I am claiming that science and physical reality require faith from start to finish.
Is your second language English? If it is, it will at least explain why it is that you do not know that the Churches use “faith
” with one definition and normal people use it with another.
So please stop using faith
as if you think others do not know the difference.Faith
, for the faithful godbotherer is blind acceptance of a god of some sort, be it Zeus, Woden, Vishnu or Huitzilopochtli. To the “faithful” i.e. those of faith
, these gods are very real – they may not be to you, but they are to those of faith
These gods direct the lives of their followers, i.e. those who have faith
in them, and, usually, capriciously. The faith
ful have no proof of a god’s existence. They cannot “test for gods” They know that the effects of the gods are being eroded by knowledge of how things really work, yet they cling blindly to faith
. Even when there is obviously evidence that contradicts their god, they deny it and,calling upon their faith
, they say “my god is right.”
This is what the shamans or the priests of religion call “faith
” – believing something when you know it ain’t true, but not only that, believing it when it can be shown to be untrue. For the religions of the world, faith
is total and blind, faith
asks no questions, faith
, for the faith
ful, has all
, when it comes to science and the real world means reasoned trust
. It does not mean that science knows everything, because if science did
know everything, it would stop. Science may never have all
the answers, and I for one am proud of that - there is always more to know.
No, it means knowing
that humans are working on problems and questions to the best of their ability for the benefit of mankind or a section of mankind. Each discovery they make is a step - no more than that – to a better understanding of the world and the universe and how it all fits together. Every discovery is backed by other discoveries, each of which has been shown to be true and can be repeated. every discover brings forth another question... and so it goes on.
If there ever becomes a point at which the whole foundation of science were shown to be wrong, science would openly change. Science has no blind allegiance.
I have already dismissed your “Ooo, we can’t know everything because it could always be an illusion.”
which a normal person would see in the same light as you saying “Elvis is still alive
”, This idea that “Science is based on sand and it is all an illusion and without evidence.” is so obviously wrong, that it can be dismissed without evidence.
Four hundred years ago, you might have gotten somewhere with it – you can’t escape with that sort of lax thought today. I am afraid that it is impossible to sit in a darkened room with no real information on a subject and yet come to a sound conclusion. No, you need to get out there and prove that what you think is correct and repeatable.
in science. There are very clever people out there who will do the work that you simply cannot.