Science & facts vs faith

There are a bunch of concepts I want to put into words, but since it’s not an easy thing to do, I’ll ask for forgiveness before getting started.

Descartes, around the 1625, developed the hyperbolical/metaphysical doubt method, also referred to as methodological skepticism, which is based on the rejection of any concept that can’t be irrefutably proven, creating, this way, a well-funded knowledge.

Science nowadays has been based on this theory: if any theorem created can be experimentally disproven, it’s authomatically wrong. At the same time, no being proved wrong doesn’t mean it’s absolutely right, it’s just means we’ll consider it temporary right.

many scientist nowadays, though, think that whatever can’t be explained by science doesn’t exist, or it’s basically fiction or a lie. This is, in my opinion, a wrong point of view.

Same goes for those who accept eyes-closed completely impossible theories that can explain everything, no matter how inconsistent it is (*ehem* 90% of the religions).

Between those 2 paths, there’s a middle one, which I would like to explain:

Imagine we have a proof of something, but science can’t explain it. Just to clarify: it has to be a REAL proof, not something some unknown person dead 1500 years ago wrote on a book, since if we could take this as a proof, in 1500 years people would gladily belive dragons existed on earth, and basically we humans are alive thanks to a little hobbit aided by an elf, a dwarf, a mage and the king of Gondor… absurd right? tell this to the majority of mankind.

Back to my point. For anyone that has meaningly deepened the world of science, there’s a limit. There’s a top, ahead of which we don’t know absolutely anything, basically because we haven’t reached that point YET. And this limit it’s not as far as many people might think, in fact, it’s pretty close to the everyday world. It’s true we can create magnificient devices that allow us to be connected with each other 24/7, but at the same time we’re unable to reproduce the movement of 4 particles anallitically, or know precisely what the weather will be tomorrow.

Now to my example: CHI  (sometimes referred to as Ki, Qi,…)

I’ve been practicing martial arts for a good while now, and I’ve felt, and used, and practiced the chi. Yeah, it’s a real thing. And as a physicist I can’t ensure it can’t be explained by modern physics.

Obviously, chi is not a matter of spiritual energies flowing across the universe through your body to enlighten anything. Nor it’s your spirit, nurtured by years of meditation connecting two worlds. It’s just a matter of classical mechanics. The problem is, the human body is way too complex for this to be explain easily by the formulas we’ve known till now.

Since it’s not possible for this to be explained by modern physics, it needs a name, and Chi is just fine. I don’t belive in spiritual worlds connecting with us, or weird energies flowing through our bodies, same as I don’t belive that some superior being controlls my existence, though I know for sure science hasn’t reached it’s limit, in fact, we barely know a thing about our Universe, hence, if someone comes up with a theory for something that still hasn’t been proved, why looking for a new name, if there’s already one?

Everyone knows how it is to be in the white part or the black one, but interesting things always happen in between 😉

a last image that made me laugh today 😉

Remember that there are way too many religions in this world, and at most only one can be true. Considering this, what’s the probability that yours is the correct one? and what’s the probability that none of them are?


2 responses to “Science & facts vs faith

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s