>>13367123This is just someone who values science as an overarching metaphysical system reaching or postulating the same, relatively, structural conclusions that religion and philosophy already have for thousands of years.
People like this think that because the systems they have dedicated themselves to are capable of shaping the material world--which is no doubt impressive and incredibly useful, but the same could also be said in different realms for the religious/philosophical--that they have found some kind of light at the end of the tunnel in the quest for existence.
This could be true in one sense or another, but even the Ancient Greeks knew that any ideological system shouldn't require much proof beyond what logic can offer in the context of a simple conversation or discourse--see Aristotle's Ethics, Plato's Dialogues, Parmenides, and so on.
There's nothing wrong with scientists looking for a kind of truth in their respective fields, but it seems that the overall system of science and its many, many adherents, both lay and professional, are inching closer and closer to the sort of blind dogmatism and artificially-constructed causal confirmation bias--"I measured it, therefore it must be true/real, as the ability to measure something is the full extent of possible meaning"--that religion and philosophy fell into at one point, and which condemned those who lived under their spheres to long periods of darkness because of their inflexibility.
I like a lot of scientifically-minded people, because I find them honest and straight-forward, and they do things that I myself as a writer simply can't. But there is a limit to science, one that philosophy and other arts can help balance out, though I understand the uneasiness to trust those fields after so many years of absolute failure, if only given the chance to help and the opportunity to be understood.
