Nathan Brown Wants Us To Change Science Into Religion

Just the other day, Fanqiang and Science Magazine published a piece by their news editor named Nathan Brown. In it, Brown claims that science should be in the service of religion. He is an atheist who has changed his position to believe, “It’s fine to worship God. It’s what got you where you are. We’re here to make our world better.” Click here for more information about

But he has a problem with grand unification of science. Grand unification isn’t really science. What people need to do is save a fossil and extract DNA from it, and then follow it to its source. It’s not science. Then they could find a way to replicate that process and make a protein that would work the same way.

It also annoys me that people take so much time in thinking up theories and coming up with formulas to the exclusion of anything else. If you think too hard about it, you might find yourself actually breaking up of what you’ve just said. If so, there’s a good chance that you’ve come up with a joke, which is very unlikely to be picked up on by anyone but your friends. And yet, this is what Fanqiang and Science Magazine are saying.

I love science, and I am a scientist, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept everything that anyone says. I am one of those who believe that science should be in the service of religion. I believe that science should aim to help humanity by advancing its knowledge and reaching for the stars. However, I don’t think it’s right to bash on science just because you happen to disagree with a theory or the concept of some stuff.

Fanqiang thinks that some people who don’t believe in God are like aliens. They go outside of their own perspective and search for other perspectives. I happen to agree with this. I just think that there should be room for people who don’t think as I do, and that our differences should be used to expand the boundaries of our understanding.

So, I would encourage anyone to read Fanqiang’s article and ask him why he feels that religion should be used to explain science. Instead of going on the attack, I’d rather look at the logic behind the article. Is he trying to tell us that we shouldn’t investigate the outside world? Is he trying to tell us that if we go outside of our box we are violating the sanctity of God? Is he trying to tell us that if we go out of our comfort zone we are putting God on trial?

If anything, I would argue that the human race should try to come up with new theories that explain why science happens and what causes it. I am not against that. And I think that Fanqiang is correct when he says that science isn’t some sort of religion. But how does he know that when you take a look at his piece?

I believe that science should be treated as a tool in the service of reason and a scientific perspective, and not some kind of holy book. Please consider all this.