Glenn's second comment

From: John Burgeson (burgy@compuserve.com)
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 14:04:47 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "RE: Adam never met Eve"

    Glenn also wrote (later) as follows: "The problem with using other kinds of
    measures of truth mean that we must allow for beliefs in all sorts of
    things. If someone tells you that leprechauns exist we must allow it
    because they can clearly claim that you can't apply this scientific
    either/or concept because there are other types of truth. Those involved
    in the New Age movement use exactly the same logic--they have a different
    type of truth also. To me, the danger of not using the either/or concept is
    that we must then agree that any sort of nonsense is within the realm of
    possibility. What is to stop us from being
    forced into accepting all sorts of nonsense?"

    Glenn -- let me deconstruct the above. The two sentences of interest are
    the last two:

    "To me, the danger of not using the either/or concept is that we must then
    agree that any sort of nonsense is within the realm of possibility. "

    I'm not sure why this is a danger. I hold all knowledge to be provisional.
    If a scientist wants me to accept the N-ray concept, provisionally, I say,
    "OK. Let me see your evidence." He does; I am unpersuaded and we go from
    there. He still may be right, but he has not established his case and I am
    justified, at least for the present, to ignore it.

    "What is to stop us from being forced into accepting all sorts of
    nonsense?"

    Precisely the above. I don't HAVE to accept N-rays. Nor little blue
    invisible fairies. Nor many many other weird ideas that come across my
    path. I don't EVER have to accept -- or reject them. I am free to ignore
    them.

    Glenn -- too often you pose questions as having only two possibilities of
    resolution, when there are three -- or more. In my teaching as a Stephen
    Minister, I frequently admonish my students not to "fall into the dyadic
    trap." Mencken once said (I paraphrase) that to every question there is an
    answer, short, concise, easy to understand and dead wrong. I'll restate
    that as "to every question there are at least two answers, short, concise,
    easy to understand and both dead wrong. There are, in addition, a host of
    other answers, at least one of which MIGHT be somewhat correct."

    You may quote me. Shoot -- someday I may quote myself! < G >

    Glenn concludes by asserting: "But feelings don't tell us which of the two
    religions is true----only objective data can do that."

    And I'd observe that "objective data," if one limits that to "what science
    can show," is powerless in that respect. I'd also observe that it is not
    the "Christian religion" which is the key issue, but Jesus Christ himself.
    I can think of no real scientific observation we can make in the 21st
    century to verify his standing, not even as a thought-experiment.

    Burgy



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 14:06:18 EST