I’m an atheist. That means I don’t believe there is a God, are any gods. I’m even a militant atheist, one convinced that the very belief in gods and existence of religion is a bad thing for humanity.
On Twitter there are quite a few other atheists from various camps and viewpoints. Some of them count among my «followers» there and I follow them.
Atheism is many things. Atheists are many things. As stated above: the only thing we have in common is that we don’t believe there is any god, are any gods. Aside from that everything is optional, which is great, really.
But not all atheists believe that. They think all atheists should sing science’s praise, science that has long since become a new religion.
It was inevitable that I would clash with that kind of atheist on Twitter, of course, since I firmly believe that science is just as bad for humanity as all the other religions.
I will do this very methodically, going through it step by step in the hope that at least some scientists will see the error of their ways. I won’t use names or even usernames. Usually I’m not holding back those, but using them in this case would clearly be counterproductive. This concerns a general wrong, and isn’t about a few deranged individuals.
Case in point #1
This time started off with a Marie Curie quote, but it could just as well have started out with anything.
«I am among those who think that science has great beauty».
I pointed out the irony in that statement and also inferred that Curie shouldn’t be the hero she is to many people.
The irony and horror, in this case is that she died of exposure to the radioactive elements of pitchblende. She literally found death in a handful of dust and also participated in the opening of a Pandora’s Box that in ever worse ways are haunting humanity. She, among others is responsible for the invasion of radioactivity in modern human life. I pointed out that her story should be a cautionary tale, not something to celebrate. To me it’s completely ridiculous and horrible that they say she has helped save lives. The usefulness of nuclear medicine is and should be questioned. Its dangers are evident. Many claim, and I agree that using radiation in treating cancer, for instance is destroying the patient instead of saving him or her, or destroying people almost as much as saving them, saving the patient by killing him, so to speak. It’s a very puzzling and dangerous and way too common modern attitude.
By her lethal discovery of radiation in pitchblende she also contributed to the development of the atomic bomb and the disastrous and extensive use of nuclear power plants we see today.
She is a perfect example of the inherent dangers of science, of uncritical pursuit of advanced technology.
None of this seems to register in those zealots of science.
And then they started ganging up on me, of course. One, very predictably thought I was being religious, even though I attacked science for being religious… Another used the well-proven tactic of telling me how amusing he thought it was that I was criticizing science from a computer. I didn’t really bother replying to the idiot, but what I usually say to people like that is this: aren’t technological platforms exactly the right place to criticize science and advanced technology? I guess they would love that I and others shouted our opinions in the wilderness, where no one can hear them…
I have retweeted quite a few of his tweets attacking religion btw, but as expected, there is a ravine between us in the way we look at reality. He and his peers should apply a true system of inquiry to their own, boxed-in beliefs.
I do. I reexamine my view on reality constantly, and I have to, anyway, since they are constantly under attack from all religions, from christianity, Islam, even from the pagan views on life believing there are gods…
And from science.
Case in point #2 - Concerning science as a religion
I should point out that I am scientifically trained and was so inclined for quite some time, until I saw «the light» and began thinking for myself.
Science isn’t at all what it’s presenting itself as, what its propaganda says. It isn’t about independent inquiry or experimentation, but about boxing in reality, serving those ruling the world. Its propaganda is just as bad as Christianity presenting itself as a gospel of love. Reality is quite different from the platitude and deception and professed ideal.
Occam’s razor is often used as a pretext to close off a discussion not palatable to accepted science. We see that in the UFO-debate, for instance, about anything paranormal. There are a few scientists investigating the paranormal with an open mind, but they are rare. And those who are, are ridiculed and harassed, like J. Allen Hynek and his anti-dogmatic UFO-research. A Norwegian scientist posted anonymously on a science board a few years ago, stating that he believed Earth was regularly visited by beings from other planets and that this had been repeatedly proven to a truly inquiring mind’s satisfaction, but if he said that without concealing his identity, his career would be over. He is far from alone.
He was harassed, of course, and called out on his «scientific credentials», but he passed all tests the «skeptics» presented to him with flying colors.
In short, virtually everything that can’t be proven in the enclosed space of a laboratory is rejected.
Science operates also with something called the «null hypothesis», a relative of the before mentioned Occam’s razor. The null hypothesis is the currently most accepted in scientific circles, on any given subject. Very blatant and obvious bias, if you ask me…
Science has, like all religions developed devious methods to make devout followers stay in the fold.
It is, all in all amazing how obvious science’s deception is, and how rarely people call scientists out on it.
Most scientists would probably not say in public that science and its current methodology is infallible, because that would expose them for the zealots they are, but they most certainly do so in private, very smug and patronizing, really.
I’ve heard it and have heard it being referred many times.
As stated, science has left the methodology of true open inquiry long ago and become yet another cult bent on defending its position and conquests.
Case in point #3 - conclusion - the obvious consequences
This is what I have written most about earlier, the entire line of catastrophic consequences of advanced technology and the religion of science.
Some claim that science is neutral, that advanced technology isn’t good or bad, but can be used for both.
I disagree completely.
When we look at the present day human society it’s quite evident what way the scales fall. It isn’t a disaster in waiting. The disaster is already here.
We have nuclear power plants, genetic engineering, pervasive use of oil, tons of cancer-inducing synthetic chemicals, to mention a few excesses of applied science. Lurking in the near future is intelligent robotics and nanotechnology. Civilization itself is clearly a cancer on nature and all life, a tailspin suicide run, a Machine destroying ever more of what we need to survive.
Take any branch of science, any applied branch and you see demonstrated a distance from nature, from life that is downright frightening. The destruction of life on Earth we see everywhere on Earth today is unprecedented in history. And the very presence of advanced technology in society is certainly one major factor to blame. Of course it is. As stated in one of the other articles with link below: technology glorifies technology, science glorifies science, religion begets religion.
Would you know more?
An amazing feat - provocation (II)
J. Allen Hynek - UFO - a documentation (I)
True life of a Human Being
Just another oil spill
The vast and obvious dangers of modern existence
What's wrong with civilization?
Tailspin suicide run
The World Grinder
Living in the wild
The technological glorification of technology
Not fit to sustain life
Any digging in your neighborhood?
Choices of Doom