People naturally seek meaning (see one of the previous blogs) from things, part to human nature if you will. For life in general, we strive for meaning in it, to find a purpose despite the possibility that there is none. [Though on a more personal note, for those who believe in a higher power or purpose (and have spent their entire life doing so). To find or realise that there is no meaning/purpose would be daunting, perhaps even shocking. But because such people may have depended and believed in such a belief, most will fight to protect it. To keep it existent despite the realisation and condemning 'evidence' that it's false.]
A tower we build for truth and knowledge has been what we lived for. Whether it is in search of higher purpose or greater knowledge of the world. It is what drives man on.
The following is based off a philosophical discussion of sorts (few weeks back) which included myself and particular others. The specific dialogue of the discussion I have forgotten, but I will try my best to cover the dicsussed issues. The discussion covered the nature of 2 popular and conflicting 'schools' of belief, religion and science (more specifically, scientific theories). I realise I may offend many believers in the following paragraphs, perhaps make myself look foolish to you. But due to the current lack of comments to start off a nice discussion exploring such issues, I have decided to stir some s**t to get people more 'involving'. So speak out if you think I'm wrong, if not, accept what you read. The will to act...is what defines valor from cowardice, and cowards are unworthy of status.
Allow me to begin then.
The topic first came about when a particular other started a conversation about how religion can be disproved or proved false (take note that we were talking about western religion as in christianity, not eastern as in buddhism). The discussion continued until I brought up the point that a religion cannot continue to exist in the minds of men (more specifically, any other living organism capable of thought) after every man who is aware of the religion ceases to exist. For example, suppose that hypothetically (highly unlikely but not impossible, the possibility therefore makes the following example valid. It is important to understand the meaning of impossibility. For example, impossibility is 1 cannot be 2) everyone on this world dies due to some incident (some bloody struggle or epidemic of sorts). Except that a group of infant (still incapable of thought yet) is sent to another world, say the moon/or another Earth-like planet, to repopulate (all adequate facilities will allow them to live on). All culture, religion, beliefs, ideas, everything mankind has lived for is gone.
My point was this, will religion/beliefs (like Christianity, Buddhism, Judiasm etc) exist again in the same form in this new race of people? The answer of course is no, unless there was some divine intervention to allow this to happen. Which in this case the proof of the religion is evident, but no proof of any higher power has been evident except for what was written in books and scriptures, and even that is open to criticism (Because it's written by men, and men are biased beings. Making such scriuptures inaccurate and 'invalid'. Though many still believe in it, I'm not going to discuss this because this isn't the point of the blog).
What of scientific theories on the other hand? Will it still continue to be in the minds of this new group of people? Of course. Because men created these theories based on observations, observations based on what is evident and what we see and measure. Though I am very aware that these theories are still inaccurate (abnormalities can still occur) can be proven false with a more accurate theory, in my most honest opinion, it is still more valid than what is passed on the accounts of what happened many thousand years ago by men. Personally, I believe a rational person would trust what they observe more compared to what is told to them (it's no more valid than what is told to you by another if you can step away from the whole 'popularity' and global aspect of religion, because in truth, it's a personal thing).
In truth, science (more specifically, scientific theories) will still exist even if all living things cease to exist. Because it's existence isn't just in our minds, but in the world we live in. The chaotic data of the universe is evidence of it's existence, it's just been put into a language that is able to be comprehend by us. Religion on the other hand will cease to exist if all living things cease to exist. Even if by some magical wonder that new life magically appears, that same religion would not be.
p.s. The discussion continued on, but is far too complex and detailed for me to remember the specific details of it (it was weeks ago during exam time) to build a proper statement. But I can say that it continued discussing in greater detail on the 'evidence' or 'proof' issue.
p.p.s. On a more seperate note. In the search for knowledge or truth (whether it's through religion or science), I have encountered people saying (especially with religion) that God's will or such divine understanding cannot be comprehended by us. If that is so, why seek to understand it? If it cannot be comprehended, why believe it? Wouldn't it be wiser to comprehend something first (by questioning it and criticising it) before believing in it (take note that you can only believe in it and not believe in it, there is no half-way)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment