@Karthikdeva Well to be fair there is something between science and faith. If you have a personal expiernce providing you with personal evidence you cnt reproduce for others publicly then that would be evidence based but neither science nor faith.
For example if an angek manifested before your eyes and said hello, that person would not be using faith or science in their belief that the angel exists.
@freemo So everytime when an angel like scenario happens its exclusive for 'a' person? So he cannot prove its credibility? (I 100% agree that he feels & believes that he saw an angel, but how can I agree that it was indeed an angel who paid a visit and not something else?, how can i trust his account?)
These personal experiences with personal evidences cannot be reproduced because we don't understand it completely, do you agree?
Now, since we don't understand why we feel-what we feel, we can't decipher them in terms of rational discourse.
In simpler terms, angel manifestation scenarios are hard for our primitive brain to comprehend. Hence we recourse to religion that claims to explain them?
@Karthikdeva Presuming there is a god, and he, and by extension the angels are all power and presuming that the god's intention is that his existance not be objectively verified en masse, then it would be trivial for such a being to ensure that every visitation by an angel would leave no evidence.
I do not agree that it is a lack of understanding, per se. It may be a lack of ability. If the world is just a thought or a whim to a god then he may just make his objective verifiability a fundamental law. As such no amount of understanding would change the fact that we cant "prove" him objectively yet still call on evidence to determine he exists to ourselves.
@Karthikdeva By the way I should point out that while it is perfectly rational to dismiss someone who claims evidence of seeing an angel, obviously, in terms of evidence keep in mind that is basically a position not based on any evidence either way on your part. Just supposition on what really happened, which while reasonable isnt any more provable usually
I like that you said Belief System, which everyone has, whether they (or you) describe themselves as Religious.
I think the question also comes down to : what do you mean by "science" that one can reject? Does it mean methods, popular opinion on conclusions (consensus) or simple a competing Belief System?
@SecondJon There are two types I believe,
1, A person directly contradicting a scientific fact and chooses to ignore the said fact to cater/nurture their belief system.
2. When no valid argumentation is discovered for a subject yet, the masses resort to pseudoscience.
Some examples which advocate someone rejecting science over their 'belief' systems are anti-vaxxing, flat-earth theory, Neo-creationism, Holocaust denial, etc. (
So what I mean by science is 'Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.' (definition from Wikipedia)
@Karthikdeva Reason only works within a set of first principles. Those first principles are things that we must believe without reason. Additionally, those things we must believe to think and interact with the world are not enough to grant us meaning. Often having principles that make life meaningful is more important than having ones that make good scientific predictions. Also most people aren't scientists. Science is just what some guy in a lab coat says it is after taking a lot of money from nebulous sources to play with expensive toys. Why wouldn't you doubt that?
@Karthikdeva .....classic example is the lemon and chilli on ISRO rockets and also a coconut ,sometimes
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.