(June 4, 2010 at 9:26 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:(June 4, 2010 at 10:55 am)remza Wrote: The main point he was trying to make is that in cases where science is not our source of information, we cannot automatically assume that reason has ceased to function and evidence has ceased to be relevant.
I'm not totally sure what you trying to say. I tried to come up with an example of what you may be trying to say: well, if someone was flying in public, which is totally contradictory to what we knew for sure (this new phenomena of a person flying would mark a new era in science, and before that would be the 'post unnatural flight science'), someone is still flying no matter how contradictory this new phenomena is and now this phenomena is simply incorporated into science or human knowledge.
Let me know if I'm on the same page with you with my example. But what I was truly trying to say in the thread was simply that a person may be logical on false or unsubstantiated premises and calling a theist 'illogical' is inaccurate. The theists response to this is that his beliefs/conclusions are based on logical arguments.
Not really I’m afraid. I was attempting to make a related point regarding the idea of theists being illogical but also hinting at the scope/limits of science. Theists will claim that there are certain questions which unaided reason cannot answer and to answer them we need another source of information - revelation from God, to understand and evaluate which, reason is essential.
I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.
