Science

Science, like religion, can be very impractical. The news of a Nobel Prize awarded for in vitro fertilizatiuon research causes me to question how practical, from a truly scientific point of view, is in vitro fertilization on a planet which is already overpopulated by the human species. But, scientific exploration often needs to be impractical (hypothetical and theoretical) to make positive advances.

Religion, however, seems to move from the practical to the impractical. Major religions have grown out of a practical need for social reform or cohesion. Once established as power bases, however, religions often morph into impractical social institutions which impede the progress and well being of the general human society.

There is a tendency among some in atheist movements of the current time to see science in the way that others see religion. The major difference is that good science constantly demands challenge of its assumptions and achievements; science is a process committed to change and reality-testing. Religion most often starts with assumptions that are considered sacred and eternal.

The problem with Nobel Prizes is that they can sanctify scientific accomplishments in a way that can subsequently inhibit challenges to those accomplishments. It is the corrupting effect of fame and money, in other words. Fame and money have had a similar effect on religion over the centuries.

As a practical humanist, I appreciate the advancements that science makes to aid the quality of life on Earth, but I also look critically upon those scientific accomplishments which are potentially detrimental to the human condition and the human environment. Antibiotics are good. The combustion engine hasn't worked out too well. I try to avoid devotion to any one area of science or philosophy. A basic, questioning skepticism is healthy in all things, in my opinion. I measure things by their contribution to peace, social justice and a healthy planetary environment.