And another thing… : Science is not my god
Faith in science does tend to be a good deal more practical than faith in many other things. For example, I have faith that, should I jump off a bridge, gravity will ensure my speedy reunion with the ground. I have faith that if I combine hydrogen with oxygen, I will have water. Why? Because these things have been proven, demonstrably, to be true. Theories in science are rarely just flights of fancy – they are usually based on existing principles which have been proven to be correct. Additionally, a key difference between “science” and “blind faith” is that, while “blind faith” refuses to change, “science” redevelops its theories when new, more accurate evidence comes to light, even if that means contradicting something which was earlier thought to be true. For example, should there prove to be no higgs boson particle, scientists will not continue irrationally believing in it, but will instead accept that the hypothesis has been dis-proven, and move on.
An awful lot of presumptions here. Beginning with the equating of ‘religion’ with ‘blind faith’, which sets up the argument in a way that by definition can’t be challenged. Then there’s the ‘faith can’t change’ assumption, and the ‘scientists are always ready to let go of a theory that’s been proven false’ assumption (when I think of how hard it is for many scientists to give up their pet theories!), and of course the assumption that “proof” is a word with a clear, simple, precise, quantifiable and unchallengable definition (tell that to quantum physicists, or Godel). Of course science isn’t religion. But it is certainly possible, nonetheless, for people to worship science, just as they can worship a stone statue, or money, or fame. Noting the differences between science and religion doesn’t change this fact of human nature.