Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] creation myths

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
>
> > You know Mike, I've come to expect more of you.  A lot of your 
> > arguments are well reasoned and make me think.
> >
> > This post I think however is beneath you both with consideration of 
> > intellect and of reasoning and rhetoric.
> >
> > You already know that there is a percentage of the population, we'll 
> > not say what percentage, except to say that it is significant enough 
> > to be discussed, that believes by Faith that The Holy Bible and its 
> > "myths" and stories and parables and historical accounts to be to one 
> > degree or another absolutely true.
> >
> > You know this.
> >
> > You know that people take it seriously.
>
>
> Yes, and it concerns me.  It's absolute inane madness to believe "on 
> faith" that what is written in some book is all true.  This faith-based 
> belief shows an utter contempt for reason and it is probably the 
> greatest problem currently facing humanity.  There are millions upon 
> millions of people who have a different "faith" than yours and there is 
> no way to resolve conflicts with those people because none of you can 
> admit to the possibility that you are mistaken.
>
> Why should I feel any higher regard for your "faith" than I feel for the 
> psychotic delusion of one mental patient or the idiotic "Flying 
> Spaghetti Monster?"  One of the reasons you people have been able to 
> carry on with this madness for centuries now is that you have 
> successfully harmed or intimidated people into shutting up.  Enough is 
> enough.
>
> Mike

I will be brief, because I think we have discussed these things before, 
and also because I am in a bit of a hurry.

But it seems to me that the whole subject of epistimology (how do we 
know what we know) is not as easy as you make it out to be.  In 
particular, if you really start thinking about what the scientific 
method really is, you find that it cannot be rigorously justified any 
better than any other method.  At the end of the day, you simply get 
down to things like "it just feels right" or "it seems to work well so far."

Another issue - I think that one has to account for the fact that I 
might have some piece of knowledge which I just know to be true, but 
which I cannot communicate to you (because, for example, it was a one 
time or otherwise limited event which you happened not to have 
experienced).  You might be doubtful that I am reporting it accurately 
or truthfully, but you can never be sure that I am wrong.

Obviously one can think of many different shades of these kinds of 
things going on.  But the point is, I don't think that one can 
simplistically say that the scientific method is the only sure way to 
find the best approximation to truth.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion