 | | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) I'll see your Ponty and raise you some PK Dick; reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Okay, that's not a conclusive answer, but it entertains me. Once again I think the essence in our difference lies in how we (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) I think that while I agree with that, I'll point out the clarification I'd make (more Ponty, actually, IIRC). Reality is, in *whole* or in *part*, that which is unignorable-- I.E. that which doesn't go away without you believing in it, as you (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) This, too, is Postmodernism, and it depends on a solipsistic "me first" sort of reality. Certainly the caveman is dead, and that should be enough for him, but the agent of his death is separate from his perception of it. It is a handgun (or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) Exactly! The question arising forthwith, though, is whether we should go about saying what reality is. Should we say 'God does not exist.'? No. We should say 'God does not exist in MY reality.' The distinction should be made. And as I imply (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
