ScienceBlogs has enlisted a new blogger who is an accomplished and well-respected evolutionary biologist, David Sloan Wilson. Unfortunately, however, the dude can’t seem to resist the urge to engage in blithering wackaloon fuckwittitude concerning the relative epistemic status of religion and science.
In one post, he writes the following:
Science can even be regarded as a religion that worships truth as its god. It might seem provocative to put it this way, but I find the comparison compelling and challenge my readers to show what’s wrong with it.
As was pointed out very clearly and in detail by a number of commenters to that post, this analogy is pathetically stupid (and mind-numbingly boring). Science doesn’t “worship” anyfuckingthing in the sense of “worship” that applies to religion. Yeah, this analogy might be “provocative”, but only because grotesque conflation and word-twisting tends to piss people off.
Science is nothing more than organized systematic doubt; religion is based exactly on the rejection of doubt.
In another post, he argues that science and religion are each “meaning systems”, as if that provides a useful common framework for understanding both science and religion:
Once we focus on meaning systems as the main object of study, then we can study the elements associated with religion and science in the context of meaning systems.
Of course, the difference between religion and science as symbolic meaning systems is that every single bit of evidence that has been amassed over the millenia of human experience indicates that the referents of religious symbols don’t exist, while every single bit of evidence that has been amassed over the millenia of human experience indicates that the referents of scientific symbols do exist. Seems like an important difference to me. I wonder why he doesn’t point this out?
Dude, do yourself and all of us a favor, and stick to the motherfucking science. Lay off the smarmy inane gibbering, bogus analogies, and whiny apologetics.