dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/23/84)
> [Brian Peterson] > The more important point in my mind is that he is attacking the > uncertainty in the arguments on the non-creationists' side. The > answers given by science are not absolute, because not all people > have sensed in every way possible all the stuff of the entire universe > and all the events that have ever happened. (and people don't have > the brains to understand all information, either) In other words, we have > a limited window into reality. Admitting the uncertainty is being honest. > Religious explainations of whatever claim to be "absolute". They are > "THE" truth. Gilded, with sugar-sweetened angels. Trust in > "The Answer", and life will be easy, for you will not have to look > at the world, nor will you have to think about the world (esPECially if > something turns up that is not already in your picture of the world). The first sentence is manifestly untrue, and should be evident from reading my article. I attacked lack of evidence. ALL of the referenced excerpts were pure speculation, and OF COURSE the answers given by science are not absolute. We make conclusions based on observations, which, because we are finite beings, must necessarily be incomplete. I may be dense, but not to that extent. As far as your diatribe on religion: you brought it up, not me. I thought that it was agreed a while ago that it should be left out of the discussion. In fact, I was the one that asked whether this should be so, because it has often happened to me that the person on the other side of the question brings up religion, claims that my arguments are all religious and therefore to be discarded, when I haven't even suggested it as a basis for making a conclusion. And I certainly did not do so in my article. The references to >"Maybe there was a creator." >"What if God did such-and-such?" were submitted as statements comparable to those in the excerpted articles, not as propositions that I wished to defend. Clearly, the second one would require a somewhat more rigorous explication before that could even be attempted. > We all depend on our senses to detect what the world is like, > and we have to use our brains to figure out what is going on. > If anyone has the inside scoop on "absolute truth", then could > you please let us in on it? This is a silly request, given the obvious *a priori* hostility you have for the idea that there might even exist such a thing as an absolute of any kind. > And don't use any religious tenets as your axioms, > because we do not agree that they are valid axioms. (i) I didn't, and (ii) no kidding. > That which we perceive with our senses is valid to use in > understanding the "real" world, because > it seems that that which is perceived by the senses is common to everyone. Earth, calling David Hume... Earth, calling David Hume... -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111