Steve, 
when you boil it down there is only a relative certainty about any 
observable phenomena. Science and religion make attempts at
understanding
reality. They both play the same role. 
Simplifying and projecting to grasp and relate, this is what we do.
Nothing is objectively absolute. Understanding is subjective.
True is what we "interpret" as congruent with observable phenomena.

In other words we are not certain of anything. We develop
interpretations, we ASSUME are true. What I'm saying is no one really
Knows a damn thing and Based on Sam Harris's statement maybe we should
Just Shut up. Because we both don't "know" with absolute certainty
A dagnabbed thing.

Regards,
-Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Peterson
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MD] The End of Faith

Hi Platt, Ron

> Quoting Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> "Faith is
>> typically reserved for describing one's beliefs in things,  
>> concepts, or
>> ideals that cannot be objectively experienced or proven. However,  
>> from
>> an epistmological perspective, both religion and science are belief
>> systems. The only significant difference is how we have come to  
>> obtain
>> the knowledge in each. In fact, I would go so far as to say that  
>> the two
>> are not mutually exclusive, and when viewed with the proper  
>> perspective,
>> they are actually complimentary."
>
Platt said:
> I agree, Ron. Good point.

Steve:
How are science and religion "complementary"?

Ron's quote continues:
"Religious faith is typically placed in
some underlying assumptions about our own existence, meaning and
purpose."

Steve:
If religions taught that it is good to live as though existence has  
this or that meaning and purpose there would be no conflict with  
science and no conflict between religions over real estate and dogma.  
The problem is that religions also make historical and cosmological  
claims to be accepted on faith. This is the sort of faith that we  
would be better off without.

Ron's quote continues:
"Scientific faith is based in the belief, or assumption, that
given enough time and careful consideration of the right questions,
there is no (physical) phenomenon in the universe that cannot be
understood."


Steve:
I have no such faith in science. Sam Harris also does not preach that  
science will some day understand everything about the universe. He  
says that people shouldn't claim to know things that they don't know  
or encourage others to believe based on faith. He says that people  
should hold all their beliefs to the same standards of reason and  
evidence rather than making a special exclusion for beliefs espoused  
by religions.

Regards,
Steve



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to