C Elegans wrote:With this view, there should be no conflict between science and religion since they do not overlap and deal with different areas.
Of course they deal with different areas. It's not the middle and the end result which I said were similar, I said the roots in which both were created. Whether not they take a different approach, or use different methods doesn't touch on that point. Both stem from a human being having a question and seeking an answer to something unknown, correct? The first person to take off down the path of both religion, and science had a question, and were seeking an answer. The question is irrevelant. It's the fact there WAS a question, and the fact they were seeking the answer. It's simply two different approaches branching off of that one aspect of life.
"Evidence" in everyday language may be a subjective term, in science it is defined as I wrote above. Thus, personal opinion, speculation and ideas that cannot be observed, cannot consist evidence.
Now when you know how I define "faith" and "evidence", you already know my answer to this: the fact that one can be measured and one not, means that for one there is evidence and for the other not.
I've been trying to come up with a way to put my take on things with this, and none of them have seemed to get my point across so I'll try another.
If you take away, all of the learning you have, the knowledge and life experience you've gained. Put yourself back into the mindset of a child, say of 3 years old. You look up at the sky and say "Mommy/Daddy, what's that?" and point at the sky, to which they answer "That's the sky. It's made of air and water and surrounds us for miles above the earth." As a child, you're absolutely clueless to what any of those terms mean. However, you have faith that the knowledge your parents holds is correct.
When you enter into a college class, sit down at your seat and listen to the professor, you have faith that person is handing you information that is correct. It's what that person is paid to do right?
When you look into a microscope, and look at say, a drop of blood. You are having faith that what you see isn't flawed. Whether through the failing of your own sense, or mind, or through a broken microscope.
For example, reality is a personal thing. If you tell a person who is color blind that something is red, when they have never, and will never see the color red, that is outside of their reality is it not? If you write in a book, what a bird sounds like to a deaf person, they can imagine, but if they were born deaf, they have no real understanding or grasp on what it is they are reading about.
"Evidence", which is presented to me is something I process, within my own mind, for my own reasons, with my own senses. Which, happen to be different from each and every person on this planet in tiny ways. My eyesight is bad, my hearing is imperfect, etc. So, based on your own argument previously that human sense aren't infallible, how can we know what is and isn't there? If you look at a picture, well sure, if the picture has a 100% chance of being correct, that is simply the picture alone. You are still required to use your own sense of sight to analyze it, which, in and of itself is capable of being flawed through delusion is it not? That color blind person being told to look at a picture sees things completely different than another person in the picture. Why then, would it not be the case for others? I will see things different than the first person comes across because I'm near-sighted and my vision is not perfect.
Not only that, take for instance instruments that measure sound waves, infra-red sensors, vibrations, etc. Who made those instruments? People, who each, and every one of the people who made such things have the possibility of making errors.
So, you were saying that the methods I use are less reliable than yours, because you use instruments which have been proven by scientists.
1. People made those methods.
2. People made those instruments.
3. Those methods are being put to use by people.
4. People are using those methods with those instruments.
5. People aren't perfect, and neither are their senses.
Wouldn't logic dictate that each and every bit of data or information which is gathered through science quite possibly biased, flawed, and imperfect in some manner? That each, and every scientist is having faith in his senses, state of mind, and the methods and instruments they have used to gather their evidense is perfect?
What you say about the peg leg makes sense but I just don't see logic in discounting something just because it goes against fundamentals of what you believe. For example, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I know from experience that atheists don't believe this at all, and most count it as utterly ridiculous. As I see it, it defies logic, science, everything that we know. When people die, they are dead. So as I understand your approach, this would be discounted immediately. Yet I believe it with all my heart (and my mind), because I believe in a God who is outside of the laws that we as humans are accustomed to. People discounted Galileo's theories too - I know that's not the same but I just don't think we can discount things because they defy the way we are accustomed to things happening.
But that IS your belief, so you wouldn't discount it, because for whatever fundamentals you use to belief or in turn discount something presented before you, you chose to believe. Despite logic, you fit that into your system of beliefs.
As to my personal beliefs regarding that issue, you assume. I may not follow your religion, but who's to say I don't believe that happened? I may believe IN your god, but who's to say I have to follow him in order to do so? I feel it's a flawed view to buy the first car you see on the lot, I took the same view with deities and religious beliefs.
Your arguing with me about something I agree with. I discount things based on my beliefs yes, but I never discussed what those were for anyone to disagree with me on individual points with them.
My view on reality is different from nearly everyone I've come into contact with, and for my own reasons. Yes, I agree that 2+2=4, but then again, what if the person who came up with the number system had left out "4" and went straight from "3" to "5". Wouldn't that shake the foundations of mathematics as we know it? "Math" which has been "proven" is nothing but a man-made method created by someone who sought answers.
Just like different groups of people have different languages, and there are different written alphapets to picture those languages on paper there are different methods in which for people to gather the evidence for their thoughts and beliefs. I haven't bothered to learn Japanese because English suits my purposes where I stand far better. I haven't bothered to learn how an engine works becuase I don't drive. I haven't bothered to learn to use a proton-accelerator because I don't care. None of those things are things I personally value. To the mechanic though, he values them enough to head to a class and learn how an engine works. T
o the scientist, they value, and believe, and trust in science enough to devote years worth of learning to understand it. I've devoted years worth of research to my beliefs. Like those pioneers which have been mentioned above, someone has to start somewhere in the unknown correct? Just because what I'm doing isn't written in a book somewhere, or known to others doesn't mean it isn't possible that it could garner true results. I'm not trying to say I'll be the next nobel prize winner or prophet. All I'm saying is, that discounting a method which has yet to be proven, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy method of research. If everyone shot down new, unproven methods, nothing would ever get invented, no new thoughts would be proven, no new cures would be developed, etc.
