I agree with much of what you said (here comes the but) but, you're once again trying to think of science as a dogma. Science is a tool. It's not a faith. In fact, it tends to try to reject the idea of the faith (not because it doesn't like faith, rather, because it's not something that's easy to build a solid foundation on.)
Good point. Let me be clear; as Taoist corrected me, science is not a dogma. However in it's application it can be remarkably like a religion. Much of science is built precisely on things taken at face value. Much of it is stuff we can't
prove one way or the other, because we lack the technology in the first place. So yes, it's about faith.
Really the only difference me and the scientist is that I say I'm willing to go with this book written by God to fill in the blanks, he picks up a book written by other scientists and says he's going with that one. We're Not So Different
Science is about testing, and re-testing, redefine conclusions in because of new evidence. There is only going to be unity (as in, all scientist believe something) if there's fairly overwhelming evidence for that to be the cast. And this means evidence that passes the null hypothesis test, that they're literally 95% certain of. (And that's at the high end)
Science yes. But as I made the distinction, scientists
are people first. It is a rare professor of psychology who's esteemed by many, who's won awards, who's been published in prestigious journals, who can look past all that when some college student suggests a theory of his might be wrong.
Because he's an arrogant prick? No, an arrogant prick doesn't usually attain the respect he has. It takes work
to check your beliefs. It takes time. I would know. On the one hand, he has this kid who still has spots telling him "he may
have found something." On the other hand, he has a bunch of equally venerated doctors like himself who long ago such a thing wasn't possible. The professor tells the kid he's off, not because he's an asshole, but probably out of genuine care for the kid's career. He probably believes he's on the right track now.
To believe such things don't happen in science is a bit of a reach.
Religion, on the other hand, attempts to remain unchanging. It doesn't question itself, and doesn't re-evaluate itself because of the times. You've argued it shouldn't have to. To an extend, I agree.
I do agree that a founding principle in Christianity is that the Bible can't be wrong. And I agree that if I'm wrong, that belief will hamper my ability to find it. But that's a risk, we all take, religious and not.
The other thing, while the Bible might be infallible, people are NOT. The Bible is clear in that point. A true Christian can't use the Bible's infallibility as an excuse to not examine himself, cause he