Science. Can someone who just describes be useful? Why science must become religion once more…


Science is not meant to be a tool to understand the world. This is the work of philosophy. Science is thought to be a way to describe the world.

We see things and we formulate theories to describe them. Maybe even predict things in the future.

Any practical applications do not come through the pure science itself, but through people who use science’s conclusions and build things. They do so according to society needs and pressures, driven by their personal goals and preferences.

Any time science is used to do harm (e.g. weapons, abortions because the parents feel uncomfortable with a new child, eugenics, et cetera), supporters of science simply claim that this is not something that should attributed to science. But again, when something good comes out, it is all about science and how science does good for the people.

READ ALSO:  Science providing explanations. Heart providing guidance…

We must decide. What do we want: A “pure” science cut off from anything practical (in that case science would not be able to take credit for anything good that is attributed to it now) or a practical science which will be also held responsible for anything bad happening due to its research? It is very easy to judge religion based on it’s practical results when you are confined in the sterile environment of “I am just describing”. But if science really wants to help it must get involved as religion does. It must come “down to Earth” and stop pretending to be something “nobble” beyond any criticism.

Science must become religion (once more?). It’s the only way…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments (


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by ExactMetrics