Conflict of Science with Theocracy

The opening sentence;

[The question whether science can survive in a theocratic environment had been gnawing at my mind for a long time.]

should have been

[The question whether theocracy can survive in a scientific environment had been gnawing at my mind for a long time.]

Because the larger of the two subjects logically is independent and smaller of the two is dependent variable, whether one talks about X and Y coordinates of cartesian plot or talks in terms of solute and solvent. Only in rare conditions do we talk in terms of the survival of solvent dependeny upon a minor solute, impurity or pollutant - as in conditions where high purity of solvent is utmost important or impurities starting a chain reaction leading to solvent destruction.

Science is a big business whereas theology is restricted to few religious colleges and seminaroes. The amount of money spent on R & D in various branches of sciences and the literature generated alone suffice theorcracy to be treated as insignificant.

The concept of god or theology was a linear extension of very few of the available data points by mediocre tribes on the fringes of great civilizations during antiquity. The data has increased many-fold since then, reversing the basic understanading of the working of nature. As time passed, the theology became more and more irrelevet and needed constant re-interpretation. For the last couple of hundred of years, since the flowering of scinetific revolution, further patching, white-washing or re-interpretations are mostly futile attempts. The scientists no longer take it seriously. That is why 93 percent of the member of most prestigious, National Academy of Science, 85 percent of the science faculty at universities and 73 percent of overall science teachers no longer gnaw on this topic; they have made up their mind - away from theology and away from god(s).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts