This weekend, my dad and I watched a very interesting movie called Contact. It was about how a radio researcher finds evidence for life in outer space, how a signal is received from the other beings, and how she eventually travels to the other part of the universe to meet one of these other beings. However, the irony lies in that she asks the people to believe that she actually went to space when all of the evidence from the monitors shows that she didn't go anywhere. She is very skeptical and only believes in what she can test. Another of the movie's characters is a religious man, who believes in things that don't necessarily have testable evidence. Both the religious figure and the scientist ask others to believe them only on faith.
I find this topic very interesting. The idea that at some point, science becomes almost religious is fascinating, and I found
THIS article, which explains the concept very well.
The author writes that in science, the laws of physics are considered untouchable. They are to be used, not questioned. He writes, "Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin." This idea is very similar to a religion, because in many religions, people have faith that an all-powerful deity of some kind presides over the universe. This deity is to be interacted with, not questioned. Both science and religion are based on the idea that some kind of immovable force or set of laws exists that is beyond human control.
It seems like, at many points in our lives, whether a person claims to be religious or not, a certain amount of faith is required. The truth is, unless we have all knowledge, we will have to attempt to understand the rest on faith.
I love the idea you throw out there, that both religion and science require basic beliefs. I see a difference though, for with those basic beliefs from science, you can prove nearly anything, and from that proof, people feel safer. Religion is a lot more difficult to believe in, because there's not tangible proof. There might be an overwhelming sense of happiness, or a rainbow when you ask for it, but it could just as easily have been written off as a good feeling or coincidence. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have faith, I'm just saying that taking that jump of faith in science might be slightly easier.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThe article you linked to made a great point about how science strongly requires evidence for belief, yet in religion, evidence is not nearly as valuable for belief. This makes me feel even stronger about the separation of science/religion, and also of religion/politics. In both instances, the conflict leads to much questioning, disagreements, and polarization. Check out my blog post (http://seeclearly18.blogspot.com/2010/12/either-north-pole-or-south-pole-no-in.html) titled: "Either North Pole or South Pole. No In-between."