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

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:41:59PM -0700, Joseph Fatula wrote:
> 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.
Sure.

> 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.
Touché.  More below.

> 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.
But what evidence?  Can you point it out and say "this is why I believe"?
Can you disprove alternate explanations?   Such evidence is universally
unscientific.  That doesn't mean invalid, it just means that different
standards apply.  And the curriculum taught in public schools uses the
standards of science.

> 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.
Because it's easily reproducible: look up.  What?  You're blind?
Well, then you can go by the fact that *every*single*person*
who has ever looked up at the sky has asserted that it's blue
(or whatever term in their language encompasses that wavelength).
There are no alternative sky-color "religions" maintaining that
it's actually red, or yellow, or what have you; there have been no
wars fought over the alleged color of the sky.  And that is why
the blueness of the sky is not a religious topic.

-Mark

Replies