May not be of interest,
but the Reform branch on Judaism has a prayer for "Doubt" in their
High Holiday services.
That may be one reason why some have become such good scientists.
Richard


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>
> Why we debate religion: two completely different and frequently
> confused types of truth.
>
> There are two completely different types of truth.
>
> The first is rational or objective or public truth, discussed
> in philosophies of "truth" and logic.
>
> The second is truth known only privately or subjectively
> This is the kind of truth that police must rely on when a
> dead body needs identifying. There is an immediate
> certainty of identity that the surviving relative knows inside,
> but only he can be sure of that.
>
> This is also a part of the show-and-tell aspect of courtroom trials.
> The jury must decide on the guilt of the defendant v partly
> logiocally, but to a great extent from the show and tell of evidence.
>
> Objective truth is shareable but not determined personally,
>     and may  be debsatable by philsophers.
>
> Subjective truth is not shareable because it is private and personal.
>     But to many (including me) it is the most certain form of truth,
>     A mother will always be certain that it is or is not her son lying on
>     the table in the morgue.  And in another context, one cannot argue
>     on matters of taste.
>
> This difference in forms of truth is where all of our religious debates
> come from.  Religious truth is only certain to a an individual
> and cannot be shared.
>
>
> I mainly agree. But then why coming with factual assertion, about a Jesus
> guy. I can accept the parabolas, but I can't take a witnessing of 500
> persons, in the writing of a quite biased guy (Paul), from a reasonable
> perspective, as an argument, and it all make dubious any assertion you can
> add.
>
> Your theory above is better, though, and close to the universal machine's
> own theory, actually.
>
> Science is only a modest and interrogative inquiry. It is rooted in the
> doubt, and ask only question. Theories have all interrogation mark.
> It is the separation between science and theology that makes people
> believing that science = truth, when the truth is that science = doubt, but
> with a willingness to make the assumptions as clear as it is needed to be
> sharable, and questioned.
>
> You say "Religious truth is only certain too an individual and cannot be
> shared", but note that is the case also for consciousness, and all
> hallucinated states. If you cannot share, don't try, perhaps.
>
> As a computer scientist, and logician, I study what ideally correct machine
> can discover about themselves and that they cannot share, or even express,
> from different person points of view. Very small machines already provide
> quite non trivial observations on that. Books exists on the subject (Boolos,
> Smorynski, Smullyan, ...).
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to