[Gary Wassner]

Kong, I am not trying to put you on the spot or to make you uncomfortable. And, I am perfectly willing to respect that your acceptance of Scripture as literal history is based upon your faith, if that is what you determine after deep meditation and consideration. But I think it is fair to ask and just as interesting and informative to hear you answer the question regarding what you consider the characteristics of a bad claim to be. I think also that if you or Tex, the most ardent supporters of claims of faith in this discussion, explain the basis for your double standard (I don't mean that in a pejorative way) regarding the criteria for believing something to be true, many of us might better understand how a person of faith reconciles all other truth claims in their lives and other issues that require judgment based upon an evaluation of the facts, with their faith.

Selective denial plays a part I am certain, as it does for all of us in our everyday lives. We all pretend and we all take things for granted. We couldn't live our lives if we told what we believed to be only the truth all day long. Remember the movie Liar Liar? But when we evaluate our own self worth, our own moral worth, and when we consider and formulate who we are in our minds' eyes, we recognize our shortcomings often. We also recognize our lack of knowledge and our inability to make sense out of everything that we might like to. We either give up and stop trying, or we examine our beliefs and question why we do and think the way we do. I find personally that I learn more about my life and about myself, as well as about others including those I love, by this process of questioning everything. I become more understanding, not less, more tolerant, not less, more mystified by life and the world as it presents itself to me, not less. But I don't become more dogmatic.

I am appalled by suffering. I don't know why. I want to know why. I am appalled by cruelty. I don't know why. I want to know why. I am moved by kindness, yet I haven't the foggiest idea why. And I try to be kind whenever I can. Again, I don't know why. None of these feelings and actions are spurred on by a sense of a greater purpose or the prospect of a better life after death. Maybe there is some deep psychological reason for my feelings and my actions that an astute psychiatrist could trace to my father's emotional abuse or my childhood issues. I will probably never know. But I still question them all the time. I will never stop questioning them. I read all the time with the hope of learning about life and myself. I look for new descriptions that will illuminate for me the dark spaces that my lack of knowledge and understanding create. But I still and always rely upon criteria that seems cogent and logical in order to determine which ideas I am willing to commit to and which I cannot commit to -which ones just don't measure up. If I should choose to accept some of those as well, I hope that I would admit that there is no rational basis for my acceptance. There is so much that I don't understand, but I don't assume it's true because I don't understand how to evaluate it. I prefer to assume it's false. Then at least I keep asking questions and striving to learn.

[Miriamele]

Gary, this will probably sound cold and mechanical, but after years of consideration I have come to believe that many elements of the human psyche (such as being appalled by suffering and wanting to be kind to others) are merely a result of successful human evolution. That is, as our species grew and changed over the eons we learned to esteem things that benefited the group (such as kindness and self-sacrifice) and to disdain things that did not benefit the group (such as rape and murder). Until relatively recently in the history of humanity we lived in small tribes, and therefore developed a social code that would benefit the tribe and thus the continuation of the species as a whole. So at least in part, when we are uspet by a story of an abused child or a family who lost their home to fire, it is instinct. I'm not saying that's all it is of course, it's also empathy and sympathy, but I do believe that instinct does play a subtle part in so much human behaviour.

However although I believe that humans are really just animals at heart when it comes right down to it, I don't really apply that school of thought to my everyday life. I allow myself to fully experience every type of human emotion, whatever the source, because it's that type of stuff that makes life worth living. Maybe "true love" is really just based on bodily chemicals (which I have read) but who cares? Go with it and enjoy the ride.

In the same vein, does religion fulfill some deep instinctual need of the human animal? The need perhaps to control the actions of large groups of people, to maintain order in society? Or on a smaller scale does it free the individual from fear of the unknown where rational explanations are not easily attainable (such as the question of life after death)? But for people to whom religion is dear, it is certainly not a merely functional institution but a beloved experience, a satisfying way of life. It's meaningful, much in the same way that love and marriage are meaningful to us even though perhaps really such things were "installed" by evolution to increase the success of our procreation.

It's late, and I'm tired. Am I making any sense at all? It makes perfect sense in my head. :o

[kongming]

I'm keenly interested to see how you guys answer Gary's question. I suspect that both of you will have difficulty though. You need to come up with a list of criteria that leaves your religious commitments untouched, and yet remains a plausible and useful standard for dismissing other claims. I'm not sure this can be done. My guess is that if you lower the bar enough for transcendental religious claims, then pretty much anything can jump over, and we're left with no way whatsoever to distinguish between good and bad claims of any kind.

As I have stated. My list INCLUDES your list. It's a long list. But I very much doubt that you have used your own list to prove the validity of one theory of combustion, or every other mundane claim that science has made. There is no person in the world with that much time on their hands. So essentially you take a small portion and assume the rest is the same. The bible is much easier. It's not that big and covers less than everything science does. I've never said I lowered the bar. In fact I think I've raised it because as you can see there is much to the bible that I reject (such as most of the Old Testament).


Otherwise, please, kongming, enough with the 'absolute belief in science' stuff. How many times do I have to repeat myself? If you want to actually counter my arguments, interpret them charitably. Arguing against cartoon versions of my position does you no favours.

I'm just pointing out that you are using a great deal of absolute statements, but arguing for skepticism. Seems kinda fishy to me.

We're a fractious bunch, we humans, so you could say that ALL human claim-making institutions are 'critical' in this sense. But do you really think the 'criticism' that spurs fractiousness in faith is the same as the criticism that spurs advancement in science? In the same way not all claims are equal, not all criticism is equal. In science, criticism is internal to the claim-making process. It's the very heart of the institution, and here's the thing, it tends to generate consensus rather than new denominations

Well you are right about one thing not all criticism is equal. Just because scientists 'claim' to be critical doesn't mean they are. Just because priests claim to be uncritical doesn't mean they are. I don't see any evidence that tells me that the church was meant to be uncritical of itself, or other uncritical of the institution. But from what I understand you are required to tell someone that they may be doing something wrong and leaving final judgment up to God.

As for science generating consensus, I don't see that I agree. I've don't see the scientific community agreeing on anything. I see right wing scientists, left wing ones, doomsday global warming ones, ones that believe one thing about evolution, ones that believe another. The scientific community is NOT united at all as far as I can see. Once in a while they work together but as far as I can tell they are all independent of each other. So really this means that equate it what you are saying each individual is a denomination to themselves.

'Let nature, not authority, be our teacher.' This is the rallying cry of science. The idea is to systematically suspend commitment to claims pending empirical evidence - to let the premises determine the conclusion, rather than letting the conclusion determine the premises. To reason rather than rationalize.

From this I gather you mean that you should start with the idea of what something is NOT rather than what it IS. Either way you are in fallacy. Since none of us know the answer to either. So let's look at the combustion theory. Let's call the TRUE reason combustion works is A, and any other reason we THINK it works B. If you started with the premise the combustion works because of A and set about to prove it and succeeded then you get a silver star. If you set out with the premise that combustion works because of B and try to prove it then you still get the silver star b/c you would prove that combustion does not work because of B, so therefore the only thing left is A. But if you went about to prove that combustion worked because of neither A or B then you would be wrong when you came about to show that in fact it does work b/c of A but not B. But regardless what method you use you are going to get the same results as long as you remain as rational and logical as possible. In either instance you COULD be hoping A is the answer and in either instance that COULD taint and bias your research. But to say that it is a bad idea to say that A is the answer, now let’s prove or disprove it is likely a mistake in itself.

The institutional structure in religion is generally the opposite. We are told to take certain claims on authority, and then we scramble about searching for post hoc justifications.

No we are told to take certain claims on authority b/c we have no way to prove or disprove them ourselves. It works this way in science too. Otherwise everyone would have to research everything themselves. I mean religion is stated as such that man is given free will and then has to choose to believe in God. The implication is that free will is a doubt mechanism so that we are not just sheep believing everything.

That's a big difference, kongming. I'm not making any of this up. It's literally like the difference between believing the claims made by two different people, one who generally starts with their conclusions and then roots around for justifications afterward, and one who generally refuses to jump to conclusions until the justifications warrant them. I have acquaintances of both sorts, as do we all, I imagine. I find the latter to be far more reliable and trustworthy. Don't you?

I don't ask everyone to give me proof of every claim they make. Do you? How would you get through even the shortest conversation with everyone? And I don't see why I would find either more trustworthy for using one method over the other. First of all I have met no one who says: "Here is all my evidence and conclusions and so therefore I think this:". Most people say "This is my contention." When pressed further they offer more information if they choose to. For many things I have a thought on what is true. I have reasons if someone successfully challenges those reasons with better reasons not to believe it then I may a) change my stance, or b) look further into it to find other evidence to support or deny.

If you don't mind, I would like to slow the debate down a bit, and focus on a couple of pivotal issues informing everything we've been discussing here, if only because I get the sense that neither you nor Tex really understand the crux of the problem we have with your views. It really is quite simple. A definitive answer on your part will keep us from spinning our wheels, I think.

I don't mind slowing things down at all, simplification is always best I think.

Confirmation bias is a psychological fact. We all suffer it - mea culpa! We all unconsciously select for reasons that support our conclusions and against reasons that undermine them. (This is one reason why 'controls' are so important in science, whose methodologies are largely designed to prevent us from duping ourselves.) I remember reading a story about a French diplomat in NYC who paused with a crowd of Americans to watch Collin Powell's now infamous 'case for the war against Iraq' through a TV store display window. The French rebuttal came immediately following his presentation, and to his dismay, not a single New Yorker bothered to stay and watch!

And Skeptic Bias is just as dangerous. Bias is always bad. This is why one method is not better than the other. And yes controls are important we have to eliminate emotion, need, etc... To get at the solution to any problem.

Well the French rebuttal was written before Collin Powell case so really it was rebutting points they were guessing that he'd make. I don't think either were definitive proof of anything. But I think the most important statement that Powell made was that Saddam was determined to get WMD's and would use them, if not now (since it's likely he didn't have any during that time period) if we continued on the course the French advised he would eventually get them and then use them. I can guess why no one watched the French response. They are not a credible source for much of anything. Would you sit and listen to a report by a scientist you knew was biased, had made multiple errors in the past, and in fact had been making the same assertions that he was now refuting?

For those of you offended about what I said: when I say "The French" I am referring to their respective government operatives NOT "The French People" whom I have no problem with in comparison to other nationalities. I just think that their governments have created more problems around the world than most others (WWI, WWII, Vietnam etc...). How they became the voice of peace is beyond me.

[kongming]

You are no more immune to confirmation bias (or any other human cognitive shortcoming than anyone else), kongming. So my first question is this: How do you counter this problem? Me, I actively distrust my intuitions, and seek out the ways in which I'm wrong. I try as hard as I can to find the best conclusion, and I've regarded every claim I've conceded (and believe it or not there have been very many) as a triumph - no matter how much it might sting at the time.

Well I trust certain things and not others. How do you overcome skeptic bias? If everything is wrong then how do you determine what is right. I think you assume that I think everything is right until proven wrong. But that's not the way I look at it. I don't think it’s a good idea to do either. And I don't think you think that everything is wrong until proven right, because nothing HAS been proven right conclusively as far as I know. I too would look at every claim I've conceded as a triumph. But I would also look at every claim that I've denied the same way.

Add to this the problem of interpretative under determination. It is a fact that religious and philosophical interpretations cannot be decisively demonstrated or 'fixed' in a consensus commanding manner. This is why religious and philosophical controversies are only 'resolved' when their original terms are forgotten or suppressed, why the arguments of Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas are as relevant today as they were centuries or even millennia ago. So my second question is this: What exempts your interpretations from this problem? Me, I actively distrust my interpretations, and seek out ways in which they are wrong, and I've regarded every interpretation I've abandoned (I've gone from evangelical Christianity to nihilism to post-structuralism to existentialism to conceptualism to where I am now (something I call 'skeptical comparativism')) as a victory - no matter how dismaying it seemed at the time.

"It is a fact that religious...." there's your absolutist statements again. I just don't see how you can say that science is any better at this. The scientific community is fractional at best. Well I haven't gone from this to that. But correct me if I'm wrong but by saying you HAVE does that mean that you held the assertions of those different interpretations to be true at one time or another? If so how can you say that you doubted them at the same time?

My guess is this: that you more or less just fell into your beliefs, adopting them because 'they somehow felt right,' and then, without any clear understanding of how knowledge or cognitive criteria work, began actively advocating them as 'true.'

Know I know knowledge, logic, cognitive criteria, critical thinking, meditation and praying work as much as anyone else. I have simply had more (and better) evidence supporting my beliefs than refuting them. Isn't this how it works?

[kongming]

I agree. The question of commonsense cognitive criteria is key. What are the characteristics of good or bad claims? But I despair of getting any clear answer from either kongming or Tex.

We have clear answers. You just decide to call them otherwise and then claim that your ARE in fact clear when they seem more vague and obtuse to me.

Look at some of the strategies we've seen so far. There's the oranges and apples response, where it's claimed that religious claims have their own special criteria distinct from those we commonly use to evaluate a wide variety of claims, both scientific or otherwise (though no real argument as to why religious claims should be exempt from otherwise common criteria has been made). Then there's the levelling response, where all claims are relativized to belief systems, which supposedly makes religious claims 'equal' to scientific claims (though no one wants to touch the corollary commitment to this, namely, the claim that all claims are equal).

Let’s see some of the tactics from the opposing side:

Claiming an analogy is bad (which it may have been) because an account and life are not the same thing but using that to dismiss the point. But claiming at first that science and religions are NOT the same thing, and then later claiming that they ARE as it was needed. And comparing them anyway.

Using absolute statements with no proof (also little real evidence presented), but calling the other side absolutist even though it has presented evidence. I’m not talking about my statements. I’m talking about the religions themselves who have tried to back up their claims. But these claims are being assumed to be false with no evidence to support that assumption. It would be less fallacious if absolute statements weren’t used….

Using statements that are really meaningless or at least vague while posing a question and thus making the question impossible to answer so that one can say: “See you don’t have an answer to that, so you must be wrong.”

Now for my fallacies:

I don’t think religion SHOULD have its own criteria, but few want meditation and prayer (or other criteria) to be a part of scientific claims making criteria. So if that’s the case then it seems to be lacking in my mind. I have stated that I think all of the (very broad) criteria you suggested could and probably does help with religious claims. They are not THE only criteria for every claim though.

I have touched on the idea that all claims are equal. I have stated that HUMAN claims are all equal because we cannot run an experiment an infinite number of times to determine the ACTUAL TRUTH of whatever claim we are making. Again, HUMAN perceptions decide what claim is better than another based on whatever criteria we use. But these claims are only ACTUALLY better than one another based on the TRUTH which we for the most part are not privy to.

Now from the outside, all this seems like a clear case of hand waving and special pleading, but from the perspective of the believer, the only important thing is that an argument can be made. I've argued many things with many people, and I've been knocked on my ass by counter-arguments more times than I can count, and as far as I'm concerned, neither kongming nor Tex have made anything approaching a convincing case - so far, I actually think they're doing a better job exemplifying the weakness of their views. But I have no doubt that from their standpoint, precisely the opposite is the case - that our confirmation bias, in conjunction with the problem of interpretative underdetermination, has duped us into missing the obvious truth of Christianity. Well, in kongming's case, maybe, because I think it's plain that Tex has to deny the existence of interpretative underdetermination for his views of the Bible to hold any water whatsoever..

What the opposing viewpoint seems to me is a heavy handed approach to dismiss whatever is NOT science. Offering little to no evidence it has been stated that religion is inferior and absolutely wrong. Which is identical to how our organized religion treated science. I would think that those who look to science for answers could rise to the occasion and not commit the same fallacies based on fear. I’m NOT saying that science is wrong about everything or even most things. I AM saying that as an institution is seems bent on remaining an opposing faith to the religions of the past. I am also saying that I think this is a bad idea.

