There is a difference, SirDennis, between an idea that's unproven because no empirical proof based on physical observations or measurements is possible (example: the existence or nonexistence of God) and an idea that, though "unproven" in the strict scientific sense, is supported by mountains of physical observations and measurements and contradicted by none (example: the multi-billion-year age of the Earth).SirDennis wrote:Ok, ok... What Dave said has an element of truth to it though mileage may vary.
However when I speak of how science is perceived by the rest of us (ie non-scientists) it is not merely an opinion. And I am beginning to resent the implication that the ideas I hold true are simply a product of lack of exposure to good science, good literature about science, naivete, fear of the unknown, a predisposition against seeing myself as infinitely inconsequential in a cosmic sense (even though the Bible teaches me so) and so on.
"God is the creator of the universe" is no more an opinion than "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is an opinion. Both are arrived at, for some people, only after years of study and wrestling with such ideas. For other people, who have not studied, nor wrestled with either idea, either position can be taken (and are, both the Biblical, and the scientific) on faith. But for some reason, the second idea, even now in the presence of proof to the contrary, is more acceptable in mixed company. My concern is how long before the preference for one type of idea over the other type of idea becomes institutionalized (or more so than it has already?)
When I said the following a few pages back, no one batted an eye, even though many of the statements are debatable:The last statement is particularly relevant to this current thread of the discussion.Faith is not the same as religion, nor even belief, nor is it an element of scientific inquiry or expostulation. Scientists never rightly can be said to proselytize nor can those who share their opinions or understanding. To suggest otherwise is potentially offensive. Science rests on observable phenomenon. When it does not, it is something other than science and should be rejected. Belief in an idea may be what motivates scientists to test the idea, but disbelief is just as powerful a motivator to do the same. Ideally ideas are approached from a neutral position. Knowing when to keep an idea or discard it is purely a function of statistical analysis. Assignment of value hardly ever, if at all, comes into it.
If I was to say, according to my sources (not just someone's opinion), that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I am sure present company would have a lot to say about that.
The extent that someone feels justified in looking down on or rejecting outright one unprovable idea in favour of another unprovable idea is a measure of faith.
And, it's entirely unnecessary to reject one of these ideas because one accepts the other. Some do, some don't. I don't.
