I'm not sure what kind of "evidence" everybody is looking for. The evidence is all around you every moment of every day. Are you looking for something more? If so, good luck finding some other truth.!
Mark Hi DMB, All, In the thread on demanding evidence for religious bleiefs, I suggested that "If religious claims are intended as some other sort of non-scientific non-historical assertions then these assertions need not face such demands for evidence on historical-scientific terms. If people making such assertions do indeed intend something clearly different in purpose from historical and scientific inquiry and can articulate in what other ways, if not scientifically and historically, these claims may be regarded as true, then perhaps it can indeed be made coherent to say as is so often claimed by theists that there is indeed no conflict between science and religion. Such does not seem possible for theists of the Fundamentalist or Orthodox Catholic variety, but perhaps it is possible for more liberal theists to distinguish religious truth from scientific-historical truth." I'm wonderring whether you have any thoughts on how a belief might be thought of as true if not historically or scientifically true, and what the criteria for such truth may be like. For example, would Joseph Campbell assert in some way that a myth is true? Best, 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/
