Science and Religion Compared for Dummies

Science vs. religion, historical context...

Although our staffers put most of their time into searching the 'net for freelancer's factual errors, they do keep their eyes open for logical failings as well. Some months ago, an Antisocial Network researcher ran across some a self-appointed philosopher on HubPages and flagged his profile for future harvests. We already pointed out William J. Prest for his scientific illiteracy once, but heretofore ignored his many posts on conspiracy theories (the Lloyd Pye theory, cryptozoology, chemtrails, fluoridation, GMOs, and other pseudoscience). But we couldn't pass up this steaming pile of twaddle: "Faith in Science as an Objectivist Religion"; not after a copy of "The War on Science" circulated through the office...

Prest, whose educational background is unstated, opens by explaining that

"Just like high religion, lead by the powerful and well placed echelons of various faiths, science has its high priests that are presumably knowledgeable in their world view and from which most folk are separated and ignorant."

A Christian cartoon "disproving" science... 

Besides having constructed a nonsense sentence padded to make it look more knowledgeable than it is, Prest is clearly unfamiliar with modern science. Who are these "high priests of science"? Prest never says: there's no mention of  science's analog of Jim Bakker or James Dobson, no comparison of Bill Nye the Science Guy with Tim Lahaye -- just an unsupported claim of some sort of scientific priesthood. Prest's reasoning is, apparently, that

"Those who do not have direct experience in either religion or science, have to take on faith, most of what the ones on high make their pronouncements. Both expressions are rife with corruption..."

Of course, where Prest lost us is in his supposition that many people "do not have direct experience [with] science," which is patently ridiculous -- except, unfortunately, that many people do not realize that they have "direct experience with science." As for the claim that science is "rife with corruption"; that bullshit does not deserve the dignity of a response. We certainly hope Mr. Prest's background is not in business...

Whatever the case, Prest's polemic (which runs to almost 3500 words of tortured, tangled prose) revolves around the mistaken impression that science is subjective like, say, religion. His unfamiliarity with science and the scientific method is manifested in such foolishness as saying that "bad science" includes

Ignoring the facts that threaten a cherished hypothesis - from which it's obvious that Prest does not know what a hypothesis is. Scienteese (Speaking in terms obscure to most) - from which it's obvious that Prest is insulted for having to have "obscure terms" explained. You know, like the non-Looney Tunes definition of "theory"... Established Science blocking new innovations and ideas - hmmm... we like that Capitalization. How do we get on the Established Science team? But seriously, Prest is the type who thinks "science" has blocked the water-powered car, though usually people claim it's businesses like ExxonMobil. Big science and big money - Ummm, what: Prest thinks research is free? Idiot. Clinging to mistaken ideas for political reasons - No, that's religion, antivaxxers and the Republican Party. Clinging to conservative empiricism - Well, Bill, empiricism is what science is supposed to value: invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, which leaves no room for divine intervention. Emphasizing materialism - again, that's business (and yuppies) Non-objective - well, yes, non-objectivity would be bad science. In fact, it wouldn't be science at all... Sinister use of discoveries - here again, Prest confuses application with theory.

Somewhere in the middle of all his yammering, before our researcher started vomiting in her mouth a little, Prest demonstrated once again that he knows little or nothing about science when he said,

"There are many ideas born of science, which are not backed up by observation and/or experiment; yet people believe what is stated. We have to ask; 'Have you ever seen a Higg's [sic] Boson?' We haven't either; so, we have to take it on faith from those who stated that they have found it."

Finally, jackass, the great unwashed don't have to "take it on faith." You see, that's because -- if someone's really interested -- anyone can track the discovery of the Higgs boson (note correct spelling, Bill) back to Peter Higgs' pronouncement that such a subatomic particle exists. There is an objective, juried, published, documented, footnoted paper trail! And that's what makes science objective: try finding the same paper trail back to the genesis of any religion, moron.

For confusing science with religion mainly because he doesn't understand how science works, William J. Prest receives his second Dumbass of the Day award. If reading his blather weren't so painful, we suspect he'd have picked up several dozen of them by now.

copyright © 2016-2022 scmrak

SI - RELIGION