Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:19:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take
> > it on faith (or don't, I suppose...). It doesn't matter how large or small
> > the body of evidence is, you are still CHOOSING to accept or not accept it.
> > Any and all evidence that you do not directly observe is testimonial in
> > nature. The difference in accepting Brazil on faith and accepting God on
> > faith is a matter of degree, not of kind. (which is, I think, where this
> > particular branch started)
>
> Again, find a reproducable test - simply trying to argue semantics is a
> confusion of faith-based religion with evidence-based science.
We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence.
What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything*
on faith.
To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two
most basic of which are that the world is consistent to our perceptions of
it (constancy of objects) and that our thought processes are valid
(constancy of self).
We make these assumptions at all levels. You are assuming (in a broad
sense) that there is no vast conspiracy to convince you of the existence of
Brazil. You believe there is no such conspiracy - you take it on faith.
You have no evidence one way or the other. (Occam's razor does not address
certainty, it addresses probability)
Do you see what I'm driving at here? I'm not trying to say your basic
assumptions aren't valid, or that you shouldn't be making those assumptions
- I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that they *are* assumptions, and
differ only in degree from other assumptions you may (or may not) be making.
A quick example is that you've (I'm assuming) taken it on faith that I'm
someone named James. You don't have evidence either way - and regardless of
whether or not you can get that evidence, right now, it's an assumption, and
a matter of faith.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Actually, you are trying to say everything is equally valid because everything comes down to faith. I disagree. (...) Maybe. Test it against knowns and see if consistent results are obtained. (...) No, you are assuming that I am assuming such. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) You are confusing an overwhelming body of evidence that reduces the probablity of inaccuracy to virtually nothing with "faith". You are also confusing reproducable results through a set experiment with no reproducable results that have no set (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
