Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:34:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith.
>
> Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be
> consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith--
> in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been
> consistant in the past. But can you PROVE that:
Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly
green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more
pronounced when I wake up sometimes.
>
> A. they will ALWAYS be so
Clearly I can't. :-)
> B. that other 'inconsistant' senses aren't really being consistant in a way
> you can't see?
Or inconsistent in a way I can't see. Yes to both.
>
> Hence, who's to say in the theoretical world that one sense is NECESSARILY
> better than anther?
Since we are speaking of a non-theoretical world, I'm not sure what this has
to do with it.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8867
>
> > Compare perceptions. See what is consistent and follows a logical process.
>
> Exactly! And as time goes on you have faith in your logical decision, even
> though it hasn't been PROVEN. It's just been shown to be likely. After all,
> isn't that all the scientific method can show us?
Science just explains it and hopefully can define the rules that produce the
results.
>
> > You keep making the assumption that somehow, somewhere along the chain,
> > scientists stop applying the logical process (which they do on occasions,
> > but then they made a mistake in doing so, and then we are not talking about
> > the scientific process).
>
> Ah no-- They don't necessarily stop being logical... it's just that they
> come to accept as fact that which is not necessarily so.
Then they stopped applying the logical process and have opened themselves to
error (and yes, I noted that they are human and do just that on occasion -
which is one of the reasons why scientists seek to duplicate work rather
than accept it on faith). You once again made the assumption that somehow,
somewhere along the chain, the scientists stop applying the logical process.
>
> > I've addressed this continuously and you keep ignoring what I have said and
> > restating the exact same thing over and over. You are simply playing a
> > semantic game with the word "faith".
> > ...
> > Science=faith. Religion=faith. Therefore science=religion. And you just
> > denied that that's what you were saying in another message. A specious
> > conclusion based on two different applications of the word "faith" and
> > hoping since the word is the same, no one notices the word as applied isn't
> > the same.
Why leave this in and cut out your own comments where you essentially draw
the conclusion I note above (science=faith, etc)? Note that the comments
above (two different applications of "faith") apply to your comments below.
>
> Hopefully this'll clear up what I'm trying to say:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8867
>
> > And sure enough, you went right back to the semantic game. Sigh.
>
> Oh? I've disclosed the definition of 'faith' I'm using (after the clear
> misunderstanding), and you've done the same. Hence, you should know what I
> mean when I say it, and I should know what you mean when you say it, yes? Or
> do you think one of us is more right than the other?
>
> DaveE
Because you went right back to the science=faith, blah, blah, blah claim.
You are trying to equate "faith" based on logical proof as the same "faith"
as religious faith that doesn't require such. You are drawing conclusions I
don't agree with. It remains a semantic game.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B? (I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't see? Or yes you can (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith-- in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been consistant in the past. (...) (23 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
