Knowing your husband loves you may be different from knowing god exists in conspicuous ways. But why should we expect criteria to be the same in all contexts? It's silly.
Empirical questions? That's one for science.
Personal affections? No need for science.
Personal values? Nope, no science until you've decided what ends you want to pursue.
Do gods exist? That depends entirely on what you think a god is.
If gods are supposed to be literal galactic creators then that claim can either be supported or it is spurious.
If gods are products of the mind -not deliberate fabrications mind you- but aspects of consciousness all the same, then no.
We don't wait to hear from science to answer basic existential questions about who and what we are, at least it isn't required.
Can a sane person simultaneously embrace science and believe in god? The burden of proof is on the person who says no.
We suspend disbelief routinely to appreciate the truths revealed by a novel or movie. Context is everything.
Empirical questions? That's one for science.
Personal affections? No need for science.
Personal values? Nope, no science until you've decided what ends you want to pursue.
Do gods exist? That depends entirely on what you think a god is.
If gods are supposed to be literal galactic creators then that claim can either be supported or it is spurious.
If gods are products of the mind -not deliberate fabrications mind you- but aspects of consciousness all the same, then no.
We don't wait to hear from science to answer basic existential questions about who and what we are, at least it isn't required.
Can a sane person simultaneously embrace science and believe in god? The burden of proof is on the person who says no.
We suspend disbelief routinely to appreciate the truths revealed by a novel or movie. Context is everything.
