You're right that there are people who misunderstand or abuse science. The "Word of Truth" approach you mention, where people invest themselves into some belief and then close themselves off from further evidence or thought, is disastrous. Especially dangerous is the doctrine of "faith," which directly invites (or compels) people to do that very thing.

However, it seems to me that religion requires that sort of "Word of Truth" mindset, or at least encourages it, whereas science is precisely that force fighting against it. When you level the charge against science that, "Well, scientists have been wrong before," you're missing the point. That scientists have been wrong before is exactly how science is supposed to operate. We don't lock ourselves in with one understanding, one "truth," one dogma, but we work continually to better our understanding of the world and ourselves. We show ourselves to have been wrong about things, time and time again, and this is how we manage to do better. It's a slow and imperfect process, perhaps, but it's the best we can manage thus far.

You can contrast this against religion, which routinely claims to discover capital-t Truth -- a universal Truth for all people and all time -- and then fights (often literally) to keep other people from questioning those Truths or arguing against them or considering other possibilities. Religion does not allow for the kinds of corrections science demands. Science admits it when it has gotten something wrong; religion embraces its errors and enshrines them into (again, sometimes literal) law.

God doesn't exist in the same way that fairies don't exist, unicorns don't exist, etc. It's not as though scientists have gone out of their way to prove that God doesn't exist, no. ("Proving negatives" has a negative connotation anyways, though I'd say it can be done in a sense -- see Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and his discussion of "The Dragon in My Garage" for details.)

What science has done instead, from the beginning, is to work out causes for all of the things that "god" was initially evoked to explain. At some point, people thought you would find god if you climbed Mt. Olympus, but eventually people did and they did not find Zeus waiting there. As human knowledge has grown, our ideas about god have been pushed back further and further into what's sometimes described as "god of the gaps," where our present conception of "god" is really just a reflection of our current ignorance. A sorry state for the great spirits which once were held to move the sun across the sky, carry the Earth upon their backs, etc.

So you're right, it's not as simple as "God doesn't exist because science said so." It's more like, we haven't found God in all of our searching/investigating, or any good evidence for any god, so there's no good reason to believe that any god exists. Like fairies and unicorns, if we discover some god tomorrow hiding in a burning bush somewhere, then it might be sensible to believe that it exists (whatever that "god" might actually be), but until then, I'll remain "atheist" to gods and fairies and unicorns and so forth.

I recognize that it's a bit of a tangent, but is this really your take on the history? The Christian religion made the Roman Empire stop slavery -- but then the state brought it back after the Church lost influence? It's an... extraordinarily complex topic, I'll grant, so it's hard to say things are simply one way or the other, but this idea of Christianity as some moral or social improvement over pre-Christian Rome is, I think, at least questionable.

Not only complex, but also controversial, and it seems to me that people have been making efforts over the last several decades to redeem the Christian world -- and maybe your opinion is a product of that -- but let's look:

Slavery did not end in the Roman Empire with the advent of Christianity. It's true that Christianity helped raise the status of many slaves (as all believers were considered equals in the eyes of God), and women, and etc., but at the same time, the Bible does not condemn slavery (and can be seen as implicitly supporting the institution) and slavery survived the Christian conversion of Rome.

Economic realities did change over time, so much European slavery was eventually supplanted by the institution of "serfdom," though slavery itself persisted into the modern age. (And while serfdom may be seen as a kind of "improvement" over chattel slavery, it's no great shakes itself.) Christianity did not fight against this development, either, and can be seen as having a hand in it. When Christian political influence was at its peak, we call it the Middle Ages -- and these were no shining light of racial tolerance or social grace. Were they better or worse than Rome or Greece? Better in some aspects, no doubt, and worse in many, many others. But the emergence of Europe from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance and then Enlightenment, and so forth, was not primarily the Church's doing. Rather, the Church fought tooth and nail against many of the reforms that we now take for granted.

Were there relatively enlightened Christians along the way, and did people sometimes do great things in the name of Jesus/God/the Church? Absolutely. History is a complicated topic, and people are, as always, individual. But to act as though Christianity was some sort of general benefactor for the world I think is just an utter distortion, because there were just as many (or more) atrocities also in the name of Jesus/God/the Church. Christianity was certainly no Khaleesi-esque freer of the slaves; that's simply wrong.

Your married with kids and you haven't worked out the meaning of life yet??

Your married with kids and you haven't worked out the meaning of life yet??

I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of the global cooling topic.

I googled and I found a 1974 Time magazine with the Ice Age story:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601740624,00.html

Newsweek also ran stories

https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

These quant tidbits come from a short article penned by Gwynne and printed on Page 64 of Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue. Titled “The Cooling World,” it argued that global temperatures were falling—and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon. Meteorologists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” Gwynne wrote. “The resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

The story, and others like it, has been cited by people who like to challenge current climate science and global warming.

I may be wrong about being cover story. There was this story and others like it.

There was a consensus about global cooling. Yes there was. You know it. You can find little ridiculous details of something that I might have said that isn't 100% correct according to the "Cambridge/Oxford correct way of discussing stuff on Jesus Christ threads in a smart-ass way" or whatever, but everybody knows that the subject was enormous back then. If it was peer reviewed stuff or not, if I don't have the exact percentage of scientists that stated that according to the Library of the Congress I don't care. My point is still valid, people assume things like "scientists said that, so I should do it" and I'm saying that "no, you shouldn't believe in science blindly".

Now, you can keep looking for little small details that prove that I'm can't post like a scientist smart ass and so I'm completely wrong but, it doesn't matter:

Science is not always right. Science commit mistakes. Science says something is A and then it's B. Science has to correct themselves. Science doesn't know that certain things exist, even though they exist.

Now, what's next? Is it my "epistemologyical philosophical true scotsman of cartesian logical thinking" or whatever that is wrong?

I've already left the building.. so I'll only point out that saying that the Church is my racist grandfather is ok, no complex explanation needed, but saying that it did a lot of great stuff, now I need to write a white paper to explain how History is complex about that.

We can go on in an adult history discussion, I'm a history nerd here, but I know I'll be ganged up, since I'll be defending the Church. It's easier to defend the Nazis and deny the holocaust.

I didn't write the line about the Church being a "racist grandfather" (though for what it's worth, I think you mistook that person's intent: it was not to call the Church racist, imo, but to compare its inability to change to a "racist grandfather"; to demonstrate how, unlike science which is often wrong and evolving/improving because of it, religion is stuck in its ways). But come on, anything having to do with history, with religion, with psychology -- with freaking people -- is going to be complex. At least if we want to get things right, it will be.

There are simple observations we can make along the way, of course, and there's nothing wrong with it. But to understand something as big as comparing the scientific approach against religious attitudes, or whether Christianity is/was "good or bad," etc., of course those things are hella complex. How could they not be?

Did the Church do good things? Certainly. Did it do bad things? Yes. That's no big hurdle for an atheist such as myself -- I have no interest in either attacking or defending the Church (let alone the Church of Late Antiquity, or the Middle Ages). But when you're on the side of supposedly divine inspiration or authority, etc., I think it becomes a slightly more pressing matter...

By all means. If we do want to talk history, I'd ask that you not try to "defend the Church." Instead, defend the truth. If the truth is on the Church's side, so be it. I'm prepared to say that the Church has done some good in the world, and continues to do it (though I might make the case that a lot of this good comes from outside of Christianity itself); and of course there have been -- and continue to be -- wonderful Christians in the world. My best friend of nearly thirty-five years is, and likely will always be, a Christian. So we can and should look fairly at whatever blessings Christianity has brought.

Did Christianity end slavery in the Roman world? My sources say no. Tell me where I'm wrong about that and (as a good science or historian should) I will endeavor to consider your evidence as fairly as I can.

But at the same time, we have to look seriously at the other side of the ledger. We can start with some of the most famous episodes, if you'd like? Off the top of my head, there was the intolerance against "heretics"; the shuttering of the Academy; the campaigns against paganism; the regressing of science, economy and art sometimes called the Dark Ages; the Crusades; the Inquisition; the persecution of witches; the various schisms and wars between various Christian sects; and so forth.

And there is further the question of damage done to people who might slip through the cracks of the historical record, the "small folk," but who personally succumbed to the regular Christian promotion of guilt, asceticism, anti-intellectualism, etc. All of the "sinners in the hands of an angry God," who might have better enjoyed their brief lives on earth, but did not, in part because they were convinced that such enjoyment was somehow impious. The hermits and monks who sealed themselves away from the world, to avoid temptation. The victims of the Conquistadors who sought to convert indigenous peoples by taking their children from them, for forced education, and stamping out their cultural traditions. Those who enjoyed justice "by ordeal"; those who tithed and donated and bequeathed to religious authorities -- trying wretchedly to buy some prayer, or other means of escaping threatened torment -- so that the Church could continue to grow wealthier and wealthier, own more and more land, and the bishops live better and better amidst a general poverty.

There is a lot to answer for, I believe, so yes, I'll agree that it might be a difficult task to make the case that the Church was, on balance, a force for good. But if you'd like to make it, I'm willing to listen.

Superman went to Church with his parents in Kansas. He learned a lot about helping his neighbours on Sunday's school.