Spring Break. 11 days off. Yep, more time on my hands than usual :DWar Wagon wrote:rut-roh
Lab Rat has some time on his hands.
Before this is all said and done, someone's going to be springing for a round of Johnny Walker Red, I just know it.
OK - back to my faith vs. evidence bit...
My faith does not require scientific evidence, rational inferences, etc. ...because THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF FAITH!! Faith is believing in something despite having no logical reason for doing so. I have chosen to believe in the Trinity, Christ's divinity, souls, etc. as a matter of faith.
Science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural. This is one of the key ideas good science teachers (myself included) hammer into their students from Day One. It is incredibly inappropriate to demand scientific proof for matters of faith - that's not what science is designed to do. Real science cannot deal with issues like life after death, the nature of God and souls, the nature of good and evil. When scientists (including doctors) make statements about those areas, they are misusing the authority folks have invested in them. When scientists speak to those topics, they do so not as men and women of science, but as average Joes and Janes.
Faith, on the other hand, not only requires no scientific proof, but becomes pointless with it. I require no scientific evidence for my religious beliefs because I don't believe that science has any place in religion.
The folks who argue that there MUST be (or IS) life outside of Earth do so without a shred of scientific EVIDENCE.
No amount of projection based on what they see on this planet is EVIDENCE. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not EVIDENCE.
Stating that my colleague's belief in extraterrestrial life is logical because he is merely making an inference based on his observations of this planet is utter logical horseshit. I could say that I can logically prove the existence of God by projecting the observed qualities of humanity (intelligence, will, power). This argument for God's existence, btw, was tried in the 18th century and blown to shit.
Same weakness applies to my colleague's arguing for life on other planets. If he had stated that he had a hypothesis that there is life on other planets, based on his observations here, great. But he didn't. He said that he absolutely BELIEVED that there IS life on other planets, despite not having a shred of evidence. And he's so wrapped up in/blinded by his belief system that he is willing to conflate hypothetical mathematical gobbledygook with "evidence."
Belief based on a lack of evidence = faith.
[this is what happens when I have that second cup of coffee]