(July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: It seemed to me that the underlined statement was the logic upon which his entire case must depend, whether he really recognized that or not. And according to the statement I underlined, I cannot accept the reality of the past or basic logical truths or the reliability of my sense perception because none of these can be verified without circular arguments.
Did you not even bother to read my post? I explained in detail why I felt that the use of the term "scientific method" was a tool in his analogy. He never said that the scientific method is the only way to truth, nor did he imply it in the statement he made.
In the case of things that can't be evidenced but are necessary for a fulfilling life, I assume them. Things that are necessary to live my life, like my sense perception and my existence, I assume. I do this because it is necessary to do so to live in this world.
Things that aren't necessary (99.999999999% of everything) I question vigorously. I require evidence for these claims.
Also: What do you mean when you say "basic logical truths"? I.e.?
Quote:I would not have said this because I knew I would get involved in an endless argument over what atheism is… however, I said it in this case because the logic he was using to conclude his point seemed to require it.
Did you even read the same post as me? How did you get that his logic necessitates the affirmative position that there is no God?
I await correction.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell