The discussions about "proof" versus "faith" - or science versus religion; are essentially nonsense.
In such discussions, 'faith' is pejoratively defined in terms that regard it as unfounded - but it is better to consider faith as more like 'trust', but trust being regarded in a personal way; we trust someone that we regard as having our best interests at heart.
The differences between so-called proof and faith are in truth a matter of assumptions, 'metaphysical' assumptions regarding the fundamental nature of reality; and our task is to bring these assumptions to awareness - so that they can be considered and evaluated.
'Proof' is always understood in terms of assumptions; 'scientific proof' is built on a large number of assumptions about what is science; also that 'scientists' are being honest in truth-seeking and expression; plus a technical understanding of what kind of thing counts as evidence - and what is implied by some purported piece of evidence.
In sum; all of science is built-upon assumptions that are at root always human judgments - and making these human judgments compulsory and exclusive is just another human judgment.
So that when somebody (or, more likely some committee) declares that 'Science is X" or "This is (or This is not) real science" then this statement itself is, of course, consequence of a human judgment.
The greatest fallacy about science is that it has somehow eluded the need for human judgment; that science has no assumptions - but is somehow entirely made of 'facts', of 'evidence' (...these facts and evidences being objectively known as such, and with objectively-fixed implications).
But, because this fallacy has become accepted (mainly in response to the takever of real science by bureaucratic financial and power structures of Big Science that have developed since World War II); science (so called) has become a prime mechanism for social and psychological manipulation.
Real science is by 2020 all but extinct; and certainly cannot be found among those who owe their position, status, and influence to their selection and support by Power. Such individuals (or, more likely, committees) speak on behalf of power - not truth.
This happens because the reality of science being built upon human judgments is dishonestly concealed and untruthfully denied; and instead the lie is propagated that 'what scientists say' is objective fact about the world.
Of course, public science is in fact even further removed; being what the media-politicians tell-us that scientists say.
The manipulation is that those with power who claim to be speaking in the name of science to present themselves as neutral reporters on reality; are actuality using the name of science as a rationalisation for the tyrannical imposition of their ideology.
The scientific bureaucracy dutifully constructs whatever 'objective evidence' is required to rationalise whatever The Establishment want people to do; or to be prevented from doing.
And all this is - in 2020 - so blazingly obvious that it requires complicit evil on the part of any adult who fails to notice what is happening on a daily basis!
Which is why the eyes above the masks we see in daily life, are increasingly resemble those of zombies, or snakes.
"Science," unadorned by the definite article? How quaint! Get with the times, Bruce!
Great post. This line really stood out for me: "Such individuals (or, more likely, committees) speak on behalf of power - not truth."
Perhaps the best counterargument to those who dismiss faith (more specifically,Christianity) in favor of science (or the science, as Wm pointed out) would be the following:
Jesus spoke on behalf of truth, not power.
@Tychonievich - I've noticed this too, phrases like "I trust the science", "Follow the science" etc.
The bureuacracy calling today´s "official statements", "The Science", has been very effective sleight of hand.
As with most of these Bureaucratic Traps, it´s designed to capture the "warm" - those who care enough about truth that they feel in some way obligated to defer their decisions to something resembling it, but not enough that they´re willing to pursue it and defend it with integrity.
In the end, another way in which today the "warm" are no better than the cold, these days, perhaps even worse, because they cut a more pathetic figure (trying with blind fanaticism to fit your actions, even when it´s against your interests, into some "ideal" which is very obviously manipulated and false, signals a badly corrupted constitution indeed).
The Whitecoat priesthood?
Science and scientists are trying to gain the social status of the priest function in human society by making truth claims stating which god/God is real or not. What to have faith in.
It's faith, or belief, either way.
Notice how modern scientists try to be old time Shamans doing a weather dance, saying the sky is falling and they can control the weather (if they get enough money in grants)!
At this point, after 30-40 years of global warming not-happenings, COVID hysteria, atrocious diet propaganda, pharmaceutical and opioid mass poisoning deaths ...
I can safely say we might as well have priests back.
@ faculty c
Yes there are the white coated ones. Makes them easy to spot. But the two priests on Boris’ shoulders this evening wore suits. One was a scientist translating from white coats to suits. The next one was a public health scientist translating from the suit to us rational people (who apparently shouldn’t be doing kitchen table maths because we don’t understand it well enough. Let me explain). And then Boris doing the final translation into fireside bonhomie.
This clarified a great a deal for me, so thanks! I agree - it is best to regard faith as primarily trust. When someone has faith in Mother & Father, they trust Mother & Father.
@BSRK - Glad you found this helpful. I had a lot of trouble with the word faith, until I made that 'translation'.
As a Christian, something similar happened when I realised that (n the Fourth Gospel anyway) the word 'sin' usually means something similar to/ associated with 'death'. (And 'death' means that the disembodied soul goes to Sheol/ Hades to become a witless ghost.)
Such insights have been a great help to me.
The big lie, right from the beginning, is that death does not mean death. This false belief, peddled by most priestly classes for millennia, that something lives on after death has deceived most who call themselves Christian. Trust (faith) is demonstrated by believing what God has caused to be written and the Bible teaches that the only promise of further existence is in the resurrection of the body after Christ returns.
MAC. Not sure I understand your point. Existence, persistence of something,continues for all, what is at issue is its nature.
Also, for one who regards the fourth Gospel as earliest and most authoritative known source, there is no return of Christ nor any need for it - since his work was done, and a complete success before the crucifixion (as proof of which, Lazarus was resurrected).
Note; The Fourth Gospel is 'John' - but I call it the Fourth because there is no reason to believe it was weitten by John - and indeed the internal evidence seems conclusive that it was written by Lazarus:
Ha - I must be losing it - I can't even do mental arithmatic! I've counted on my fingers and got there in the end.
Post a Comment