I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
Science is built on the faith that our senses are reliable, that when we observe something, it actually happens the way we see it. Science is built on the unproven and unprovable assumption that our eyes, ears, taste buds, olfactory receptors and touch sense actually yield reliable information. I believe that these senses DO actually yield reliable information, but ultimately this is something that MUST be taken on faith. For, if they were not reliable, how would we ever know? Peer review? That others experience the same things that we do? But how do you know that THEIR senses are not equally flawed? Better yet, how do you know that those "other people" are real in the first place? Couldn't they be imaginary friends too (like on Fight Club, Vanilla Sky or the Matrix)? A Skeptic's position is one that denies that ANY truth is knowable or reliable. Everything else, especially atheism, requires a LOT of faith in the unproven and untested.
Additionally, even empirically verifiable evidence can be tricky. After all, any observation has to be processed through the human mind, and that has demonstrated to be anything but 100% logical.
But my main problem is the "self-correcting" nature of scientific atheism or whatever we want to call it. It's a fairly capricious undertaking, isn't it? New evidence comes out that corrects and replaces a previously "proved" scientific truth. So now we all get on board and throw the dethroned over the rail. All well and good, but what about the poor people that took the previous dictum as truth? They were believing in what was tantamount to a lie, even if an innocent and unintentional one.
And what about the possibility that new evidence will overthrow the self-correcting feature we just discovered? It seems that there is no end to the mistruths, new truths and former truths.
And while perhaps it is possible to test all the things you might read in a biology text, are you really going to go out and do so? No scientist that I ever heard of takes on such a "Show Me" attitude. All of which is to say that faith plays a very big, unavoidable role in science and what it teaches.
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
Science is built on the faith that our senses are reliable, that when we observe something, it actually happens the way we see it. Science is built on the unproven and unprovable assumption that our eyes, ears, taste buds, olfactory receptors and touch sense actually yield reliable information. I believe that these senses DO actually yield reliable information, but ultimately this is something that MUST be taken on faith. For, if they were not reliable, how would we ever know? Peer review? That others experience the same things that we do? But how do you know that THEIR senses are not equally flawed? Better yet, how do you know that those "other people" are real in the first place? Couldn't they be imaginary friends too (like on Fight Club, Vanilla Sky or the Matrix)? A Skeptic's position is one that denies that ANY truth is knowable or reliable. Everything else, especially atheism, requires a LOT of faith in the unproven and untested.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, even empirically verifiable evidence can be tricky. After all, any observation has to be processed through the human mind, and that has demonstrated to be anything but 100% logical.
ReplyDeleteBut my main problem is the "self-correcting" nature of scientific atheism or whatever we want to call it. It's a fairly capricious undertaking, isn't it? New evidence comes out that corrects and replaces a previously "proved" scientific truth. So now we all get on board and throw the dethroned over the rail. All well and good, but what about the poor people that took the previous dictum as truth? They were believing in what was tantamount to a lie, even if an innocent and unintentional one.
And what about the possibility that new evidence will overthrow the self-correcting feature we just discovered? It seems that there is no end to the mistruths, new truths and former truths.
And while perhaps it is possible to test all the things you might read in a biology text, are you really going to go out and do so? No scientist that I ever heard of takes on such a "Show Me" attitude. All of which is to say that faith plays a very big, unavoidable role in science and what it teaches.