On 29 Jan, 14:11, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's be clear, an empirical position -- say on the Earth orbiting the sun > -- does not require "faith" in the religious sense of the word. Or not any > longer.
That was my point...not any longer. The same goes for falsifiability. There comes a time when technology catches up and things that once required faith can become falsifiable. But only when that happens can we state with surety that the 'thing' was ALWAYS falsifiable. >There's a reasonable amount of "faith" required for anything, but > this operates in degrees and a few people in this thread are trying pull it > into the realm of the absurd. > > I can see why people like Pat and Lee are hoping that a position of > "everything requires faith" is accepted; such proposition would seem to put > God and science on similarly valid intellectual footings. In other words, by > weakening science, theism is strengthened. Such a position won't be accepted > though, since it demands that we also accept that the level of faith > required for the two is in anyway comparable. It isn't. > > Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
