🚀 go-pugleaf

Cameron Randale Bass writes:

>>> Actually, most core doctrine is taken on faith.  There ain't no
>>> way to determine the 'truth' of faith.  It's 'true' until the 
>>> last adherent dies, after which may be debate.

>>You can believe in something that can be proven wrong. What's the point?

> I don't know?  Does there have to be a 'point'?

Yes. If something is proven wrong and you still believe in it you're
views about the world are inconsistent.

> Not necessarily within their religion.  Within science certainly,
> but you cannot insist that they play by *your* rules in
> *their* religion.

>>> Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>>> that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?

> You seem to be having difficulties with delineation between
> science and religion.  Let me help you out, if you're talking about
> 'gods' your rules for science do not necessarily apply.  Similarly,
> in science there is no place for unfalsifiable concepts like 'God'.

Hmmm. I conclude from this that your opinion about science is an
instrumentalistic one: you use it to describe some things you want
to measure.

My view is realistic: I believe that there exists a reality, independant
wether we know this or not. The main thing QM has to learn us about this
is that the interaction between observers and the rest of reality is not
always neglectable.

Therefore, I believe in only one reality. This reality can be described
by science. I've never seen any hint that there exists anything more.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************