Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[scotth266]

I knew this thread would be a nightmare the second I saw the thread title, but it was even worse than what I had predicted. People haven't even bothered to read the OP properly in most cases.

I particularly love how people are jumping on this to accuse religious people of being whiny, how religion is responsible for pretty much everything bad that ever happened ever, etc.

The point I think is being emphasized in the study is that mostly the positive aspects of religion are being ignored in games because the negative ones make for easy plot points. For example, religious conspiracies, hatred and crusades have become simple, go-to formulas for giving wars in games purpose. It's sort of getting stale by this point, too. Yes, the Crusades happened, okay, I get it, can we move on already? Anything, even mindless racism (elf-dwarf racism in particular) forms a more compelling war narrative by this point.

 

[Treblaine]

It's nice to see that you've obviously given this a lot of thought and if you don't mind me saying, you seem pretty passionate too which is cool. What should people be more passionate about than how they view the universe? (Incidentally have we talked before? I think i recognise your name?]

If it's okay may I ask you a question, if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?

CS Lewis wrote 'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done''

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect. And heaven is being with God. But for something to be perfect it has to have no faults, and that's not true of any of us, since we chose to be as we are. So he decided that he would take the consequences of our perfection, so that if we ask him, when he'll look on us he'll choose to see perfection instead and in the end, if we let him, he'll make us perfect.

But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God. So if you become completely seperate from God, that's how life will be. Without hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, because all of those things ultimately stem from God.

And you don't quite need the bible, it's a shaky point theologically, but it's possible to believe in God, without being told about God it's just a lot harder. And yeah it's an ancient book, but it's an ancient book that's been read by more people in the world than any other book ever. And in the end, he didn't just write a book, he did things with people and left them with experiences that guided them to write the things down that he willed. Even if your atheist, especially if you're atheist, it's almost undeniable that there is no single person in the world that has had a more significant effect on the course of history than Jesus (Except possibly The Buddha there's roughly 500 million Buddhists to 1 billion Christians but I don't know enough eastern/indian history to gauge the overall affect through time). And he was just one guy. To you, one ordinary guy.

You are right Hell is intricately linked to the whole christian faith, but even by reference it's only mentioned a handful of times throughout the whole bible. The vast majority of books don't talk about it/reference it/imply it even once, but you are right, it's there and thing. It's just not the central purpose or even something that's highlighted or particularly valued. People's understanding of hell is far more based on things like Dante's Inferno (which is in itself a lot more focused on mercy and compassion than people think) and Paradise lost.

And I'll be frank with you, hopefully those creationists who talked to you had a think and pray about what they said afterwards. Hell is a thing and a fact but if God sees no joy in it, then they don't have any right to want to see people there either.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

But Pascal meant it pretty tongue in cheek, I like it more because I'm a mathematician and like to think that I'm pretty logical and well, if things aren't eternal, then yeah, there aren't really any consequences to our actions. 1/n -> 0 as n ->infinity.


I hope you're okay with what I've said. I don't want to make you irate but I hope you can understand that as much as you can't agree with what I say (unless you do), I can't agree with what you say (unless I do). I feel a little uncomfortable talking like this because 1)I'm not God and so can easily be wrong and 2) The only way I can talk is to talk about what I believe in, but that's something you don't believe in and take objection to, so at best I can only make you feel uncomfortable about my weird mindwashedness

In the end we look at the same thing in a completely different way and we've almost got no common point. Thanks for taking the time to read this, although to you it must just seem like righteous tripe

If the gods of Hinduism appeared to you and directly threatened you to give up Christianity and convert to their religion... would YOU!

"if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?"

I'd have some reservations, like for example I'd ask him to STOP TORTURING BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! Muhatma Ghandi is in there being tortured because he is Hindu, I am NOT OK at all hanging around with a god who would do such a thing. Heavy hand or not HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!

"God is perfect"

Bullshit. He admits to torturing billions of Hindus! This is circular logic, he is perfect because he says so, that he is perfect. When even the concept is not.

" But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God."

God will take credit for ANYTHING!

The very concept of this god I find monumentally offensive. You cannot deny that it tries to scare people into believing and obeying and with that belief charlatans can quote the bible and give false legitimacy to their claims. It is no zero sum thing believing in the God of the bible... believing his words that call for gays to be lynched, that evolution and all of geography are wrong.

 

[370999]

Look I'm religious and I will say that religion allows for one to engage in great violence. It also enables one with the moral courage to walk down the path of peace. As everyone one says atheism is a non thing, a lack of belief rather then a belief in the lack. Which is fine, but when dealing with religion it does allow people to justify frankly evil things. And it does give some people the crutch to help them stand and do things which are right. Not saying they couldn't do those things without it but for me religion helps me to be good.

