Q – Skepticism – Do you have to see evidence of something or is nothing sometimes evidence?

Q – Skepticism – Do you have to see evidence of something or is nothing sometimes evidence?

Getting into debates of science vs religion, creationism vs evolution, often leaves me feeling like only half the discussion is had and it’s a waste of time for both sides.

Most creationists who argue this topic do so from the xtian POV first of all. It isn’t the only religion though. And the problems faced then aren’t the same.


For eg. If you take the Bible literally, there is a timeline of approx 6000 yrs since creation.

But not all xtians take the Bible literally. And what about the other faiths?


Scientists, esp astronomers, consider the possibility of null space or voids when they study the universe. But they rarely consider applying that to whether things exist in faith that you just can’t see. Like the existence of God. Or maybe it’s not by seeing the thing, but the thing’s actions or effects. Like we know wind exists because we see effects and feel it. But we’ve never seen wind. Radioactive isotopes were studied long before ‘proof’ of them was found too. Sometimes it’s about the equipment we study with. Scientists theorize that things like worm holes and black holes exist. But they’ve never seen those either.


Anthropomorphism is an issue when you look at other species, the possibility of the divine, and other cultures. We expect them to be like us rather than considering them as they are. Which in the case of divinities, we project human definitions of things like good and evil onto them.


Do miracles exist? We certainly do know that we can’t explain everything. But does that mean it’s a miracle?


What about the existence of the soul? We’ve scanned the body and brain head to toe. We might not have an explanation for how everything works or it’s purpose for being there (a good eg is the appendix), but there are no empty places where a soul could exist. But however you see humans in the chain of species, either we are unique in deed or in hubris. Which in the end, doesn’t make much difference. We’re then unique.


I could go on (and have in separate discussions IRL and on line). But I think you get the idea of what type of things you either take on faith, as cultural thought, or you discount as a skeptic. But as a skeptic, should you discount them altogether? That’s what I’m really asking.


If you’re familiar with Einstein, you know he was actually a man of faith as well as science. I think based on what I’ve read about him, he’d say that the absence of proof doesn’t automatically mean something doesn’t exist. It just means you have to keep looking,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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