Without Religion, Science Can Become False and Idolatrous| National Catholic Register

Archbishop Jerome Lloyd OSJVPosted by

Since science defines death as final, it is then within the purview of theology and philosophy to come to an understanding of what happens prior to death and postmortem. After all, we don’t stop to question ethnomusicologists as to their opinions on questions of typography, bacteriology or logic, or even on the fashionableness of shoes. The condition and nature of the soul is not empirically verifiable, though it can be observed from its effect on other things. There are many things in nature that can’t be observed directly, but that can be identified by their effect on other aspects of the universe including atoms, black holes, gravity and — if they were ever to be confirmed — dark matter and dark energy. Though science has been very useful in making life easier and in helping us understand the physical world, it has proven to be worthless when it comes to determining ethics and morality and for understanding a need for them. In fact, scientists who believe in “scientism” generally need the oversight of theists to keep them on the straight and narrow. The answer to the question as to which is more important, science or ethics, the answer is clearly ethics. There are no scientific boards set up to counter the pronouncements of ethicists. There are, however, ethics boards designed to keep scientists from playing God. Scientists, in the pursuit of what I’m sure they believed to be science, have a long history of unleashing horrific evil upon an unsuspecting world. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a spectacular example of a breakdown in morality, common sense and compassion among scientists. It also puts an end to the preposterous myth that scientific knowledge takes precedence even at the risk of death of fellow human beings.

Without Religion, Science Can Become False and Idolatrous| National Catholic Register

Leave a Reply