That is exactly why assigning a purpose is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Life has gone on happily for eons without us knowing its purpose and continually trying to determine what it might be, if there is one. As far as science is concerned, Monty Python's Meaning of Life is just as valid as any religious doctrine. The fact that we seek answers to questions that we cannot currently answer is something that has driven human discovery and knowledge; it should be encouraged. Saying "we don't need it so I won't bother considering it" would have stifled all manner of creative thinking and scientific discovery.
I have an idea that cannot currently be tested in its entirety. It may be testable at some stage in the future. It includes all evidence based observation and theories. It adapts as more accurate information and more complete theories are developed. It does not adhere rigidly to any dogma. It does not preclude further study. I see that as sensible.
I know everyone will have different ideas, even if they are in the same congregation, swearing blind to the same faith. I am not an apologist for blind faith, religious intolerance or scientific ignorance. It's just that there are some things we can measure and some things we can't.... yet. When I teach, I will try to impose "2+2=4" mathematics in school because it has been verified time after time and is accepted as fact. I won't impose my faith because it is a decision I have come to based on my experiences, feelings etc. I will defend my position and discuss my reasoning, but because it is something that can't be measured, I think people should examine any evidence themselves and come to their own conclusion. That conclusion may be ridiculous but if it was truly arrived at with proper considerations and doesn't rely on flawed or entirely false evidence, it is just as valid as my opinion until there is evidence to separate them.
I have an idea that cannot currently be tested in its entirety. It may be testable at some stage in the future. It includes all evidence based observation and theories. It adapts as more accurate information and more complete theories are developed. It does not adhere rigidly to any dogma. It does not preclude further study. I see that as sensible.
I know everyone will have different ideas, even if they are in the same congregation, swearing blind to the same faith. I am not an apologist for blind faith, religious intolerance or scientific ignorance. It's just that there are some things we can measure and some things we can't.... yet. When I teach, I will try to impose "2+2=4" mathematics in school because it has been verified time after time and is accepted as fact. I won't impose my faith because it is a decision I have come to based on my experiences, feelings etc. I will defend my position and discuss my reasoning, but because it is something that can't be measured, I think people should examine any evidence themselves and come to their own conclusion. That conclusion may be ridiculous but if it was truly arrived at with proper considerations and doesn't rely on flawed or entirely false evidence, it is just as valid as my opinion until there is evidence to separate them.
Love 'n' hugz,
Lord Chad
4th Earl of Catsuit
There is nothing more dangerous than a man who knows he is right.
Lord Chad
4th Earl of Catsuit
There is nothing more dangerous than a man who knows he is right.
