Thursday, October 14, 2010
Science doesn't have a definition written on unbreakable stone, but is whatever seems to be the best possible attempt to define an objective and verifiable truth. I don't see why you would want to resign yourself to anything but the best possible attempt to understand the world. Knowing that consciousness is modulated by physiological conditions, religious experiences can be triggered in the lab, knowing that we are biased by nature and our brain plays illusions on us all the time; I am sceptical to revelations or other forms of personal truths. Because my brain is so evidently imperfect, and to avoid deluding myself, is that I prefer simple explanations based on shareable, verifiable and self-consistent evidence. If I were to be religious, which of the arbitrary beliefs should I choose? Will the gods be worth my veneration? Will I be worth their concern? I reject that speculative path with confidence. I am better off admitting ignorance most of the time, and when lucky embracing good explanations that do not require supernatural storytelling or blind faith. I have grown out of the myths and I can give testimony that it feels good to live a godless and wonderful world.
Posted by Unknown at 5:20 AM