Question 1

Feyerbrands viewpoint of science and religion comes in a rather subjective perspective. He believe science to be as subjective as religion, even though the common standpoint of philosophy and science states that science and religion are different, and that science holds a privileged standpoint as the core source of knowledge. Science is the most reliable and credible method of acquiring knowledge about the universe. 0I will be arguing along with Feyerbrands, that science is fundamentally as subjective as religion is. Science itself is a religion. Feyerbrands main arguments are; Tat science is not so different from religion, science does not have a privileged status and lastly it is not the “best” method for acquiring knowledge.

As a kid, I was always brought up believing that if something had “scientific backing” that it would be a legitimate reasoning/cause. Whenever a new product or supplement or statement made it to the market, we always asked for its scientific proof or studies and even though when presented with them, we hardly ever read them. The thought of knowing there is science involved persuaded one to believe it was superior to something without any science. It seems as science has become a nor, developed by majority of the western democracies, thus giving science a privileged status, when in matter of fact as per Feyerbrands it is not.

Feyerbrand relates the science method as “one of the many thoughts that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best”. Feyerbrand finds science to be “conspicuous and noisy” and holds down the notion that science is only seen to be superior by those who have already innately decided in favor of science or a certainly ideology without examining the pros and cons. Thus since just as many have accepted their religion innately, similarly is the case with science and neither holds a superior