Again this is a poor way to make a point:

Using a duo of words like interpretive underdetermination. “Underdetermination” isn’t even a word as far as I know. Indetermination is and I think that’s what you mean. These to words together mean many things and nothing: opinion, point of view, bias etc… without any facts, evidence, results etc… But what I gather you mean by it, because the idea itself is ironically interpretively indeterminable, is that Tex denies the existence of opinions gained without evidence, or only with evidence that support the opinion. What you could have simply asked is “how do we avoid biased opinions from tainting our claims?” Then no one would have shied from the question because they wouldn’t have to run to their dictionaries (where they wouldn’t have found the answer anyway). The point is that a question should endeavor to be as clear as one can make it if one desires a response. But if the point of asking the question was to keep the opposing party from answering it and making them look weak or unintelligent or unable to answer questions and using that to imply that they don’t know what they are talking about, then by all means one should pose a question such as that. I will always try to answer questions that I don’t have to assume the meaning of.

But if your contention IS that the bible is more susceptible to biased views than science then provide a little evidence for that. Saying that science is skeptical and religion is not happens to be poor evidence because it may not be true. I don’t hold this view. But by saying it you are also implying another absolute: that science (and therefore scientists) are ALWAYS skeptical and religion (and therefore priests) NEVER are. And by making that statement, again you would have to show evidence.

The problem all humans face is that their pre-existing assumptions actually set the bar for what does and doesn't 'feel right.' We humans are famous for confusing agreement with intelligence! This is partly what explains the huge correlation between geography and religious belief: not many Christians are born in Mecca. Why? Because Meccan children are socialized in an Islamic environment. As a result, they have Islamic assumptions, which necessarily impacts which claims will 'feel right' and which claims will 'feel wrong.' This isn't to say that Christian can't become Muslims and Muslims can't become Christians - they do - but it does explain why such conversions are the rare exception rather than the rule..

As for accepting agreement with intelligence I can think of one example in religion and one in philosophy where this is not true. The Jews had High Priests that acted (for lack of a better example) similar to the Supreme Court. If all of them agreed on a decision, then that decision was thrown out because it was suspected of being “Unwise.” They would again have to look at the arguments provided and come to another decision. As for philosophy I think it is pretty clear in Plato’s works that agreement is not a good thing.

As for people holding Islamic, Christian, Jewish or other views – the basics of those religions are the same: from the golden rule to the belief in a creator. So their assumptions are pretty much the same if those assumptions are based on those religions. But they are not solely so. Social mores, culture, economics, climate etc.. all impact those assumptions. You will find I think, that people born in Mecca don’t have Islamic assumptions so much as they have Meccan assumptions. I would hazard a guess that A Christian Meccan and an Islamic one are more alike than the Christian Meccan and a Christian European are.

The reasons why conversions are the exception rather than the rule seems to me to be based more on circumstance than anything else. My cousin converted to Greek Othodox so he could marry, some Jews/Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Shinto/Confucians converted at the point of a Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Shinto/Confucian sword, some converted because a Jew/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Shinto/Confucian built them a well. But I don’t think many people decide “My parents raised me as a Muslim, but I grew up in Quebec City and everyone is Christian so I guess I will be Christian too.”.


Add things like confirmation bias and social proof bias to the mix, along with our old friend, interpretive underdetermination, and no one never need change their mind. Arguments can be made - the feeling does the rest. You just gotta 'follow your heart,' never mind that the 'heart' leads to a thousand different places, depending on how you were socialized..

So what you’re saying is that no one who believes in the supremacy of scientific claims making is susceptible to these three bias’?

This is what the makes the criteria question so important. It serves to bracket the 'feeling of rightness' that fixes the claims of so many, and to force us to look at claims comparatively. It drags the issue onto more interpersonal grounds.

[kongming]

You snuck your response between me and Gary, Archren! Seems like an apples and oranges response to me. So, the question becomes, why should religious claims be exempt from otherwise common criteria?

Note that 'Because religious claims are value claims,' doesn't really hold much water, not only because it's unclear that the value claims possess utterly distinct criteria from fact claims, but because those value claims, such as, "Christians are morally superior to atheists," clearly depend on the truth of prior factual claims, such as "Christ was the son of an omnipotent humanoid spirit called YHWH." Why shouldn't we treat such statements of fact the way we would any other?

