fool them all:
Quote:
|
I wouldn't call objective science a fiction, I'd say that it's impossible to disentangle objective science from our nonscientific assumptions. But maybe that's just a different way of saying the same thing
|
i was making more a sociological argument, but it comes to the same thing in this context. so yes. i think so.
=============
asaris: i think i know arguments that are referred to as "fine-tuning" arguments, but not in this kind of context, so could you explain it please?
==============
on the will/filtherton bout---a side comment.
in my world, the strongest arguments against belief in god come in two registers:
(1) on its own terms--that is within judeo-christian theology--god is unknowable. if i were xtian, i would be all about nominalism--in other traditions more about negative theology because both seem at least consistent with something that is axiomatic within these traditions themselves.
(2) belief in god tends to be also a belief that the world is ordered in advance. among the implications of this is that human beings do not create anything, not in any strong sense of the term. i think that is false in itself and the consequences of believing to the contrary have tended to produce such disastrous political outcomes that i would reject the idea of god as a function of them.
at least of this god that the major traditions have constructed for themselves.
personally i am fine with the cloud of unknowing.