Believers, non-believers, and those that will believe anything
Mon, July 12, 2021 
Does anyone remember before the Internet and social media how simple and pleasant life was? For the most part there were just two main schools of thought. The religious element that believed in God, and the atheist that did not believe in God.
It always seemed strange to me that politics were always tied to each side with the religious side to the right and the atheist to the left, but that is the way it has always been. Those that did not believe in God were often scholars, academics, and scientists, who say that the existence of a God could not be proved by science or mathematics.
If one thinks about it, is a belief in science any different from a belief in God? The atheist can be every bit as dogmatic in his unwavering belief in science. And what about the free thinkers, the artists? Do they not have a place in the spectrum? For what is creativity but having an original thought.
The scientist discovers and the artist creates, both spring from an original thought so is there any real difference? The scientist tries to prove his idea by scientific experiment or mathematics, if he cannot it remains a theory to be proved later by other scientists, The artist has an original thought and sets about bringing that idea into fruition as a painting, sculpture, poem, song, literature, or script.
Scientific discovery implies that the science, (Electricity for example) was always there waiting to be discovered. As a songwriter I share a belief held by many other songwriters that the songs are already written, and they just appear, often very quickly in the mind of the songwriter.
Some of us believe the artist is simply a vehicle through which art appears. This is not new thinking, the Native American called it “Hand Magic,” the Great Spirit guiding the hand of the artist as he creates the pottery, or she weaves the blanket.
In order to hold such a belief, one must realize there is an Intelligence at work way beyond any concept our feeble minds can conceive. If that were not so, then we have reached the end of scientific discovery, there is nothing left to discover.
Or could it be that scientists create the science, and artists simply discover the art, all made possible by an Intelligence that might be God. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful discovery, that we really are all just One, and all on the same side. On the same page so to speak, or we could be if we just make the effort.
People are splitting into groups held together by an ever-increasing amount of strange science and conspiracy theories. It seems people go online not to find answers, but to seek out others with the same point of view. When the answers are there to be found if one keeps on looking with an open mind.
And if one can believe in an Intelligence beyond our own inadequate intelligence, the answer to anything and everything is there for the asking.
To Share click "Share Article" below
Reader Comments (5)
Yes, a belief in science is different than a belief in religion because the later requires faith and the former rests on a system of validation through the repeatability of experimentation and empirical observation. Scientific “orthodoxies” have repeatedly been overthrown because they have been found invalid. Meanwhile the cult that formed around a carpenter 2000 years ago persists despite nary a shred of any kind of evidence. I was astonished by your question. Think about it, religious schools have entire classes devoted to “faith formation” and apologetics, while science teaches kids how to gather data correctly. Religious people I know are proud of their faith.
Good thoughts Dave, and the effect of social media splitting people into groups that only hear what they want to hear is spot on.
However, I think it's important to recognize that science doesn't deny the possibility of a 'higher intelligence' or even a god or creator. It's just that science demands evidence that can be observed and replicated. The reason so many science minded folks are atheists is that, so far, such evidence seems to be lacking.
One other note, you use the word 'theory' in a way that seems to imply an idea or hypothesis. In scientific terms, the word theory is used when a great deal of evidence and experimentation has been collected to support the concept. Think of the Theory of Gravity, or the various Theories of Thermodynamics.
The beauty of science is that, even though those fields have been extensively researched and analyzed by some of the greatest minds in history, if you or anyone else comes up with repeatable observations that contradict the theory - scientists will change their minds and toss out the old concepts. That brings me to where we disagree - a belief in science is faith in a method for better understanding the reality we exist within. Show me proof of a god (or gods) and I will readily become a believer. Contrast that with religious folk, who in spite of copious evidence that contradicts their faith, still believe bronze age myths.
I would like to believe in a higher intelligence that has all the answers, but if such a thing exists it has decided not to manifest itself in our world. It seems we are on our own here for now so I think we should try to do our best with what we have and be kind to those among us who don't share our views.
I was raised by atheists who said most of what the two before me said, that they would gladly believe in God, but there just is no evidence. Once you realize that worlds do not create themselves, and that no man anywhere could ever create life from non-living matter, it is hard to imagine we exist by random chance for no apparent reason. For those who say, "You have no evidence..." I would challenge them to prove they love their children, and whatever they say, I couid offer a different explanation. The fact is, you cannot prove love exists to anyone who believes it does not. But I believe love is real, and I will never feel the need to prove it exists. I just can't live without it--- and I hope anyone reading my words is loved and at peace.
Stephen J. Gould spoke of NOMA, I read a lot Gould essays over the years,
the beauty of this idea always rang true to me.
"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."[1] "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[1] S.J.G.
I would argue that science and religion has repeatedly been corrupted throughout man’s history. After all, no man has time to repeat every experiment done in science. If reality is what is left after you stop believing, then tread carefully. You may be wrong.
Skepticism comes from the suppression of facts. Take this “pandemic”. It is known that comorbidities determine how you will be affected. Many would be better served wearing a muzzle instead of a mask and pushing away from the table to get on a bicycle.
We live with viruses; they don’t go away. To put all faith and hope into the belief that vaccines will save the world is not science. It is authority. This has been demonstrated throughout history.
Look at what has happened with the overuse of antibiotics.
The mistakes science repeatedly makes are:
Submission to faulty and unworthy authority.
Submission to what it was customary to believe.
Submission to the prejudices of the mob.
Worse of all, concealment of ignorance by a false show of unheld knowledge, for no better reason than pride.
(Roger Bacon cir. 1280)
Many times one only need "Follow the Money".
There are more similarities than differences between science and religion. Even if you don’t believe that, what are you left with?