I stand accused of worshipping science as a god

[Kelvin Mace]

I am having a very civil and polite debate with a loved one who is Christian (of the sensible variety, a rarity these days).

My basic view is that cynicism and skepticism will serve you far better than blind faith every time, so I put my faith in science as opposed to "holy writ".

Religious people are used to getting pat, unequivocal answers, because sacred writ is considered infallible, and thus answers all questions. If you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent being, then all questions can pretty much be answered "Because God said so".These folks grossly misunderstand science and view it as unreliable since it can, and DOES change. To ask another after your question has been officially answered with the "supreme answer" (God said it, I believe it. That settles it.), is to commit heresy.

Science is all about the next question.

To which she responded:

You have to realize that "Science" is a god (not an objective concept), also. And one perfectly capable of being "wrong". It is as culpable to the people who create it as religion is.

This took me a bit aback and I had to think about my view of science and ask myself to honestly consider whether this was the case. After careful deliberation, I answered thus:

I don''t see science as a god. Gods by their very nature are omnipotent, omniscient, and almost always infallible, which science is not. Science is the construct of imperfect humans attempting to infer a rational explanation for perceived reality. Science is a tool, used to build other tools, to measure, study, and adjust that reality.

The infallibility of God is the main tenant of most religions, and is taken as a 100% certainty by adherents, but which is demonstrably false by any rational and objective study of God.

Ultimately the defining difference between science and religion is that science can postulate and accept the possible existence of an imperfect god, religion cannot.

The common criticism I hear of atheism is that there can never honestly be a "true atheist" since we can't "disprove God". At best, I can only be an agnostic.

My view is that while I cannot "disprove God" I can show that the God being sold to the masses by most religions cannot be infallible, omnipotent, omniscient and just, since these traits are self-contradictory in any realistic application or existence.

To me, God, as presented by believers, is like the pseudo-paradox of the irresistible force/immovable object. If you postulate an irresistible force, then by definition, nothing in the universe may resist it. If you postulate an immovable object, then by definition, no force in the universe may move it. As soon as you establish either criterion, you exclude the possible existence of the other. You can't set up mutually contradicting givens, then declare it an insoluble "paradox".

By the same token, you cannot have a god who is simultaneously all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and all just, then declare that anyone who doesn't "understand" this god simply does not, or cannot know the "mind of god", or comprehend his existence with our "limited" human mind.

Your thoughts?