Do you care to tell why?I used to be Agnostic. Then I became a Christian.
In fact, if you consider that science is the queen of empiricism, and you agree that science produces theories with astonishing usefulness, explanatory power, and predictive power, you still have to reconcile with the fact that all scientific theories are provisional and may be replaced by new ones that are very different than the old ones.not everything that exists is subject to the type of empiricism you ask for
In fact, if you consider that science is the queen of empiricism, and you agree that science produces theories with astonishing usefulness, explanatory power, and predictive power, you still have to reconcile with the fact that all scientific theories are provisional and may be replaced by new ones that are very different than the old ones.
You can see this as either an asset or a liability for science as a means to truth. But there it is.
However, if you think this makes science an inferior path to truth, what criteria do you use to evaluate the veracity of other forms of truth? At least science comes with its own verification process.
Yes, I can. Perhaps the most important things are things that cannot be empirically known. My question is how are other paths to truth evaluated? Why is Christian truth more valid than Nazi truth? Or if that is too dramatic, why is Christian fundamentalist truth more or less valid than Buddhist truth?science derives the strengths you mention from measurement ... can you think of things that may be important to life and being, and things that precede being that cannot be measured?
i think the former camp has a better shot at getting into Heaven. :biggrin1:
Why did you pick that particular one? Surely there are others which are just as valid. For example, what is your opinion on the beliefs of Hindus or Muslims, who would probably say something similar but just pick a different god.Yes, good point. Then let me rephrase it. I am agnostic about all possible gods except one.
Not true. Many new theories are provisional, but ones that have been around for a while are as permanent as anything - the law of gravity doesn't change. When theories are updated it is usually not something 'very different', but a slight modification because of new evidence - the evolution of man is a good case in point, as there are few remains available.In fact, if you consider that science is the queen of empiricism, and you agree that science produces theories with astonishing usefulness, explanatory power, and predictive power, you still have to reconcile with the fact that all scientific theories are provisional and may be replaced by new ones that are very different than the old ones.
Hah! If it turns out I'm wrong, then I hope that's the case.
I suppose never feeling the need to have an afterlife has been a major influence on my religious beliefs. I find the whole idea unfathomable, and see no reason to need an afterlife.
Since the afterlife is the crux of most major religions and the driving force behind their moral influence, and since it has no meaning to me, it's kind of a major conflict to being a part of an organized religion.
If I make a positive impact on the world, that's enough legacy for me. I don't need a seat on a cloud somewhere to watch it play out.
we have to do right in this world because it's the right thing to do. heck, even Jesus himself talked about manifesting Heaven and the Kingdom of God here on Earth through our faith and good actions. it's not a place we need to die in order to get to. it's a place we could build here and now, regardless of faith, just through doing right by one another. hell, then at least even if the atheists are right, we all get a taste of it while we're here. :wink:
Do you care to tell why?
What exactly are you referring to when you talk about things that cannot be measured? One obvious answer I can think of is happiness. But just because it cannot be measured doesn't mean you should abandon a rational approach to analysing it.science derives the strengths you mention from measurement ... can you think of things that may be important to life and being, and things that precede being that cannot be measured?
Yes, I can. Perhaps the most important things are things that cannot be empirically known. My question is how are other paths to truth evaluated? Why is Christian truth more valid than Nazi truth? Or if that is too dramatic, why is Christian fundamentalist truth more or less valid than Buddhist truth?