RE: Death Threats After Supporting Evolution
August 30, 2012 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2012 at 5:25 pm by CliveStaples.)
(August 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's an axiom Clive. I can give you plenty of evidence that suggests that such is the case (those that first proposed it had none...quite the leap for them btw), but I would never claim that it could be proven. Good thing science isn't in the business of proving things eh?
I'm not sure I follow. What evidence is there? It seems to me that if you gave me what you considered "evidence", I'd only consider it "evidence" too if I already shared your axiom.
What reasons are there to hold to your axiom--reasons which do not themselves rely on that very axiom?
Regarding science, are you suggesting that you don't believe science leads to truth? Isn't the whole point that you think a belief is justified precisely when there is scientific evidence for it (or, if you prefer, scientific evidence against its negation)?
And if science isn't in the business of proving things, why bother doing experiments? Why bother building the LHC, if not to seek proof for the existence of the Higgs boson (or something like it)?
On a related note regarding axioms, what do you make of the Munchausen trilemma? I'm okay with a system having axioms, but it seems like it would pose a problem for evidentialists or anyone in general who insists that something must be proved before it can be believed.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
