Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)

From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
Subject: Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)


> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:31:16PM -0700, Joseph Fatula wrote:
> > Still, statistical information here is not the point.  If I show you a
> > photograph of something you're not willing to believe in, the fact that
> > other photographs are generally true will not make you believe in what
my
> > photo is showing.
>
> Not by itself, no.  It would take more than a photograph to make me
> believe in, say, Nellie, or flying saucers, or any number of such
> claims of unusual, distinct events.   Heck, if I experienced those
> things firsthand I'd be doubtful of the evidence of my own senses.
> I'd probably assume first that I was being tricked, and (distant)
> second that I was developing schizophrenia.
What that would suggest to me is that you already have a worldview, and that
things that violate it are doubted and disbelieved, while things that fit it
need no support.

> On the other hand, there are plenty of volcanoes; I've seen one
> firsthand; there have been eruptions in my lifetime.  So an assertion
> that a particular volcano erupted at a particular time doesn't require
> such rigourous proof.  It's not a worldview-altering claim.
Ditto.

> The existence or nonexistence of God (never mind petty squabbles
> about what His name is, or which if any humans were actually His
> messengers or offspring . . .) is clearly a worldview-altering
> topic.  It is therefore subject to a higher, not lower, standard of
> proof - if you insist upon looking at it in scientific terms.
It's only a worldview altering topic if the result is different than your
worldview.  For someone who already thinks God exists, His existance is part
of the worldview, therefore as easily accepted as you accept the existance
of volcanoes, and therefore an assertion that God did something at a
particular time doesn't require a rigorous proof.  It's not a
worldview-altering claim.

> But very few who believe in God would contend that we have scientific
> proof of His existence.  They would instead say that it's a matter
> of faith, and, as such, subject to different standards of "proof".
> That is precisely the difference to which Stone was alluding,
> and with which I agreed.  And it is these differing standards that
> mark the dividing line between "religious" and "nonreligious" teaching.
>
> To look at it from the skeptic's point of view: if you have to resort to
> "faith" to convince someone of something, then it's religious.
>
> To look at it from a believer's point of view: if something is so
> inobvious that you have to "prove" it to believe it, then it's not
> religious.
>
> Either way, you end up with the same teachings on the same side of
> the line.  And the ones on the religious side of the line don't
> belong in public school curricula.
Many of the people who believe in God would say that they've seen enough
evidence to convince them, placing the existence of God as a fact in their
worldview.  I've seen enough evidence to convince me that the sky is blue,
and that is a fact in my worldview, yet no one would consider that on the
religious side of the line.

Reply