by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
if a person has a faith that demonstrably supports them in their life, it is unlikely to contradict our observed reality, because that would cause cognitive dissonance and lead to stress. - Retro
And yet millions of evangelical christians go on believing in creationism and a literal Adam & Eve and a fall from perfection when the facts prove this is impossible.
Philosophical points really are not that complicated. - Seraphim
So how do you manage to make it seem totally esoteric?
retrovirus: " Maybe we can agree that holding stubbornly to a belief that can be demonstratedto be based on incorrect facts or logic won't help a person in any way."
sure we can, but I dont think I have given the impression to believe otherwise.
EdenOne, I agree with what you say. There are limits we can draw, however, to define that which could not have occurred. As an example, I cannot claim Columbus lived the same time as Aristotle, because that is patently false. Columbus spoke Italian, a language that evolved from Latin, itself a language that took time to develop, and that coexisted with Greek (though not the older Greek of Aristotles) in the Roman Empire.
EdenOne that was an excellent post when you said:
'Reality' as we know it is defined by observation. There is reality that escapes observation. This can be demonstrated by theoretical mathematics and physics.
Science deals only with reality as it can be grasped through observation and/or experimentation. And even then, that 'reality' is a floating concept subject to interpretation.
Eden
It may be useful at times to call the earth flat, just as it may be useful sometimes to call it round or a sphere or whatever else. But to declare that the earth "really is" one particular linguistic formulation and not another is what is ridiculous. They are just words don't you realise that? Context is everything.
Before dismissing this point out if hand, do you realise there is a difference between saying, for example, that humans did not evolve from earlier life forms, and saying that, while it appears humans evolved from earlier life forms, other explanations cannot definitely be ruled out. Since they can't be ruled out then other explanations should not be silenced. The enforcement of one explanation and the exclusion of other narratives is the route to tyranny. That's what is wrong with that way of viewing language as being able to provide certainty as far as reality is concerned.
Since they can't be ruled out then other explanations should not be silenced.
Descent from a created first pair 6000 years ago can be ruled out 100%.
That Homo sapiens evolved over million of years from non-human ancestors is 100% true.
Nobody said anything should be silenced. Let the creationists shout their ignorance from the rooftops.
According to you there is "no such thing as a fact". There is no basis for discussion with that sort of silliness.
Cofty,
And yet millions of evangelical christians go on believing in creationism and a literal Adam & Eve and a fall from perfection when the facts prove this is impossible
True. Perhaps a lack of education helps. Personally I find it sad when people need to insist on religious dogma as an apparantly vital component of their faith. It does make their God seem limited. . .
Descent from a created first pair 6000 years ago can be ruled out 100%.
Really? I think you lack imagination. Like Descartes' demon, it is certainly possible to imagine other scenarios, as indeed some have, such as that the devil distorted the evidence to mislead people, or that God himself did it to test people's faith. Now please get my point here, I am not saying those explanations are at all persuasive, likely, or useful. But can they 100% be ruled out? I can't see how. If you know a way to rule out such explanations 100% I'd be very interested to hear it.
SBF - If you want to indulge in mental masturbation do it in private.
Slimboy, Descartes couldn't even state he was alive definitively (solipsism). He has some nice thought experiments, but his philosophy fails miserably with what we have observed. Of course, you could deny any and everything, but when it comes down to it, you wouldn't stop eating, breathing and going to work to gain sustenance just to prove one of these thought experiments, would you?
