Thanks for the comments, I will try to flesh out my position a little.
Most theological discussions between people of differing viewpoints I've encountered online, including this one, involve people using the word 'fact' repeatedly. I find it unhelpful and mentioned it earlier in the thread to try and distance myself from the 'factual science' comment made by Gman. I don't want to give the impression that my opinions are based on indisputable facts, they're merely my opinions cobbled together from bits of science, philosophy, theology, art and countless other bits and bobs. I am not here to present a set of undeniable facts and then show the robustness of my worldview as it derived from them. I'm here to share in different points of view. I'm interested in different subjective opinions of objective reality.
The existence of scientific facts makes no difference. F=MA is a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but when pushed to extremes it breaks down. Evolution is also a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but also begins to breakdown when pushed to extremes. Questioning my own existence also has its place, who am I?, but I find it useful to just get on with things, such as typing stuff on forums, most of the time. When pushed to the extreme the concept of 'I' also becomes difficult.
This limerick nicely demonstrates the issue:
Though it seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see, is the I that knows me,
When I know, that I know, that I know.
The term orbit implies gravity, we've not yet figured out what gravity implies. The Theory of Everything is in part the attempt to understand gravity and its relationship to other forces. If you are stating it is fact that the earth orbits the sun then you are doing so using language derived from concepts we don't fully understand.
Light is another good example that has been mentioned. We have a concept of light but that concept has been changing all the time, who would have thought hundreds of years ago that we would be using light as a basis for defining spacial measurements. To say that light is a fact is fine, as long as you are willing to be elastic in your definition of light.
hopefulcynic wrote:Yeah, I tried to address his "no facts" argument in a post above. I think we are in agreement that there are facts and that humans have the ability to discover them.
That's the age old question. Are we discovering fundamental laws of the universe of are we making up fundamental laws of the universe. I think much of it rests on the very bedrock of mathematics, are we creating mathematics or are we discovering mathematics?
Einstein said:
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
I try to aim for a balance of faith and doubt. The religious approach tends to favour faith and the scientific approach tends to favour doubt, I tend to approach religion and science with an equal measure of faith and doubt.
In closing I would add that if you choose not to believe in light, gravity, orbits, evolution or your own existence you are still able to go about your daily business, join forums and post.
If you do choose to see some of these things as fact make sure you fill in the definitions using a pencil as they will need to be continually altered.
If you believe in a god then the scope for definition is almost endless as the variety of religion found across the world shows.
