Love this JP and the points you so creatively make and once again reading it made me laugh out loud… but just remember that anyone can believe anything they wish. Even so called scientific fact is still based on believing the testimony of someone else, unless of course you personally conduct experiments yourself or have personally witnessed things like the Big Bang! In that sense, everyone’s reality is just a matter of what they believe to ‘true’. And therefore, if a so called ‘fact’ cannot be verified by your direct personal experience then it’s a belief and based on faith in the truthfulness of person presenting it - whether it’s religious or scientific for that matter.
Thanks for your comments and I am glad it made you laugh.
I feel another of our many long and stimulating discussions on this very topic coming on... :-)
My response to your point on science is that it is marginalised by the sheer weight of evidence accepted by scientists through the ages - people immeasurably more competent in their fields than me have consistently presented their evidence – and had it peer reviewed by equally competent scientists. I think there comes a point where one simply has to accept that what they say is factual. And even when new evidence is presented, it does not show they were necessarily wrong, but just that they now have a better – and closer – understanding of the science.
I do agree that anyone can believe whatever they wish. That does not, however, make it right – nor does it obligate me to respect it. As my Cod example shows, unfounded and demonstrably false ideas can have a long and ongoing currency – which does not make them any less unfounded or false.
Love this JP and the points you so creatively make and once again reading it made me laugh out loud… but just remember that anyone can believe anything they wish. Even so called scientific fact is still based on believing the testimony of someone else, unless of course you personally conduct experiments yourself or have personally witnessed things like the Big Bang! In that sense, everyone’s reality is just a matter of what they believe to ‘true’. And therefore, if a so called ‘fact’ cannot be verified by your direct personal experience then it’s a belief and based on faith in the truthfulness of person presenting it - whether it’s religious or scientific for that matter.
Hi Rosh
Thanks for your comments and I am glad it made you laugh.
I feel another of our many long and stimulating discussions on this very topic coming on... :-)
My response to your point on science is that it is marginalised by the sheer weight of evidence accepted by scientists through the ages - people immeasurably more competent in their fields than me have consistently presented their evidence – and had it peer reviewed by equally competent scientists. I think there comes a point where one simply has to accept that what they say is factual. And even when new evidence is presented, it does not show they were necessarily wrong, but just that they now have a better – and closer – understanding of the science.
I do agree that anyone can believe whatever they wish. That does not, however, make it right – nor does it obligate me to respect it. As my Cod example shows, unfounded and demonstrably false ideas can have a long and ongoing currency – which does not make them any less unfounded or false.
Happy to continue this over a beer!
Jonathan