There is this age old debate that we are all aware of between the realities of Religion VS those of Science. Many a heated discussion has arisen from this, as well as several religious based convictions and subsequent murders of many scientists, that have all lead nowhere. The concept that something that lacks concrete scientific evidence can have all doubts cast aside through the use of one word has always amused me. Faith.
I always felt that word to be a bit of a cop out until I heard this argument that amazed me with its simplicity. Does your father love you? Of COURSE! How do you know? Tragically the answer here is actually the word faith.
Faith aside some scientists recently announced that they found the remains (OLDEST EVER FOUND WOOT – maybe) of a human – Teeth to be precise. It turns out that they think that the remains are 400,000 years old – which would mean that humans – or at least our ancestors – were around 400,000 years ago. What does this number have to do with religion? Well in years past I have spoken to several theologians and was told by them that the world was no more that 15,000 years old, carbon dating was the great lie, and dinosaurs never actually existed – the bones being put here on Earth as a test of faith by god.
Yeah I know.
So the problem of Faith presents itself in a different format. If the bones are found to be 400,000 years old via Carbon dating, but many people don’t have faith in carbon dating, then really what does it matter? See the problem here comes into play regarding faith. Let’s go to dictionary.com.
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability
- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact
Note that Faith is merely the belief in something. It does not have to be about religion. But wait.. what is religion?
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly
Note the use of the word BELIEVES in that definition. Yes, Science does fall into that category. Granted many scientists would argue otherwise, going so far as to call those who don’t believe in what is called empirical evidence and being morons, however they are wrong. They believe in the idea of empirical evidence and thus accept it as being proof of something – the challenge is many other people don’t or rather may not accept a particular piece as being empirical evidence at all – but rather heresy. In fact this actually happens within the scientific community on a regular basis – take a look at the vaccine argument if you need an example.
This leaves us back where we started. If these scientists really discovered 400,000 year old bones but only the scientific community believes them then was their find really Earth shattering? The crux of the problem really comes down to perspective – if mine deems that what you are saying is bunk, then to me it is bunk, regardless of the facts.