I wrote an article questioning the assumptions of scientific reasoning.
So many people critique religion while refusing to aknowledge the foundations of scientific thought and assumptions on which it rests:
"Critique of religion is easy to find. The (pseudo)intellectual alternative that is promoted in its place is a scientific narrative and the attempted objectification of the world. In the place of creation it inserts evolution, in place of the soul it inserts the brain, in the place of everlasting life it appeals to human mortality, in the place of faith it has inherited ‘truth’."
"John Gray writes: ‘like the church in the past, it [science] has the power to destroy, or marginalize, independent thinkers…From the standpoint of anyone who values freedom of thought, this may be unfortunate, but it is undoubtedly the chief source of science’s appeal. For us, science is a refuge from uncertainties, promising – and in some measure delivering – the miracle of freedom from thought, while churches have become sanctuaries for doubt.’"
Critique should not selectively choose its targets without questioning the values closest to ones own heart. Critique should not be about taking sides or about being right or wrong.
What do you think?