That's funny. I believe in God (personal experiences resulted in it, no need to go into detail). Yet, I also believe in furthering the advancement of science in it's entirety. I hold my religious beliefs completely separate, and don't use them in any other way than to have a connection with a being that may, or may not, be there.
But to hell if I am going to have that same type of connection to science. Science is a way of life to me, to learn about everything is absolutely exhilarating, and quite enjoyable. I drool at the prospect of reading a new research study, and love doing my own experiments and DIY at my place of residence.
So how in the world could a man who believes in God also love science? The two don't mingle like that, they mingle as one is faith-driven, the other...well....science-driven. You can't just stop believing in science and make it go away.
I tried to breakdown the article, but I couldn't get past the first few sentences. Please correct me if I say anything incorrectly, and please discuss this with me. This sub needs more discussion.
we wish to outline some central arguments of our belief that Western science or Enlightenment rationalism constitutes a mythical worldview, a state religion, and a productive modality
Enlightenment rationalism? As I do believe in rational discussion based on non-bias information, I wouldn't call it enlightenment, or anywhere near. We can't achieve world peace, or end world hunger, based on non-emotional discussion alone. We need people who are truly passionate about the subjects at hand to create the dramatic improvements to technology, science, and life as we know it. Without the passion that Friedrich Miescher had to find the proper model of DNA, we would have never come to the Double Helix model. First, it shows (on a non-scientific level) the beauty of nature itself. It's a work of art, which is of course subjective, but the beauty of the simplistic design of the double helix for such a complex organism such as life, and especially sentient life is astounding. DNA led the way to the explanation of genes, and how they affect us, or so how they make up what we/who we are. It explains how genes are replicated, which paved the way for many vaccines and a new era of medical research. We can use DNA to predict possibilities of complications of a human being before they are fully formed. It helped us to discover that we come from a separate species from the Neanderthals, and the Erectus sub-human species that are not with us today (if they were with us, I would not consider them sub-human, but as they have no evolved with us I do not consider them at our current level of sentient existence). DNA testing helped to prove the existence of famous nobility remains, it kicks the concept of "race" (skin color and nationality) in the balls and calls it a bitch for even thinking we're different from each other based on physiological and physical makeup. DNA has led to genetic alteration of crops, which has strong evidence to show that it can be used to save many lives and assist us in the continuation of feeding the worlds growing population. On top of this, DNA led to Google's ability to grow a fucking hamburger, one muscle fiber at a time, in a lab.
So all of these advances are not "enlightenment. And seriously? Mythical? Are you fucking kidding me? There's no "myth" behind science. It's filled with hypothesis, theories, and laws. A hypothesis is not a "myth", it's a possibility. A theory is not a "myth", it's a brutally tested hypothesis that has been reproducible with factual evidence and a peer-reviewed breakdown of every event involved. A law is not a "myth", it's an observable absolute. If I jump I will come back down due to gravity. That is 100% fact. So how is science a mythical when the only myths involved are the ones being tested due to someone wanting to find the truth? Is it not false to find facts? What kind of bullshit paradox is that?
A state religion. That's hilarious. So I guess history is a state religion too, right? I mean, it's pushed and taught just as heavily as science. It's held at the same pedigree of science as our history is quite important for us to understand where we come from and where we are at now. So is that too a religion? Is history also mythical? I think not.
The last one kills me. A productive modality. So how is something A: a religion, B: mythical, and C: productively expressed? What the fuck? This is the last sentence I can read before I say "nope" and close the article's page.
END NOTE: To my fellow Transhumanists, please correct any inconsistencies or errors I may have made. I'd also like decent discussion if possible on this subject.