"book"?
im already lost, my friend.
anywho, i dig tyler's quote. i connect with it, i suppose.
but, my stance is not that science does nothing... its to defend truths that dont need, or cant benefit from, science; i.e; love, god, ghosts, spirits...
it just always seems that things not "scientifically standardized" are perceived as wrong, or impossible, or imaginary -- like ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, etc.
however, the reason i brought up the subjects of love and god is to show that science cant prove them, either... and yet billions of individuals simply know them to be true.
science doesnt know anything about love... but its still there. and one shouldnt scoff (scoff! scoff!) at me, or others who believe in it, just because it cant truly be defined in a text book.
the same, i feel, should be encapsulated within the catagories of aliens and spirits -- simply because there's no high school classes that cover them, they dont exist. and, if someone claims to have some sort of experience, their shamed into disbelieving it, themselves.
you give the eample that you personally "believe that it is our best tool for coping with the vast, cold, indifferent cosmos we inhabit." well, i've got you now, you wascally wabbit! right there's the definition of religion. and if we were to judge our responses by all populations thru out history, surely, religion would slaughter science (sorry, nitzche!)
anywho, do i appreciate science for everything its done? hell yeah. do i agree with you that its the best thing we got? sorta. do i see inherent problems with the "belief" theory? course. do i ask myself questions? do i!.
