(January 8, 2019 at 11:32 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(January 8, 2019 at 10:54 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: Then you can't make good decisions about who or what to trust and how to interpret them or it. You can't have it both ways.
If you approach the problem of human fallibility rationally, you will understand there are degrees involved. Rationality is better than irrationality. Evidence is better than unverified stories. Science is better than superstition. We are not completely hopeless on our own, unaided by any deity. In fact, we've made real progress.
Right. We are insufficient on our own. That doesn't mean we are always wrong, but we aren't always right either. So why put everything on unreliable beings?
The rest are open to interpretation. Rational ideas can lead to a wrong conclusion, just as irrational choices can lead to the right result. Evidence can be helpful, but it can also be detrimental if interpreted wrong. Science is sometimes superstition, and sometimes what we assume to be superstition ends up being the science of tomorrow.
What progress are you suggesting we've made? I see a volatile world, but maybe we view the world differently.
Insufficient for what?
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
