I find the whole question of faith/science dichotomy problematic. Someone tells you their name, you take it on faith they are telling you the truth. Believing them is an act of faith - but a name is just a label, do we care if the label is wrong? Most learning is about labels and the manipulation of those labels, whether those labels are purely linguistic, mathematical or even scientific. (A label is a symbol.) When a scientist tells me the weight of the sun, I assume they are telling me the truth within some kind of error margins. Perhaps I can follow their reasoning... if I choose to, and this is where science likes to distinguish itself, there is a trail we can follow that leads to reproducibility.
Even religious zealots know you have to find the switch to turn on the lights. The switch closes the circuit allowing electricity to flow from the mains/source and this powers the light. This is science, thus zealots use science. The zealot didn't need the hand of the goddess to come down and turn on the lights after devout prayer. While the zealot might be comfortable with switching on lights and computers, driving and using bridges and airplanes, they may have problems with medicine, because they seem to see science as distinct from the goddess. However if the goddess created us in Her image, and Sagan is right that we are away for the universe to know itself, then we could argue that the universe or the goddess is working through humans when we do science, even when it is medicine.
FTW the placebo effect. Science knows it exists and controls for it when testing new pharmaceuticals. For the zealot perhaps it is the hand of the goddess - but perhaps it's just our belief at work. If I believe I can I will - we have all heard those stories.
I see no inconsistency.
Our understanding of the universe and ourselves has evolved, just as our technology and our understanding of problems has evolved.
After all, as Galileo said:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Indeed. If the goddess gave us a brain, shouldn't we use it? After all there is that parable of the talents.
Science tells us we need definitions, especially mathematics, before go hunting for whatever we're hunting for because how will we know if we've found it? If we're hunting for a goddess, we need to know what a goddess looks like to know if we've found one or not. Therefore we cannot say the goddess doesn't exist especially we have no definition of Her. And because we don't know everything in the universe we cannot say the goddess doesn't exist. Otherwise atheists saying one doesn't exist are making an act of faith by saying so. Therefore logically the best an atheist can really be is agnostic.
The goddess, like love may well be nothing more than a personal experience. Perhaps you were told when growing up that you'll know when you're in love when it happens to you, perhaps the same is true for the goddess, if you need a goddess, you'll find Her. If you never fall in love, if you never need a goddess, then you may never experience either. Most people do need someone else so most people do find love.
But that's okay. I am the first to tell you I do not know everything, therefore I have no right to tell you what to think and feel regardless of your own personal experience. This is respect.
What I think is we need a lot more skepticism about what we think we know. Especially when it comes to faith.
Even religious zealots know you have to find the switch to turn on the lights. The switch closes the circuit allowing electricity to flow from the mains/source and this powers the light. This is science, thus zealots use science. The zealot didn't need the hand of the goddess to come down and turn on the lights after devout prayer. While the zealot might be comfortable with switching on lights and computers, driving and using bridges and airplanes, they may have problems with medicine, because they seem to see science as distinct from the goddess. However if the goddess created us in Her image, and Sagan is right that we are away for the universe to know itself, then we could argue that the universe or the goddess is working through humans when we do science, even when it is medicine.
FTW the placebo effect. Science knows it exists and controls for it when testing new pharmaceuticals. For the zealot perhaps it is the hand of the goddess - but perhaps it's just our belief at work. If I believe I can I will - we have all heard those stories.
I see no inconsistency.
Our understanding of the universe and ourselves has evolved, just as our technology and our understanding of problems has evolved.
After all, as Galileo said:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Indeed. If the goddess gave us a brain, shouldn't we use it? After all there is that parable of the talents.
Science tells us we need definitions, especially mathematics, before go hunting for whatever we're hunting for because how will we know if we've found it? If we're hunting for a goddess, we need to know what a goddess looks like to know if we've found one or not. Therefore we cannot say the goddess doesn't exist especially we have no definition of Her. And because we don't know everything in the universe we cannot say the goddess doesn't exist. Otherwise atheists saying one doesn't exist are making an act of faith by saying so. Therefore logically the best an atheist can really be is agnostic.
The goddess, like love may well be nothing more than a personal experience. Perhaps you were told when growing up that you'll know when you're in love when it happens to you, perhaps the same is true for the goddess, if you need a goddess, you'll find Her. If you never fall in love, if you never need a goddess, then you may never experience either. Most people do need someone else so most people do find love.
But that's okay. I am the first to tell you I do not know everything, therefore I have no right to tell you what to think and feel regardless of your own personal experience. This is respect.
What I think is we need a lot more skepticism about what we think we know. Especially when it comes to faith.
RSS Feed
