Hi Bruno Marchal  


BRUNO: I mainly agree [that there are two types of truth, one ruling the 
objective world, the other, being subjective, ruling the subjective world]. But 
then why coming with factual assertion, about a Jesus guy. I can accept the 
 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. 

ROGER: This won't convince you, but the Bible should be read as a little child 
(in trust and faith),
so questioning the number 500 just doesn't happen... and if you read the 
creation story as a
bedtime story, all you can say is WOW! I try to read the Bible that way. 

BRUNO: 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. 

ROGER: Objective truth, not subjective truths such as morals.

BRUNO: 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. 

ROGER: Agreed. But scientific truth (like religious truth) must be accepted to 
be useful or meaningful, and acceptance is a value or
a subjective judgment (which cannot be shared).


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to