Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
That's the question, isn't it? Or at least, a question. This discussion started because Zaris said he had a strong faith toward science, Xrayzor answered that science needed no faith and that Zaris should be prouder. I didn't like Xrayzor's attitude. I think it should be left to those who've found the one true religion.
|
There's no reason you shouldn't like it. The guy talked about his own belief as though it were religion, whereas religious people tend to talk as though their belief is more than just faith. That is an attitude I don't like, because modest people get dominated by loud people who are wrong. I am more than justified in my attitude.
I think what Vexx meant was that our brain continually interprets data to update our reality as we construct it. So long as personal, non rational motives don't come in its way, that's how our brain works if it's capable of doing so (I guess some intelligence is required). The fact that non rational beliefs are around doesn't mean that our theory is wrong, it just demonstrates how other motives for believing such and such can get in its way, like fear of death, or inability to accept new data that would radically change the reality you feel comfortable in. We know kids easily accept anything they are told, it's an evolutionary advantage because it enables them to cope with the environment they grow up in better. It works fine so long as we're primates hunting for food, but in modern society it can cause annoying problems, such as Bill O Reilly...and other fact haters that don't feel like letting go of their comfortable childhood realities.
It doesn't mean science is completely flawless, but within the physical reality that we think we occupy, it's our best method for interpreting that world. It's the same method I use when I conclude that religion is a course of history, books that are written by humans and not by god. It's quite easy to see through that, even though the method won't allow me to be 100% certain about it.