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.

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.

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.

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.

-Mark

Replies