This was always my primary complaint with early NRx, tbh. The market is driven (at least in part) by religious beliefs, and removing them can only be temporary, creating a vacuum to be filled by other beliefs that claim they are not beliefs.
Does established medical understanding recognise the relationship of faith to health that you're suggesting? I think it's closer to what I'm saying
-
-
Of course they don't, they're men and women of science!
-
Well I suppose when I was arguing for the separation of religion and politics we already saw it as being separate from science, maybe I was assuming there then
-
Can't separate religion and politics from science, either, sadly.
-
The History of modern science has been a success to just the extent that we did in fact acheive that
-
I'm very skeptical. Modern science is (most often) done in the academy, and the academy is a religious institution with its own theology and dogma, and plenty of politics. How many decent, testable hypotheses have been rolled out in the last few decades compared to cash spent?
-
Plenty of research takes place in industry, and STEM has largely until now been insulated from the religious aspects of the Cathedral. What testable hypotheses? I could point to any technological development out of an abundance in recent times
-
What non - computer tech has advanced significantly in the last three decades? I'm looking at things like the LHC and physics in general (which is almost entirely religious nowadays). The whole "green energy" debacle, etc.
-
True there has been stagnation in some respects. If you're saying religion and science can't be separated though I'm not sure what your vision for science is?
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.