 v 1. And some issues, you're going to agree with the moron. And the moron is gonna go unhinged at the other person and you have to chime in and say, "Well......you're right...but not because of what you just said."And then you take 'em to school. That reminds me of an episode of Real Time from a season or two ago. Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic brought this up when talking about how Hitchens raped MosDef on Real Time a couple weeks ago.
To be clear, I DO NOT advocate taking advantage of people who are too stupid to know any better. But sometimes it can't be helped. If anything, Obama toned down the hopeful rhetoric as the campaing progressed, even though that was the thing that made Will.i.am and Scarlett Johansen cream their pants.
And, let's say people are treating science as a religion...thye're better off than they otherwise would be. If they were/ would otherwise be making decisions based on a "conversation" they had with gawd, they are most certainly better off making decsions based on reality / evidence.
Ok, looking back over this, this seems jumbled. I hould have planned better. Too late now. I'm exhausted. I'll probably post tomorrow evening.
Peace
