Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Is Sight Trustworthy?

The following quote is an excerpt from the psychology textbook that I'm reading for university. "Scientists do not accept ideas on faith or authority, their motto is "Show me!"  This post is not meant to discredit or be rude toward scientists, but its intention is to challenge this idea.

Faith has numerous definitions: 

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith 

This logic may be fighting against the second definition of faith, but it still pertains to the first definition listed, which I think means that these "anti-faith scientists" are indeed acting on some form of faith. So what makes that faith better than the second faith?

Sound, sight, smell, touch, taste. I'm sure we could throw some other physical senses in there too though, such as thinking and hearing.

Sure, this logic may succeed in physical, scientific experiments, but is it wise to use this logic in regards to finding the absolute truth (if it does really exist)? Is it worth putting faith into something like sight? I mean, think of how easy it is to lose that ability - think of how easy it is to lose any of those abilities. These are not solid foundations. 

I personally believe that reality can't be confined by our physical senses. I believe that fragments of true reality can be sensed by humans, but that the cause exists somewhere else. All proven, confirmed, factual advancements which have been made on earth were missing for some period of time, yet they were eventually discovered. This must indicate that the cause exists outside of earth. If reality was intrinsic to physicality, specifically to the earth, we would have had it from the beginning. We would know everything; we wouldn't have to be searching for it. This displays that we don't immediately sense everything that exists. If our findings are limited by time, and our senses die with time, than how is it trustworthy to put faith into those senses, in order to find absolute answers?

You may be wondering to yourself "Why did Graham bring up the truth when it wasn't even mentioned in the quote?" Well, you know, I'm not even sure if what I wrote makes sense. I honestly don't exactly understand my own arguments. I guess I just sensed an opportunity to make pro-faith statements. This was fun.

No comments:

Post a Comment