Tweet
Originally posted by Elok
Wow, you're being marginally less obnoxious, I'm honored. Have a cookie, Moby.
It depends what you mean by "know," really. It cannot be known for certain, empirically. From your perspective, I suppose that's a "no." Thing is, it isn't a no from my perspective, and there's no hard-and-fast logical reason why it should be a no. Normally, in matters where there is no certain proof, ignoring the possibility is a sound rule of thumb (though still not a logical necessity).
However, in this case it would be the nature of the beast to be unknowable in any certain terms, assuming for the sake of argument that it is true. The only evidence there is to go by is subjective, unverifiable, immediate and personal. But that "evidence" (I feel silly using such a pompous term) does exist, at least in my experience, and what there is of it is viscerally and profoundly real. Where such experiences clash with the verifiable truth, e.g. a man who is certain that the government is spying on his brainwaves, which is patently impossible as well as absurd, it is more reasonable to assume science is right and the individual is wrong.
But religion--or at least my religion--is not such a case. There's no referee here. You have nothing but personal incredulity to bring to bear against me: "how likely is it that there's an invisible, all-powerful being who yadda yadda yadda...?" But that's BS. It's BS when a fundy whines about how incredible the complexity of ostensibly evolved life is, and it's BS now. We're talking about a cause here, not an effect, and speaking of probability is meaningless. It's a case of my perceptions vs. your contempt for them, and that's just no contest. If I can't trust my senses, what cause do I have for trusting anything at all?
Wow, you're being marginally less obnoxious, I'm honored. Have a cookie, Moby.
It depends what you mean by "know," really. It cannot be known for certain, empirically. From your perspective, I suppose that's a "no." Thing is, it isn't a no from my perspective, and there's no hard-and-fast logical reason why it should be a no. Normally, in matters where there is no certain proof, ignoring the possibility is a sound rule of thumb (though still not a logical necessity).
However, in this case it would be the nature of the beast to be unknowable in any certain terms, assuming for the sake of argument that it is true. The only evidence there is to go by is subjective, unverifiable, immediate and personal. But that "evidence" (I feel silly using such a pompous term) does exist, at least in my experience, and what there is of it is viscerally and profoundly real. Where such experiences clash with the verifiable truth, e.g. a man who is certain that the government is spying on his brainwaves, which is patently impossible as well as absurd, it is more reasonable to assume science is right and the individual is wrong.
But religion--or at least my religion--is not such a case. There's no referee here. You have nothing but personal incredulity to bring to bear against me: "how likely is it that there's an invisible, all-powerful being who yadda yadda yadda...?" But that's BS. It's BS when a fundy whines about how incredible the complexity of ostensibly evolved life is, and it's BS now. We're talking about a cause here, not an effect, and speaking of probability is meaningless. It's a case of my perceptions vs. your contempt for them, and that's just no contest. If I can't trust my senses, what cause do I have for trusting anything at all?
Comment