As for games, as the study points out, religion making for an easy conflict both in providing a framework for the adversaries reasons as well as explaining why you can't negotiate with them. Then there is the various pop culture things, with game makers appearing to be a left wing bunch and tending towards atheism, A (apparently) religious motivated enemy being the US current foreign policy foe and general concept of the evil church, like the evil corporation, communist dictator or king/prince/queen being embedded in our cultural mindset.

 

[Thespian]

Dear god. So many... Quasi-Witty... Comebacks...

1 - Oh, so certain games showed The Crusades in a negative light? God forbid! That's almost as bad as Killzone being negative about the Nazis.

2 - Yep, those MEDIEVAL games set in MEDIEVAL times referring to MEDIEVAL events sure are commenting on MODERN DAY religious folk.

3 - Nah, forget Schopenhauer and Epicurus and Nietzsche and generations of writers, philosophers, scientists, artists and film-makers who have spoken out negatively against Religion - VIDEO GAMES ARE INDOCTRINATING THE YOUTHS.

4 - Negative representation of Religion? I'd say the past few centuries of organized religion are more for blame on that.

5 - He raises a fair point. Wouldn't want Religion to be related to violence at all. OH WAIT.

6 - Honestly, some Video Games. Depicting the Crusades as violent and injust, where do they get these ideas? OH WAIT.

7 - Seriously though he sort of put his ideas forth in a reasonable manner. But we need to realize that it's perfectly okay to represent Religion badly. It's okay to represent anything badly, Religion in particular, because it's been guarded by dogmatic propaganda for years.

 

[ATRAYA]

Have you ever heard the expression "religion kills"? Of course, even without religion, people would always be fighting over something. Religion is just the organized chaos that stands out the most because peace is often preached in these religions, and it allows people to hate it more.

 

[keiskay]

Sorry to say, but for anyone to seriously suggest that organized religion is completely innocent of any involvement in any kind of real-world violence... is either a demonstration of historical ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

and anyone to suggest it is the only cause or the greatest cause of violence, hatred and bigotry is likewise performing the same ignorance. (not that you are but just look at this thread.)

 

[thethird0611]

NEWSFLASH: BORED STUDENT PLAYS SOME VIDEO GAMES, GETS QUOTED ON THE ESCAPIST

Oh, and...

So this thread is EXACTLY why you cant have an open-minded discussion about religion. Ill just point that out real quick, because if a thread even mentions religion, its all 'OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE', 'RAGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY', when the topic doesn't even have a motive to talk about religion specifically.

Did you really just put "open-minded" and "religion" in the same sentence?

Anyway, there's plenty of motive. The topic is religion and violence and... stuff. Therefore we have a license to bash religion some more. Until it dies. Forever.

I realllllyyyyyy have to hope you were being sarcastic there. Because if not, you seriously just proved my point, and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics.

Wowzer.

Though, if your first statement wasnt so unprofessional, I would agree with you. Theres not much substance to this study, not very many real world implications, and very basic.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

If the gods of Hinduism appeared to you and directly threatened you to give up Christianity and convert to their religion... would YOU!

The Hindu gods aren't traditionally obsessed with people worshiping them. They offer things in exchange for sacrifices. Hindus definitely have a hell. In fact, they have many and varied versions of hell, but for the most part you don't get sent there for not worshiping someone. You get sent there for doing bad shit, regardless of religion. And it's more of an action-reaction thing than it is a judgment thing. That being said, if you piss off a Brahmin or don't perform certain rituals bad things are supposed to happen to you. So if they did come down, they would probably offer you wisdom and earthly rewards for worshiping them. Passing up on the rewards out of your own pigheadedness would probably be enough of a punishment.

"if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?"

I'd have some reservations, like for example I'd ask him to STOP TORTURING BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! Muhatma Ghandi is in there being tortured because he is Hindu, I am NOT OK at all hanging around with a god who would do such a thing. Heavy hand or not HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!

You're very focused on the punishment aspect of it, which is understandable. But to be fair there are other ways of understanding punishment. St. Augustine offered a more mystic/gnostic approach where God simply is the eternal and the Good and by giving into impermanent sensual pleasures and negative emotions you've essentially damned yourself without any grumpy old man on a cloud having to chuck lightning bolts at you. Of course Augustine was a Manichean who converted back to Catholicism, so a lot of his philosophy could be considered unorthodox for its time, even though he went on to become a central Christian theologian. Even in the most backwards and fanatical traditions there occasionally arises someone with an interesting idea or two.

The very concept of this god I find monumentally offensive. You cannot deny that it tries to scare people into believing and obeying and with that belief charlatans can quote the bible and give false legitimacy to their claims. It is no zero sum thing believing in the God of the bible... believing his words that call for gays to be lynched, that evolution and all of geography are wrong.