I don't want anyone to assume that I was implying that Athiests are morally inferior. My father is an athiests and I see him as having a strong morality (somtimes more so than mine). Most of my friends are as well and at times they can become more morally indignant than myself. I just meant to say that religion may be an easier route to morality.

By all means treat the statement the same way you would any other. Use your criteria. But look at all the evidence, research everything on the subject but don't dismiss other criteria just because you have never used them before, they can help.

[kongming]

I think that the same questions we are asking apply to that claim as well. Certainly it's hard to say that killing is right. But under some circumstances, most people do agree that it's at least justifiable. But that's not the point at all. If we listed the criteria that supports the claim that killing is bad, what would that list look like? Wouldn't we need to back up and determine what justifies our usage of the words good and bad? Changing it to ethical claims doesn't clear the water any.

You have to do that with every scientific claim too. It is endless until at some point you say: "Okay I've seen/heard enough evidence and have decided thus:"

[kongming]

You really make me scratch my head sometimes kongming! :D How could you use all those criteria when you didn't even know what they were? I clearly recall you writing something to the effect, 'the question of criteria is too difficult; I doubt anyone could answer that.'

And none of us did answer it less vaguely than the other. Your criteria were just as obtuse as mine, but I understood what you meant by them. The question was broad, it's like asking someone to name all of their emotions and which ones the like. But I got the basis of your meaning and that of your response. And I gave you sevral of my own.

I said that no one could give you a consise answer to the question, because the question is too broad.

But this strikes me as more an avoidance of the question than anything else. Tell us: what do you think are the typical characteristics of bad claims?

more refuting evidence than supporting.

Archren: Actually the contention that God has a low regard for nonbeliever's HAS been voiced (by Tex) in this thread on a couple of different occasions. Since God's regard is directly proportional to moral standing, I'm not sure 'Christians are morally superior to atheists' is that much of a stretch. But you should ask him.

As for the rest of the post, I not quite clear what you mean.

Well I thought it was clear from the bible that God had a low regard for all of us equally and loves us all. I mean the whole idea from Jesus was that no Human is ever going to DESERVE to be in heaven, but will get there only because God was graceful and had pity on us.

[kongming]

Kong, I am not trying to put you on the spot or to make you uncomfortable. And, I am perfectly willing to respect that your acceptance of Scripture as literal history is based upon your faith, if that is what you determine after deep meditation and consideration. But I think it is fair to ask and just as interesting and informative to hear you answer the question regarding what you consider the characteristics of a bad claim to be. I think also that if you or Tex, the most ardent supporters of claims of faith in this discussion, explain the basis for your double standard (I don't mean that in a pejorative way) regarding the criteria for believing something to be true, many of us might better understand how a person of faith reconciles all other truth claims in their lives and other issues that require judgment based upon an evaluation of the facts, with their faith.

It's not that I feel put on the spot, it's that I feel that what I write is being glossed over and denied before it is even considered. And It's not making me angry or upset, so don't worry about me feeling like it is PERSONAL.

I said that I accept parts of the bible as literal history as much as other history texts and what could be expected from that time period and that religion. I just don't want our culture to start denying that any of it EVER happened because of a few bad apples, but accepting other accounts WITH their bad apples. And I think the reason this is being done is because this account like no other has been used by the cruel to spread evil. But that doen't make it evil or to be feared. Because anything could be used in this fasion but it just so happens that the Bible is more IMPORTANT to a great number of people than everything else. So when Scott says that the bible is dangerous for this reason then he is not fully wrong, but Science is becomming more so and I don't want to see that great institution sullied too (or anymore than it has been).

As stated by me before a bad claim has more evidence denying it than supporting it.

I don't think that I HAVE a double standard. I think that those who support science and give no credence to religion (or philosophy for that matter) have a double standard. I have stated that science has its uses, and has been great at helping us get closer to the TRUTH about the mundane. One day I hope it will help Religion with it's claims, but that day will never come if we keep down the path of the scientific decrying religion for no other reason than it is different. I mean the two aren't really even competing any more, and they never should have.

