Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Unexplained Scientific Principles

Perhaps it's time for a more simple-minded view.

Some of the people on the "science side" of this thread assume that having a spiritual side can only be within an established religion. That rationale is beyond me.

I do not belong to any church. In fact, except for weddings and funerals, haven't been in a church in fifty years. However, I do believe absolutely that there is something beyond life on earth and that there is a superior being. What it is or what awaits beyond life on earth, I don't know. I just believe it exists and I'll find out when I die. My belief has never caused me to consider killing, raping, maiming or any other dreadful act.

Neither does having that belief prevent me from accepting the evidence on things like evolution and other theories. I just think that there are things that are beyond science - something else, unexplainable and unprovable, that existed before the Big Bang or whatever starting point anyone wants to use.

However, the science side cannot seem to accept anything that is not conclusively proved scientifically and therefore asserts that, if it isn't provable, it can't be.

I think that is incredible arrogance. It's like saying "we are the most superior beings and unless it's proven to us, it doesn't exist". As we have seen through the thread, there's no use arguing the point because neither side can prove the other wrong. Some of the arguments remind me of the Blood, Sweat and Tears lyric, "I know there ain't no Heaven, but I'll pray there ain't no Hell".

But the arrogance doesn't stop there. There is a contention that If I believe in a superior being I must be incapable of rational thought (What utter nonsense) or I must need a crutch to get me through life (Equally nonsensical). Indeed, I would argue that it's the science side who are most in need of a crutch (proof) before they can believe in something.

To get back to my original question, I wanted information that showed that it wasn't only religion that asks people to blindly accept things on faith. The MFIF thread had examples of Science asking people to do exactly the same thing (accept things on faith) on some basic principles.

I had a good reason for seeking the "science taken on faith" information, and it is simple. I have a longtime friend who is terminally ill (small cell cancer has returned) and my friend's beliefs are the same as mine. We haven't talked much yet about the journey ahead of him but we will.

I want to be sure that when he takes that final step that he is not carrying the extra burden of doubt, that what he believes is true and his belief doesn't require proof - no different than Science having concepts that don't seem to require proof.

I had thought that the originally sought article Taking Science On Faith would be sufficient to show that Science doesn't have quite as many answers as it thinks it has. However, this thread has given me far more than I could possibly have hoped for. For that, I thank the participants.

ryck