Religious faith or belief is not generally formed in the same way as the scientific method. And guess what -- it is not supposed to be.
The scientific method? Well, that is not the point of faith or belief in a deity of some sort. You really should not apply scientific principles to something that is not science.
I am not necessarily saying people absolutely must believe in a deity. I am simply taking issue with this one notion -- the notion that because it cannot be scientifically proven that there is no god, that therefore this proves incontrovertibly that there is no supreme being.
As an analogy, consider the subject of history. For a very long time, we did not have any actual PROOF that any of those legendary historical events happened. No, we truly did not. Look back carefully, this time with a critical eye, and comb through what we know about historical events. What we have are written documents, hearsay, secondhand accounts. Written accounts are not proof of large events that should have left behind a lot of physical evidence. No actual solid proof. Nobody alive today witnessed any of it firsthand.
This includes everything -- family genealogies, the Gettysburg Address, the civil war, the revolutionary war, the Greco-Roman approach to government and politics. This includes the black plague taking place across Europe; the Hindu-Arabic scientists and their Al-chemy attempts; Copernicus and the other great scientists of yore. This includes horrible weather catastrophes or natural disasters that took place in the times before sophisticated weather pattern tracking equipment (e.g., Pompeii).
Did we have actual proof of any of that?
Until we had archeological evidence or perhaps video and audio footage, absolutely nothing that ever took place could be truly proven. Video footage helps give concrete, incontrovertible evidence that an event occurred . This is a horrifying example, but look at the assassination of JFK. We have that on video. That is as good as scientific evidence. Also nowadays we do have biochemical assays, and nuclear assessments such as carbon dating. That is definitely scientific evidence. But those things were not invented until about the 1950s.
Psychology is also not necessarily arrived at through the scientific method. It is conjecture, interpretations -- and a great deal of personal opinion. I'm sure you must have heard the postulate that a person's own experiences and personality greatly influence their so-called impartial, unbiased philosophical conclusions. A lot of people probably take issue with this theory.
However all the greats are subject to this -- Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Confucius, Nietzsche, Marxes (Karl, Groucho, and Richard), Freud, Jung, Kinsey, all of them. Much as they would vehemently insist that their own personal life experiences had nothing to do with their opinions and that they successfully remained professional and unbiased. They probably thought they drew and formulated their opinions based on rational observations. Can you imagine the psychosocial theories we would be studying if poor Edgar Allen Poe decided to become a psychologist? However, personal experiences very much color one's philosophical leanings, including those involving religion.
The scientific method? Well, that is not the point of faith or belief in a deity of some sort. You really should not apply scientific principles to something that is not science.
I am not necessarily saying people absolutely must believe in a deity. I am simply taking issue with this one notion -- the notion that because it cannot be scientifically proven that there is no god, that therefore this proves incontrovertibly that there is no supreme being.
As an analogy, consider the subject of history. For a very long time, we did not have any actual PROOF that any of those legendary historical events happened. No, we truly did not. Look back carefully, this time with a critical eye, and comb through what we know about historical events. What we have are written documents, hearsay, secondhand accounts. Written accounts are not proof of large events that should have left behind a lot of physical evidence. No actual solid proof. Nobody alive today witnessed any of it firsthand.
This includes everything -- family genealogies, the Gettysburg Address, the civil war, the revolutionary war, the Greco-Roman approach to government and politics. This includes the black plague taking place across Europe; the Hindu-Arabic scientists and their Al-chemy attempts; Copernicus and the other great scientists of yore. This includes horrible weather catastrophes or natural disasters that took place in the times before sophisticated weather pattern tracking equipment (e.g., Pompeii).
Did we have actual proof of any of that?
Until we had archeological evidence or perhaps video and audio footage, absolutely nothing that ever took place could be truly proven. Video footage helps give concrete, incontrovertible evidence that an event occurred . This is a horrifying example, but look at the assassination of JFK. We have that on video. That is as good as scientific evidence. Also nowadays we do have biochemical assays, and nuclear assessments such as carbon dating. That is definitely scientific evidence. But those things were not invented until about the 1950s.
Psychology is also not necessarily arrived at through the scientific method. It is conjecture, interpretations -- and a great deal of personal opinion. I'm sure you must have heard the postulate that a person's own experiences and personality greatly influence their so-called impartial, unbiased philosophical conclusions. A lot of people probably take issue with this theory.
However all the greats are subject to this -- Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Confucius, Nietzsche, Marxes (Karl, Groucho, and Richard), Freud, Jung, Kinsey, all of them. Much as they would vehemently insist that their own personal life experiences had nothing to do with their opinions and that they successfully remained professional and unbiased. They probably thought they drew and formulated their opinions based on rational observations. Can you imagine the psychosocial theories we would be studying if poor Edgar Allen Poe decided to become a psychologist? However, personal experiences very much color one's philosophical leanings, including those involving religion.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment