🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.171314.22145@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) 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.
>
>That's not my definition of 'truth'. Not my friends either.
>What kind of language are you using? It seems to me that your use of 'truth'
>makes possible conflict between 'truth' and 'reality', which are synonyms to mee.

     English. 

     I don't think 'truth' is a scientific concept, and 'reality' only
     seems so insofar as it is a reflection of experimental results.  So,
     'reality' is mutable.  So within science, I see absolutely no conflict
     between 'truth' and 'reality'.  And since I would deny that 'truth'
     is within the domain of science, I do not see how this could generate
     conflict anywhere else.

>>      I might point out here that their 'descriptions of reality'
>>      are not scientific and should not be judged on that basis.
>>      Nor should they be mistaken for science.
>
>They are not scientific, yes. But they still are descriptions of reality,
>which are the domain of science. We agree that they are not science.

     They are not necessarily within the domain of science.  You need
     to understand the difference between appearance and 'truth'.
     They are not necessarily equivalent.

>>>Many say that religion don't contain falsifiable statements. This is wrong,
>>>since virtually all religions I have seen, do contain falsifiable statements.
>>
>>      Only if *they* allow them to be falsifiable.  They are not
>>      necessarily so, even if *you* take them to be falsifiable.
>
>In that case, they don't use the language the way most other people do,
>they are lying, or they are just producing noise.

     I will agree that they do not necessarily play by *your* rules,
     but that does not make them liars.

>>      By using science or logic you can do no such thing.  'God' is
>>      not required to be consistent, nor even logical.  You cannot 
>>      falsify a concept taken on faith.
>
>But I can, I do, and I have done falsifications. The religious persons
>react with confusion, or anger, or completely misunderstand me. Confusion
>appears when they can see no fault in my argumentation, anger appear when
>they think I'm trying to fool them, but misunderstanding is the usual thing,
>because of very different languages, and stereotyped views.

     Maybe it is because you have not understood the differing philosophical
     basis?  I have rarely had such problems discussing science with
     very religious people.  Once you establish that the *rules* are 
     different, and show them that it is not your interest to 'prove'
     them 'wrong' or 'liars', I find that most people are very interested
     in science.
     
>>      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>>      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
>>                                 dale bass
>Because it's a false proposition.

     Prove it false.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926