On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:50:49 GMT, Alan Wostenberg
<awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Thomas P. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:27:44 GMT, Alan Wostenberg
<awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Would you dispute the fact that everybody simply believes far more than
they have personally verified?
As I said above, that is not relevant. That does not make science
equal with religious dogma. Science works with objective data. Its
claims are subject to being tested. The ignorance of people
concerning science does not affect the reliability of science. The
ignorance of people concerning dogma makes them believers.
Why the double standard? In every area but religion you believe far more
things than you have personally verified. But in matters of faith and
morals you trust nobody but require evidence. Why?
First of all science has established a track record of being reliable
of being based on objective evidence. However every single claim of
science is accepted provisionally (also by scientists). Especially
theistic religions have nothing but claims for which I have never seen
any objective evidence. There is no double standard. I apply the
same standard to both.
As much as I trust the good scientists within their narrow expertise, I
trust the Church even more in her sphere of competency which is doctrine
regarding faith and morals.
And the evidence is not there.
What evidence were you expecting?
I am expecting none, but I am ready to look at any. Do you have any?
I completely trust the Church in teaching matters of faith and morals,
and the evidence is her supernatural track record of consistency. The
truths she taught a thousand years ago she'll be teaching a thousand
years from now. In a world where scientists and politicians regularly
contradict predecessors, and will be contradicted by their successors,
the Church is a Rock.
Even if the Church had actually taught the same thing for a thousand
years, that would not make it true. You have, once again, pointed out
the strength of science and the weakness of religion.
If the sciences made no errors they would not develop by correcting
mistakes. Dogma develops not by correcting prior mistakes but deepening
previous truths.
Dogma continues to make the same claims with the same lack of
evidence.
Well if there were evidence it wouldn't be dogma, now would it!
No, it would be reasonable.
Let's
take the opening lines of the Apostle's creed
"I beleve in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth".
Now for people who do not understand the proofs, that our Almighty
Creator exists is an article of faith.
You forgot to finish the above sentence, however I will point out that
one cannot understand proofs that have not been presented.
For those that do, God's
existence is a conclusion of reason.
In short you have no evidence, which is my point.
Unlike you, I do not begrudge those who simply believe God is, becuase
at purely human level people believe far more things than they
personally verify.
Unlike you I try my best not to create strawmen and argue against
them. People are free to believe whatever they wish to believe.
If at a purely natural level most of what we know is
based on interpersonal trust, why should the supernatural realm be any
different?
Why do you ask questions that have already been answered? I am
applying no double standard, and I have explained why more than once.
Disagree with my answer if you like, but it is a bit strange to just
ignore it and ask the question again and again.
Thomas P.
.
