"scientific journals and such" Such as the journals found within the bible or that of Popular Science?
Neither, I was talking about academic journals, the kind where at least an attempt is made to vet the information by successfully repeating the experiments or other wise duplicating the claims of a given article (the 'peer review' process).
As VoodooGarden has pointed out that science has been wrong more often than not. I was going to mention the whole flat earth era of science, but VG beat me to it.
That was not an era of science, and not an accurate representation of belief in a flat Earth. There was no linear evolution of thought about the shape of the Earth; ancient astronomers (Greek, Egyptian, Druid, others) knew damn well that the Earth was a sphere but it was during the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome that much Classical knowledge was lost and there began a period of anti-intellectualism and hysterical superstition that was fueled and encouraged by the Church.
So, the "Flat Earth era" was an artifact of religion, not science.
Precisely put, "within the confines of science", whoever said we were within the confines of science? Thank you for recognizing the limitation of science. In these kinds of debates its hard for reason to prevail as I've found out.
I did. We have to pick whether we're operating within it or not in order to have a discussion about it at all, and I'm keenly aware of the limitations of science but I'm also not neglecting to acknowledge its strengths.
Science to me is more a focus upon the microcosm's of the measured world rather than the macrocosm.
And likewise religion is a focus upon the macrocosm.
Science is one thing only: A well-defined process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and theory (based on successful and repeatable experiments). Not all phenomena fit in such a context but that is always evolving as better tools emerge.
We can now build quantum computers but can't explain everything about how/why they work, but they work. We can also study the Hubble Ultra Deep Field as a slice of the macrocosm, but can't explain everything about how/why it all exists. Religion seems to be for filling the gaps in our understanding with comforting (or terrifying) projections from our psyche (or projections as interpreted by the guy in the biggest hat). And I mean religion specifically, not necessarily spirituality although both are subject to the influence of Jungian archetypes emerging from the Id and all that.
To me, religion is about certainty with regards to Truth and is external/social whereas spirituality is about seeking/inquiry, does not claim certainty with regards to anything, and is internal/personal. Or to put it another way, religion talks and spirituality listens.
This is a downfall to science, IMO.
That sounds a bit dramatic. There are not too many technological innovations that we can thank religion for. And since science and technology are different, not all technological innovations were products of science, either. Still, science ups the odds of success tremendously in the quest for better technology or understanding whereas religion tends to reduce them (just ask Galileo).
Plainly put, if you were blindfolded and placed next to a random house with your nose an inch away.
Describe to me what it is that your looking at?
In light of that question, this ought to blow your mind:
What I'm getting at is your perspective is too narrow to view anything beyond your field of vision.
So to, would be the general perspective of scientists.
What that video showed and what I'm getting at is that our field of vision is not a fixed value. In the quest to broaden this field, science has proven vastly more effective than religion regardless of its limitations. Some (and I'm among them) would argue that religion itself is a limitation of science (stem-cell researchers would probably agree).
Seeing how God is omnipresent, it would behove you to broaden your perspective(even though you've proved your POV to be vast).
Our technology has become omnipresent as well, except maybe at the bottom of a really deep cave that radio waves can't penetrate (if any exist). The "God" aspect to any or all of it is irrelevant, at least until believers in one arbitrarily-chosen interpretation of god get together to stop listening and start preaching. Beyond that, it sure looks to me like the omnipresent creative force in the Universe is taking a hand's-off approach to our social evolution which is why I think that whether such a force 'really' exists or not is irrelevant in a practical sense.