Monday, February 22, 2010


Of course religion is not scientific. Science is not just an organized body of knowledge -- that's something ending in ology. Science as the term is used includes the employment of scientific method, of formulating and testing theories that are based on observations and depending on experimentation. You know, science. And I've gone to the trouble previously of explaining to you what a theory is, in its real sense. A theory is testable, falsifiable, makes predictions -- the outcome of its experiments can be observed. Everything that Evolution is not.

So I, a religionist, cheerfully affirm that no religion, even my own, the correct one, can be scientific. This doesn't mean it's not rational, or not testable, or not correct. It just means that it doesn't meet the definition of what is scientific, any more than science does not meet the definition of what is true. Science is not true, it's a test for truth. As for religions, well, the very fact that the word can be used in the plural says it all. We may use the term sciences, the sciences, as a convenience, but "they" should all agree. The plurality of religions must disagree, and so not all can be correct. If any. Of course my own is correct.

Example. Physics has laws, say, of thermodynamics. Take, then, the second law of thermodynamics. Energy is lost to a system over time. Applied to information theory, this becomes the New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, simply, information is lost to a system over time, absent the input of organization from outside the system. Evolutionism is the invention of information over time. Entropy is the universally observed scientific fact -- the mostest of the mostest. Um, except when it comes to Evolution.

Evolution makes no prediction the outcome of which is observed -- outcomes are always placed in the unobservable future. Sort of a prophecy, then. Evolution can undergo no test by which it is falsified. If we irradiate drosophilia and they mutate, the mutations never result in new information -- just freakishness of standard structures. Because no specific prediction was made, no specific hypothesis was falsified.

This is why we say religions are unfalsifiable. I know we say it, because I just heard someone say it. Some prophecy, false, may be false, but how do you disprove a volcano god? Or my own: if good things happen, it is because God blessed us, and is good; if bad things happen, it is somehow for our correction, so God is good. I get a disease -- God is calling me home. I stay healthy -- God smiles upon me. No circumstance that is common to mankind proves or disproves God. It is science that proves God -- the fact that there can be science, the product of intelligence, which does not arise randomly. Does not, I say, if we are going to be scientific -- depending on observation, testability and reason.

Ah well. The same goes for Global Warming! When the inconvenient fact arose that the Globe was not actually Warming, the Acolytes changed the name of their faith to Climate Change! Is it hot this summer? CC! Is it cold? CC! Was there a big hurricane a few years ago? CC! No big ones recently! CC! Tsunamis? EQs? Volcanoes? None of the above? CC! Sunspots, or no sunspots? Um, well, that's just irrelevant. What would sunspots have to do with weather? Madness ... yer a Denier! Worse than Hitler. Planet hater!

Point is, no observation is sufficient to invalidate the theory, because it is not a theory, but a dogma. I'm all for dogma. If I were Moslem, I'd be an islamist. Until I converted to Christianity, because I love truth and am smart enough to recognize it. Man I'm terrific. It is a good thing to recognize, adhere to, defend, and proclaim truth. The truth I'm proclaiming currently is that the secular left is as religious as any Inquisitor, or Nazi, or Satanist. You know, loving dogma more than truth. Which they love not at all.

I was hearing some New Age guru taking about his idea of Christ, the Christ, you know, the one within us all. Like original sin. And the elementary school truth kept resounding through the cavernous volume of my head -- cuz it's so big, but not empty like a cavern, I just used that to indicate size ... my skull is totally full of brains -- that the anti part of Antichrist does not mean "opposite", but "substitute". Observation has informed us that nature abhors a vacuum. So does human consciousness -- I am loath to use the word intelligence. In that region of the human soul/mind/psyche that requires religious thought, any dinge or mange or taint of dogma might fill the void, the way a yeasty candida infection will overgrow your colon so that your stool has to strain a way to the commode like Stanley had to hack his path to Dr. Livingston. You're so disgusting. Eat some fiber fer cripes sake. You'll wish you had after the bleeding starts. Word to the wise.

Ah well. I seem to have forgotten once again the reason I bothered to start this thing at all. No matter. You wouldn't have understood it anyway, or appreciated it. I never got that dollar you were supposed to send me. I should be rich by now. You people disappoint me so much. I live in squalor, and it's your fault.


No comments: