Fact versus truth
Apr. 18th, 2008 04:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrilMy parents are science-minded people. They are also very religious. There has simply never been any conflict in my mind between religion and science, and I'm very sorry when people feel they need to be in conflict. Science investigates the what and the how. Religion answers why. The first few chapters of Genesis are not a how-to-guide for creating the universe. It got created, somehow. The point of the narrative is to explain why. It was made for man and woman, to take care of it and be happy in it. Religiously speaking, who cares how it was made?
I'm very curious from a scientific standpoint how things work. I like to learn and discover and explore. But like Indiana Jones, I'm looking for facts, not truth. And I'm not so arrogant to think that I've figured it all out. Any scientist worth their salt is willing to accept new evidence and re-work old theories. The most ridiculous thing a scientist can say is "We used to think, but now we know." Pfft. What makes you so sure that you're not just as mistaken as those who have come before? We used to think, but now we think. Have a little humility, for goodness sake.
Religious truth is arrived at completely differently. Making conclusions based on observation, experimentation, logical deduction - all of that is very useful, but there's so much room for error. I believe in God on a spiritual level, not an intellectual one. That's not to say that it contradicts my intellect, not by any means, but my own brainpower isn't enough. There has to be some deeper confirmation that can't be mistaken. If I were to try to arrive at scientific fact in this method, it would be just plain silly. But if I were, on the other hand, to determine my religious beliefs by deduction and experimentation, there would be the possibilty for error that I'm not willing to risk.
I'm a skeptic. I don't accept anything as solid fact unless it's been tested over and over again under stringent conditions, and even then I'm not totally convinced. The only thing I don't doubt is my religion, because it's not based on human error. It might seem like a great contradiction, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm very curious from a scientific standpoint how things work. I like to learn and discover and explore. But like Indiana Jones, I'm looking for facts, not truth. And I'm not so arrogant to think that I've figured it all out. Any scientist worth their salt is willing to accept new evidence and re-work old theories. The most ridiculous thing a scientist can say is "We used to think, but now we know." Pfft. What makes you so sure that you're not just as mistaken as those who have come before? We used to think, but now we think. Have a little humility, for goodness sake.
Religious truth is arrived at completely differently. Making conclusions based on observation, experimentation, logical deduction - all of that is very useful, but there's so much room for error. I believe in God on a spiritual level, not an intellectual one. That's not to say that it contradicts my intellect, not by any means, but my own brainpower isn't enough. There has to be some deeper confirmation that can't be mistaken. If I were to try to arrive at scientific fact in this method, it would be just plain silly. But if I were, on the other hand, to determine my religious beliefs by deduction and experimentation, there would be the possibilty for error that I'm not willing to risk.
I'm a skeptic. I don't accept anything as solid fact unless it's been tested over and over again under stringent conditions, and even then I'm not totally convinced. The only thing I don't doubt is my religion, because it's not based on human error. It might seem like a great contradiction, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