And I have stated that I balance the evidence for and against as it stands before me. This is how I came to the belief that some parts of the bible are likely "true" and the others likely "false".


Selective denial plays a part I am certain, as it does for all of us in our everyday lives. We all pretend and we all take things for granted. We couldn't live our lives if we told what we believed to be only the truth all day long. Remember the movie Liar Liar? But when we evaluate our own self worth, our own moral worth, and when we consider and formulate who we are in our minds' eyes, we recognize our shortcomings often. We also recognize our lack of knowledge and our inability to make sense out of everything that we might like to. We either give up and stop trying, or we examine our beliefs and question why we do and think the way we do. I find personally that I learn more about my life and about myself, as well as about others including those I love, by this process of questioning everything. I become more understanding, not less, more tolerant, not less, more mystified by life and the world as it presents itself to me, not less. But I don't become more dogmatic.

Selective denial? Is that Interpretive Determinism? Whatever, I assume that we've ben talking about bias. I think we all live our lives thinking that most of what we believe to be true (for us at least). Can someone function if they think that everything they believe is a lie? Isn't that a paradox? Well, once we start to accept that we don't know things we start on the path of wisdom. That's different I think than thinking everything is true or false. What we are simply doing is saying "I don't know for sure".

I would agree with your sentiment that you become more undertanding and tolerant, the more you question. I do to. But it seems to me that those wholley in the boot of science are convinced that religion is just wrong and therefore needs to be dismissed. It seems to me that the science community and their "faithful" are becoming less tolerant of religion and other aspects of life as the days go by.

My life is plagued by dogmatic religious nuts as much as it is by the science kind.

I am appalled by suffering. I don't know why. I want to know why. I am appalled by cruelty. I don't know why. I want to know why. I am moved by kindness, yet I haven't the foggiest idea why. And I try to be kind whenever I can. Again, I don't know why. None of these feelings and actions are spurred on by a sense of a greater purpose or the prospect of a better life after death. Maybe there is some deep psychological reason for my feelings and my actions that an astute psychiatrist could trace to my father's emotional abuse or my childhood issues. I will probably never know. But I still question them all the time. I will never stop questioning them. I read all the time with the hope of learning about life and myself. I look for new descriptions that will illuminate for me the dark spaces that my lack of knowledge and understanding create. But I still and always rely upon criteria that seems cogent and logical in order to determine which ideas I am willing to commit to and which I cannot commit to -which ones just don't measure up. If I should choose to accept some of those as well, I hope that I would admit that there is no rational basis for my acceptance. There is so much that I don't understand, but I don't assume it's true because I don't understand how to evaluate it. I prefer to assume it's false. Then at least I keep asking questions and striving to learn.

But why would either assumption be better than the other? Because when we assume that something is false that just makes it's opposite true. For example if you assume that "Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary." to be a false statement, then that just means that you also assume that "Jesus was NOT the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary." to be a true statement, but you have stated that you have not seen enough evidence to support the first claim how can you make the second claim without the same evidence you required of the first?

I mean I see no problem with you simply saying that you don't know which statement is true or false. I don't think that would prevent you from being a good person.

I mean I have no evidence that you ARE a good person, but I'm not going to assume that you are not. I'll wait until I have evidence one way or the other, and I would think that you would treat me the same way.

[kongming]

Gary, this will probably sound cold and mechanical, but after years of consideration I have come to believe that many elements of the human psyche (such as being appalled by suffering and wanting to be kind to others) are merely a result of successful human evolution. That is, as our species grew and changed over the eons we learned to esteem things that benefited the group (such as kindness and self-sacrifice) and to disdain things that did not benefit the group (such as rape and murder). Until relatively recently in the history of humanity we lived in small tribes, and therefore developed a social code that would benefit the tribe and thus the continuation of the species as a whole. So at least in part, when we are uspet by a story of an abused child or a family who lost their home to fire, it is instinct. I'm not saying that's all it is of course, it's also empathy and sympathy, but I do believe that instinct does play a subtle part in so much human behaviour.

And there's yet more that we agree on :)