Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:28:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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 interdimensional ray gun) whether he believes in,
> perceives it, understands it, or not. His failure to include it in his
> reality is, in fact, irrelevant.
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 later, the question becomes 'Does God exist in *human*
reality?' I won't presume to answer the question, though-- but I will say
that I'm prone to argue that the answer CAN be 'no'. I just don't know if
the answer 'yes' is really possible.
> > And thus I would point out that you can only say with certainty that your
> > leap of faith is only smaller for you. What we REALLY should be arguing here
> > is whether that leap of faith is smaller for EVERYONE (all humans, that is).
>
> It is a smaller leap of faith in a literal, arithmetic way. I do not
> accept that anyone in history--other than certain advanced drug users or
> people with extreme neurological disfunction--has ever had a consistent
> metaphysical experience of equal clarity and tangibility as day-to-day
> mundane experience.
Ah- and in so saying I will, without disagreeing with you, point out that
you must concede (in the absence of evidence) that you may be wrong. And I
will even say that I almost agree with you, except in the strength of that
conviction, as should be obvious. :)
> And in any case you're sort of suggesting that God's
> existence is relativist and depends upon the perceptions of His faithful.
> Alternatively, as I suspect you're really positing (hypothetically perhaps),
> God exists whether or not anyone believes in Him. The latter suggestion is
> no doubt more palatable to the faithful among us, but that doesn't make it
> true, either.
Definitely the former, although the latter is a hypothetical possibility. If
there ARE people who HAVE experienced a divine being, and have reached the
conclusion that such a being exists without alternative (via the scientific
method), then for THEM, I have no doubt that God exists.
> > Ah, and here comes that exact arguement-- that for humans, faith in the
> > physical is ALWAYS more prevalent than the metaphsysical. And I'd agree,
> > actually. However, again, I feel it an important distinction to say that
> > such is only true for humans, and that I concede that I may in fact be wrong.
>
> I hesitate to call it wrong, though I might call it incomplete. If
> jellyfish from Orion experience metaphysical reality more concretely than
> physical reality, good for them.
Ah, not quite what I was referring to-- Certainly you're right that such a
view of reality would 'really' be incomplete, not 'wrong', but I was
suggesting what I stated earlier-- that I may be wrong about all humans'
order of 'preference' in physical vs. metaphysical experiences.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 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
|
|
|
|
