As a scientist, I appreciate your thoughts very much. However, I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with many of your points. Please, let me elaborate:
You write: "Some of the recent outputs of scientific experiments are against most religions and individuals, and societal morals". Wikipedia defines science as follows: "Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world". There is much more to it, but for the sake of simplicity I would like to stick with this definition for now. Science itself doesn't have a moral compass, as it's all about cold hard facts. Natural phenomena, such as gravity, exist, whether your religion agrees or not. Science itself doesn't care about religion.
You might have heard about Galileo Galilei. He was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, who didn't believe that planet earth is the center of the universe. For the defense of this fact, he faced massive resistance from the "holy" Inquisition and was condemned as being "vehemently suspect of heresy".
You write: "Since then, science has always been focused on how to improve life and solve complex problems in an easier pattern". That's also not true. Science itself really doesn't care about improving lives. Science is all about searching for the truth. Of course, you are right to describe that many useful and helpful things have emerged from the application of scientific principles. However, these are mere applications and technologies and not part of the scientific endeavor to understand how nature really behaves.
You write: "scientists have begun to carry out crazy experiments that will produce results not acceptable to many". What kind of experiments are we talking about here?
You write: "To hit the nail on the head, Gender-Affirming Surgery (GAS) is one of the outcomes of scientific experiments that against many morals". GAS is a surgical procedure. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not a scientific technique. Yes, it does rely on the use of medical tools, but so does the removal of a tooth or the appendix. 🤷♂
You write: "One surgically changing his gender is a step toward supporting same-sex marriage which also goes against many morals". You are mixing science, religion and morals. These are completely different things. It's your right to be again GAS or same-sex marriages. I'm in favor of both, for the record. However, our disagreements entirely stem from our different political or moral opinions. Science doesn't have anything to do with this.
You write: "I felt like I had to use my desired superpower to rewind time and stop the scientists who did the experiments for this invention". Without the science behind the nuclear bombs, we also wouldn't have nuclear power plants today. While I would consider such a scenario to be a good one, others might disagree. Here, once again, you have to be careful not to mix the science itself and its possible applications.
Great, I feel delighted to me a scientist as you who have disagreed with some of my points. I love your approach, very nice @lukasbrausch.
We learn everyday though. Science religion doesn't care about religion and that's why most of results of scientific experiments goes against religious beliefs. Science believes man arise from ancestral primates but most religions believe that God created man. This accurately concurs with your point, "Science itself doesn't care about religion".
I really feel honored having you to check on my post and leaving a comment that has made me learn more about science and religion.
Galileo Galilei is a great scientist, I have read more about him.
Thanks for checking up on my post, I get your points and I see a solid sense in it.
I'm always available for a civilized discussion about basically every topic. I'm always happy to find intelligent people I disagree with, as those are usually the ones I can learn something from. 😊
So, let's get to it: You wrote: "Science religion doesn't care about religion and that's why most of results of scientific experiments goes against religious beliefs". Once again, I wouldn't agree. Science isn't actively aiming to disprove religions. It's simply searching for the truth. If a scientific theory contradicts a certain religious belief, there is no way to solve this contradiction, as those two systems are not based on the same assumptions. Science is based on cold hard facts and theories that can be proven or falsified. Religion is based on beliefs held by people.
That being said, science and religion aren't two sides of the same coin. Sometimes, they can even agree, even though such an agreement is rather rare. 😉 For instance, the Austrian mathematician Gödel once made an attempt to prove the existence of god. Some would say he once and for all proved god's existence, while others (including me) would still disagree with the assumptions used for this "proof".
Wowww
I once heard about Gödel but didn't carry out more research about the great scientist. I will do that and get back to you friend.
Beginning to love a talk with you😎😎😎.