| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > your requiring evidence to support a belief in God is flawed reasoning.
>
> No, it's a personal choice. It is also a rejection of faith-based beliefs.
>
> What exactly is wrong with you, John?
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Now here's the statement--faith-based reasoning...
Now if you said specifically you reject Christian (or insert whatever deist
religion here) faith-based beliefs, that's something I'd not have a problem
with, 'cause there's also Scientific faith-based reasoning.
There are fundamental axioms in everything--things that we just take for
granted. When I was taking some math courses at university they went into
some fundamental axioms that mathematics needed in order for math to
work--axioms that cannot be proven conclusively but since they fit the known
pattern, we just 'take it as said...'
We have faith in the foundation of science. I'm not saing that science is
rigid and has not the ability to change and adapt as new ideas present
themselves (as my point of inert gasses being unable to react in any
chemical equation prior to 1967 clearly shows). Sure, new ideas surface,
they are tested, and 'assimilated' if valid, into our understanding of
science and the physical universe.
But time and time again, I hit the wall of "Science", which is, that if it
can't be demonstrated scientifically, that it does not exist, and if it does
exist it is somehow less important. I reiterate my missed point that
Sceince can enhance and improve what we know about our physical universe--I
mean my point about telescopes and microscopes was not that 'well if we just
had better eyes...' a la *just* the 5 senses, my point was that science
observes and measures the physical world, which includes energy as well as
matter. Radio waves, magnetic fields, and such fall into the purview of
science.
But there is more to life than just the physical universe. There are
concepts and areas of life outside the scope of what scientists can measure
and observe, and all my point has been that those aspects are just as
important for living, for humanity, and they don't necessarily have to be
rational in the scope of science to be as important as science.
I personally thought that Post-Modernity dealt away with this kind of
intelligencia block
Science is *not* the end all of understanding. The king is dead. Long live
whatever...
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Are you referencing the "faith" that I place in my ability to observe? Or something more? (...) Like what? (...) I have not personally discovered a method of inquiry that stands up to scrutiny as well as science does. So what do you mean? (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) No, it's a personal choice. It is also a rejection of faith-based beliefs. What exactly is wrong with you, John? -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
