Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:43:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1255 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Now, how could an intellectual or a scientist ever hope to believe this God
> > exists?
>
> Don't put yourselves (as Christians) down; intellectuals and scientists, I
> imagine, would believe through Faith just like any other Christian, though I
> suspect you're appropriately drawing a distinction between ability to
> believe through Faith and the scientific necessity of empircal evidence.
> Fair enough, in that case.
I agree there. The struggle, if you will, between Science and Christianity
is that very drive for emperical evidence to back something up (continuing
to play the assumption made by John, even though I believe that God does
exist and he is the Christian God, etc).
> > Because they can only know to be true what they can prove. God by
> > definition is unprovable, but scientists insist upon applying the scientific
> > method to everything. Their own intellect becomes their stumbling block.
>
> Not their intellect, but their blind adherence to dogma (which could be
> asserted of some though not all Christians). I for one am willing to accept
> that, whether or not God exists, belief is a matter of Faith, and that no
> amount of "proof" will convince a true non-believer, nor will any amount of
> "counter-proof" convince a true believer.
Yep. And I agree, there's strict adherence to dogma on either side, and I
believe that on both sides that adherence is a stumbling block.
> Having said all that, though, one can still subject earthly events, even
> supposed miracles far in the past, to empirical scrutiny and evaluate their
> validity in those terms.
True, they can, and should be studied - but fairly and objectively, without
introducing bias. And if I can go so far, I would say that if something
cannot be proven naturally and yet historical accounts and archeological
evidence can back it up, than it should be attributed to something supernatural.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
231 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
|
|
|
|
