>But Won, there is a huge difference here. Faith is not REQUIRED for me to
>believe the scientists. If it is scientifically proveable, then I could
>obtain the necessary knowledge whereby I could conduct the experiment
>myself, verify it, and eliminate the need for faith.
>
>I may take on faith that the scientist correctly followed scientific logic
>(since i'm lazy :), but i do NOT have to take the underlying scientific
>logic on faith.
I disagree. I may be wrong, but probability states that you or any other
random person, will never understand Poincare or Fermant. To you
personally, it will never be provable. If some scientist said you can
prove it by doing this. You don't know if he is telling the truth or
lying. The steps he describes to prove it are beyond verification by
you. As the number of people that can actually understand a certain proof
decreases, the amount of faith required increases.
I don't blame you for having your views. It's exactly the faith that you
have in the scientific discovery system that galvanizes your extraordinary
belief. That is not a bad thing. For one thing, it means that you are
very teachable and those people tend to be good students/workers.
Let's say 8 leading mathematicians, independently, discover the formula to
see God. They lay out the proof and say if you follow this highly complex
math and fully understand it that you can see the face of God. Essentially
they found God through the very scientific discovery system that you
believe in. Problem is that you can't do that math. Not substitute God
for a natural phenomena that you can't see. Perhaps the moment a covalent
bond is formed etc etc.
Can you still say this isn't faith?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
