Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  I strongly suggest anyone who thinks this way read Michael's post. More than showing any inability to combine science and faith, your example shows a misunderstanding of the nature of proof, and of what science does. Note that I'm not saying you don't understand it, but that whoever conducts your hypothetical experiment with the intent of proving the Ark's existence certainly doesn't. I agree with you that's it's a pointless exercise, and a sure way to undermine one's beliefs. |
well written post, that. A few things I would elaborate upon would be, in his statement about 'taking the word of one scientist and belaboring the rigid blindness of all scientists', one should remember the case of Galileo and how he had to retract his heliocentric views, essentially to save his skin, by order of the R.C. church. I'm not here to begin a debate about science versus religion, but I will state that I am more than versed in the nature of proof, and you may have mis-spoke there. But I'll leave it at that.
He hit the nail on the head when he said that 'these proofs cannot be proven wrong, for they cannot be tested'. That is the crux of my statement. I would add the 'and neither should they be', as I quite firmly believe that one's belief structure should come from within, and not without. But again, that's me.
All told, a very good post by Mr. Chui. I disagree with the dichotomy between science and religion, but that is my view, and last I checked, still entitled to those. I do find it sort of ironic that all the astronauts, cosmologists, theoretical physicists, etc, are all deeply religious people.
I like that.
v