Friday, September 23, 2011

Science is lies, religion is truth!

That might sound like an odd statement for a rational person to say who has studied Physics to university level, but it is true.

Today we learn that a theory that proved Newton's laws of motion were wrong* is possibly in itself wrong because neutrinos may in fact have travelled faster than the speed of light, fired from CERN to Italy. (The BBC has this)

This is not actually either a surprise or unusual. Real scientists (Not Richard Dawkins) are always finding out that what they believed last week was not quite right and so knowledge progresses. There can be no truths in science, because if there were it would become a religion and so not gain further knowledge. That said parts of the science community do turn religious in their dogma holding things up for a while.

Religion on the other hand is truth. This is not because it can be proven in a scientific sense but because it tells us something beyond fact about ourselves, our relationships with others, the world and our responsibility over it. Religions vary, but most contain some parts which many people would call a truth.

On the other hand with science you must always be testing and breaking the current position or else it does not move forward.

*I am being a bit hard on Newton's laws of motion, they work quite well at the level of practical human experience. 


Adrian Vance Blog said...

Take in your arms a terminally ill or invalid child and tell me about your God.

See The Two Minute Conservative at has political analysis, science and humor. Now in the top 2% on Kindle.

Stuart said...

Quite probably the biggest load of tosh I have ever seen written down. Gibberish is the most charitable you could be about this nonsense.

Anonymous said...

An argument based on semantics? What is so good about truth in this context? I was quite enjoying your blog being a first time reader, but this entry is lame. You manage to sit on the fence with regards to religion - seemingly siding with the religious right, but not quite. Surely you can do better. What about a treatise on reason and justice. Who cares about absolute truths if they can be justified by as weak an argument as you put forth?