The most offensive thing to me about the anthropocentric notion of the Christian God is not that he punishes a lot of people, it's why he punishes them. Supposedly God created human beings to worship him. Or, if we're going to take genesis literally, then he created us first as pets, and then once we became conscious of good and evil he started demanding that we worship him. This is probably the most offensive idea that I can think of. Added to this is the fact that God created us to enjoy things that he deems bad, so we have to suppress our own nature and grovel before him because his love is the only thing that can give our lives meaning.

People talk a lot about God's love being so great, but it seems to have a lot of strings attached. The relationship seems rather one-sided. We have to give up everything and worship God and submit to his every request and when we misbehave he tortures us. Supposedly he still loves us even when he sends us to hell; "I only hit you cuz I love you so much baby! Please don't make me hit you!" Sounds to me like God needs to lay off the Jack Daniel's.

Of course I can hardly be mad at an entity that doesn't exist. What sickens me is the mindset of the person who came up with this crap. I find the notion of an uncaring universe quite comforting. I can create whatever values I want and live my own life without some supernatural entity breathing down my neck. What kind of person is so insecure and self-hating that they need to create some sort of divine disciplinarian to punish them and make them feel even more guilty? Well, Nietzsche has already answered that particular question in The Antichrist and On the Genealogy of Morals.

 

[ccggenius12]

I'm pretty sure a doctoral student knows what problematization means.

You'd be surprised. There are college professors who don't know that a modem needs to be plugged in to work.

OT: Wow, so he completed his doctorate by writing a paper stating the obvious? This country...

 

[Krion_Vark]

Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

So the Bible stating that Adam and Eve are THE FIRST humans created and doesn't mention God making any other humans automatically means that God didn't make any other humans after Adam and Eve?
You have to take Religion with a HUGE bag of salt 90% of the time but you also have to put some thought behind what some things in the bible state.

The bible said mankind were created from Adam and Eve. That in itself is nonsense and contradicts the archaeological record of ape-like creatures gradual evolution into modern humans.

Sorry, grain of salt or bag of salt, there is no excusing how the Bible is full of false claims, as has been proven by science. The bible's word has about as much weight as Aesop's Fables and other stories.

We can get into the whole evolution debate if you would like but we do not have proof that they evolved into humans we know that they evolved into human like not necessarily human itself though since we did not observe it and that is the only definitive proof there is.

That's nonsense, we HAVE seen this evolution in the fossil record, accurately dated for each of the remains and confirmed further with study of genetics.

These "human like, not necessarily human" used complex tools, wore clothes, communicated verbally, cared for their sick and made art and jewellery. We know this from the archaeological record, how those with poorly injuries meant they were nursed to stay alive even though they didn't recover.

You're just being arbitrary to say these are not THE missing link of human evolution from primates. And just to clear up any confusion, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, they are our "cousins". We have a common ancestor, they chimps and gorillas went one way, the path of living in the forests of fruit and forage. The path that would lead to humanity had far more evolutionary pressures that lead to us standing tool-users.

I find it funny that you are stating that Humans evolved from apes but then use the known ancestral humans and not stating anything about Lucy or the fact that there are quite a few steps between her and the ones that you are stating. You haven't said anything to prove that you are right or that the bible is wrong.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Organized religion is violence.
So much blood has been spilt in the name of a god.

 

[Treblaine]

Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

So the Bible stating that Adam and Eve are THE FIRST humans created and doesn't mention God making any other humans automatically means that God didn't make any other humans after Adam and Eve?
You have to take Religion with a HUGE bag of salt 90% of the time but you also have to put some thought behind what some things in the bible state.

The bible said mankind were created from Adam and Eve. That in itself is nonsense and contradicts the archaeological record of ape-like creatures gradual evolution into modern humans.

Sorry, grain of salt or bag of salt, there is no excusing how the Bible is full of false claims, as has been proven by science. The bible's word has about as much weight as Aesop's Fables and other stories.

We can get into the whole evolution debate if you would like but we do not have proof that they evolved into humans we know that they evolved into human like not necessarily human itself though since we did not observe it and that is the only definitive proof there is.

That's nonsense, we HAVE seen this evolution in the fossil record, accurately dated for each of the remains and confirmed further with study of genetics.

These "human like, not necessarily human" used complex tools, wore clothes, communicated verbally, cared for their sick and made art and jewellery. We know this from the archaeological record, how those with poorly injuries meant they were nursed to stay alive even though they didn't recover.

You're just being arbitrary to say these are not THE missing link of human evolution from primates. And just to clear up any confusion, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, they are our "cousins". We have a common ancestor, they chimps and gorillas went one way, the path of living in the forests of fruit and forage. The path that would lead to humanity had far more evolutionary pressures that lead to us standing tool-users.

