Steve, John, Platt, I agree 100% with John, bar one word ... when he says ... > > My opinion is that not all theists are irrational, though most probably are, > going on the evidence. But taking a postulate as fundamental is a big no-no > in metaphysical speculation. > > You ask how we can tell the difference between the rational theist and the > non-rational and I'd say the difference is right at the point of being > willing to be objective about one's beliefs. > And that word is "objective". I prefer "contingent", and then look at the processes people use to evaluate their beliefs. (At which point we jump into the other thread on pathesism and whoreshipping nature ...)
In a way, exactly as Platt (and myself) have said many times before .. "As Godel's Theorem reminds us, all knowledge is ultimately faith-based." The scientists are "losing their edge" as John puts it, because they tend to ignore their faith in their process and simply claim higher moral ground. Ian 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/
