" On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so.” - A C Grayling (get whole article here)
I will disagree with someone calling me ‘ignoble’ for having faith in something outside the realm of what is classified as ‘science’. Now I’ve read those immortal classics “The Naked Ape” and “The Web of Belief” and my college career was highlighted with not one, but three courses in philosophy which (due to the same professor) all touched on the arguments of Religion and Science.
I have spent a great amount of personal time on the question of what I ‘believe’ and I’ve approached a viable solution to this problem. Do not argue one against the other. I believe as I do in something that is quite ‘superstitious’ and ‘superfluous’ in a vacuum of science. My ‘faith’ so happens to be the very challenge to which I must test myself in belief. Don’t take science on faith and don't prove my religious belief scientifically.
Believe it or not Science and Religion are mutually exclusive so you immediately forfeit any argument in which you try to justify one with the other. You can not disprove religion with science. Religion is not found in any book, a basis for religion perhaps, but not what makes spirituality. I do not ‘believe’ in science, rather I understand things that are proven scientifically to be a perfectly sensible means of navigating my life.
That being said… I would argue that science disproves science. It does so every second of every day. I believe that the basic laws, principles, and periodic tables provide solid foundations with which to discover the world about us, but the body of science is fluid.
Some would argue every religion is also as fluid. This is true.
Truth? Science holds truth in a cause/effect relationship. Something is not true until it’s been declared, tested, and proven scientifically… with all due process. How weak of a concept is that? Your truth is measured by the strength of your ability to test, which relies on the ability to accurately measure response.
Science is a great tool, and it has provided us the means to live as we do. However, science has shown us an atom’s mass of what there is to know. To take this pea’s worth of knowledge and hurl it at anyone as the ‘whole’ truth is reckless. Even the most learned scientist only knows a fraction of what there is to know. Religion accounts to me things that science can not answer.
To hang on the arguments of those that disprove religion with treatises about creationism vs. evolution and historical studies that prove this thing or that thing about people in the bible is to embrace logic in an effort to prove that which is not logical. Is it always logical to love someone? I’d argue when it defies all reason you still will find love. Is it logical to feel happy or sad? Sometimes there are reasons that can be biologically explained and sometimes there are not. Religion is not a logical endeavor.
Everything in our world is fluid. Yet, we have the rock of our mind to cling to. I’ve read many articles on the nature of what we perceive and how it is that perception that marks what is real and what is not. Science is built on that perception recorded over time, analyzed and discussed in mass.
Perception is why such debate will rage on. I will not convince you to be Christian any more than you’ll convince me to not be until one of us makes up our mind to accept change. What is real and what is not changes with our perception.
In summary, I could write three books on the subject and still not find anything more convincing to say, in that I’d actually convince you, my reader. I will however state things as I can best with my given mind and pool of understanding and ask that you comment from out yours. In this ‘conversation’ mayhap there will be the changing of minds and that is our common goal.
I will do my best to be brief and end all posts with a question. It is your words and opinions that I cherish, not my own (which are abundant and close at hand).
Herein lay a mystery: Why do we change our minds?
3 comments:
I think the argument is science Vs faith rather than science Vs religion. That would make more sense.
Science and faith are ways of looking at the world/universe to discover the truth of things. The two different aproaches do not have to conflict even when they overlap. Indeed science is based on the faith postion that the universe can be understood by humans. Without that original position there is little point in asking scientific questions.
I don't think that science need be an enemy of religion (or vice versa) as long as both views stay on their own side of the 'fence'. When they compete on truth issues in the same arena (for exapmle evolution vs creation) then at least for me science wins hands down.
Science relies on evidence, repeatable experiments and the constant testing of theories. That's why its fluid. We find out new things and incorporate them into new theories to explain the universe around us. It's called progress. Look how much it has changed things in just the last 200 years.
But of course there are things that science has not explained. It is quite possible that there are things that science will *never* explain. That's what philosophy is for [grin].
As an atheist I don't consider religious answers to hold any validity. As a theist you do. I doubt very much if I could convince you of my position just as I doubt that you could convince me of yours - and yet people gain & lose faith every day. People do change their minds. It may happen to us one day.
Cyberkitten rocks... just in case someone was wondering, Atheists and Christians CAN get along, and this is a good example of that.
Cyberkitten you're right Science vs Faith does make 'more' sense, but the fundamental value added function of religion is faith. At least in my religion, so I view them as synonymous.
*nod* Yeah, people do gain & lose faith everyday, and usually not because of some well written treatise on Science vs. Faith. People are complex and both reasonably predictable and also entirely unpredictable.
I guess I’m just glad for my faith because I’ve had some things in my life that would have broken me without it. One thing about science is that it is hard to cling to when you’ve got little else.
I am an Orthodox Jew.
The judge (tell me his name, please?) who recently issued a judgement that Creationism can't be taught together with Evolution because science is supposed to be challenged and disproven while Creationism posits G-d which can't be disproven makes a lot of sense.
However, after you go to the link I will provide, you will see that scientists falsify things to prove their 'theory' which results in teaching lies to our children.
This being true, it is corrupt for a judgement that Creationism can't be taught together with Evolution because The Theory of Evolution is just a theory, and a falsly presented one.
Even if G-d can't be proven, neither can the The Theory of Evolution because it's a weak 'theory' presented in the guise of real science.
The pig holds out it's paws and says: "I'm Kosher!" The pig has one Kosher sign but lacks the other.
Post a Comment