I find it funny that you are stating that Humans evolved from apes but then use the known ancestral humans and not stating anything about Lucy or the fact that there are quite a few steps between her and the ones that you are stating. You haven't said anything to prove that you are right or that the bible is wrong.

I personally don't have to prove evolution, it's already been proven. I have just given a brief overviews of what is accepted scientific fact that you can easily look up yourself.

"but then use the known ancestral humans"

The hominids I referred to are not humans, but they are damn close. There have been so many stages found between "Lucy" and homo-sapiens. That's the problem with creationists, they want to draw a fine line between "this is ape" and "this is human as god created" when the archaeological record shows all the continuous stages of adaptation from ape to human. Why the fuck would a god do that? have all these ape like species over time become more and more human like then suddenly they disappear and he magically makes humans starting with a breeding pair of only two, less than ten-thousand years ago?

Bullshit. Creationism is intellectual cowardice to deny scientific evidence to suit dogma.

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

 

[Krion_Vark]

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

 

[dobahci]

There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain YET

Fixed that for you. Just because we don't have an explanation for something, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

Anyway, go figure that I look away from this thread for a bit and then when I come back, it has gone on for 6 more pages. It's nice to know that you can still troll almost any forum with the topic of religion. I think it still takes a backseat to Mass Effect right now, though, in terms of immediately provoking a flame war. Mass Effect practically is a religion at this point, I'm starting to think.

Also, go figure that the vast majority of the people who posted here didn't seem to have read the article and most are pretty quick to bash the doctoral student for being dumb and coming out with pointless studies (presumably because the posters here, most of them high school students, are so much smarter than the doctoral candidate in question).

 

[Treblaine]

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"

Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.

"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."

That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!

"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."

Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".

"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."

Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.

"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."

I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.

 

[Krion_Vark]

There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain YET

Fixed that for you. Just because we don't have an explanation for something, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

Anyway, go figure that I look away from this thread for a bit and then when I come back, it has gone on for 6 more pages. It's nice to know that you can still troll almost any forum with the topic of religion. I think it still takes a backseat to Mass Effect right now, though, in terms of immediately provoking a flame war. Mass Effect practically is a religion at this point, I'm starting to think.

Also, go figure that the vast majority of the people who posted here didn't seem to have read the article and most are pretty quick to bash the doctoral student for being dumb and coming out with pointless studies (presumably because the posters here, most of them high school students, are so much smarter than the doctoral candidate in question).

Me and my friends were actually talking about Mass Effect as a religion and how Shepard is pretty much Jesus then got to how Jesus was called the Shepard. It was a crazy conversation.
Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

 

[dobahci]

Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

 

[Conza]

Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

A University of Missouri doctoral student says many modern videogames "problematize" organized religion by equating it with violence in their stories.

As improving technology has allowed videogames to evolve over the years, their narratives have become more detailed and nuanced as well, according to Greg Perreault, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. That increased sophistication has led to a growing incorporation of religion into various storylines, and that in turn has led religion to be "problematized" in videogames by way of strong narrative connections with violence.

Perreault looked at Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy 13, Assassin's Creed, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in his research and found that all of them tied religion to violence. "In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a 'Knights Templar' and crusader motifs," he said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."

But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."

This is where I'd normally make a crack about being thankful that organized religion has never been responsible for any real-world violence, but I don't want to offend any sensibilities so I'll simply note that Perreault presented the results of his research at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion and leave it at that.

Source: University of Missouri


Permalink

Wow whatever that dudes on, it can't be legal.

'Oh no! The Enkindlers are going to kills us all, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!' that was the lasting impression I received from Mass Effect 2, don't know about anyone else... oh wait a minute, I'm still sane. Yep, still sane, so no, I didn't leave the game thinking that.

I hope he failed his doctorate, or had to resubmit his thesis, with a hypothesis as flawed as the one he presents, and I mean, Assassins Creed is set in the past, and its full of Templars and dudes, but its fairly bloody accurate! Every other game there is just non-sense, wow what a waste of life he must have put in to make such a non sequitur argument.

 

[Krion_Vark]

Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

Its not short sighted at all. There are things Science will NEVER be able to explain. EVER. No amount of testing will prove it. UNLESS like I said we are able to turn the laws that we already know in science on their heads and pretty much become gods.

Or as my Agnostic friend says. I can explain everything with science and what I cannot explain with science Doctor Who takes over.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

MY GOD(irony intended), SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS THAT 'SCIENCE' IS A METHOD AND NOT A SET OF DOCTRINES!

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

Well, what you just described is theoretic reduction, which is true for a lot of theories, but not all. Some are outright eliminated, like phlogiston and caloric fluid, or Aristotle's telic understanding of causality (things fall because it is in their nature to do so).