|
another way of looking at this is that since faith in general is an outcome of repetition and only its precondition to the extent that it gives repetition its direction, once that repetition is underway (a) the outcomes are non-falsifiable for the individual involved but (b) arguments made on that basis are wholly unconvincing to anyone who does not share the same predispositions, and so whose loop characteristics are different.
i think this has been amply demonstrated in any of the thousands of repetitions of this basic argument.
you could have an actual debate about this god character or this "science" business, but it'd have to operate at a remove from one's actual everyday beliefs and in order to subject them to perspectives that are not already conditioned by them.
the main difference between people "of faith" in a religious sense and others is that folk in the former set cannot and will not play along.
so because there is no agreement abotu procedure/relation there is never any meaningful agreement about rules or outcomes so there is never any actual debate. just two sets of people who share the view that the other is entirely, completely wrong.
so it goes.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|