islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "but what im talking about here is faith claims
> versus faith claims. what im asking is what makes
> one faith claim more likely to be true than some
> other faith claim."---indy
>
> I think pb and others who genuinely feel their
> religious beliefs are threatened by science really
> do understand just what you're saying,
My faith is not threatened by science. I'm a theist. I worship the One who created science.
> and that's precisely why they try so hard to try to make
> science, just another competing religion.
You, not I, are the one making a religion out of science.
> I suspect this is why pb is so enamored with
> subjectivity. If you can convince yourself that
> truth, rather than being "that which conforms to
> reality", is instead, something subjective,
Ho hum. I don't believe that truth is subjective. I believe in and use antibiotics. What I believe is that human being with flawed and finite minds, can only know truth in subjectivity. This conversation is as good an example of that as I can imagine. Here indy and you, isle, are expressing passion about something as cold as reality--what is--and are arguing that I have a distorted view of nothing other than what we see and touch and taste and smell and hear moment by moment.
indy,
I have never said that truth is subjective. I say often that subjectivity is truth and/or truth is subjectivity. i. e., human can and should live in reality with inner passion.
> and science is just a competing religion, then the
> belief that men can walk on water, for example, is
> just as likely to be true as the belief that men
> can't walk on water.
>
> In the real world, they know people can't row a
> boat out to the middle of a deep lake, step out of
> the boat and walk back to shore on top of the
> water, and if they are knowledgeable in science,
> they know the scientific explanation as to why
> this is true.
>
> But that scientific explanation as to why you sink
> into the water, since it's a religious belief, is
> no more likely to be true than their religious
> belief that men "can" walk on water. It's all
> matter of faith, therefore science can no more
> threaten their religious beliefs than can the
> beliefs of others...since they are all just
> beliefs... And that's fine with me as long as they
> don't start doing dangerous or harmful faith based
> things, like urging people to handle venomous
> snakes, or withholding life saving medical
> treatment from their child etc. In Miguel De
> Unamuno's masterpiece, "Tragic Sense Of Life", he
> describes this, what we all, to varying degrees,
> probably go through, as the "battle between the
> heart and the head".