[FoRK] Terms - Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology

[Sat N]

On Jan 12, 2008 8:22 AM, Russell Turpin <deafbox at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff Bone:
> > On the one hand, if god manifested Herself, I would happily
> > stipulate to my error...
>
> You grant too much. Discovery of something you had no reason
> to expect in no way implies a former error. If you were to
> discover an archaeological artifact tomorrow, while digging in
> your garden, that doesn't mean that you are in error today for
> asserting that you have no reason to think any such thing is
> there. You have no reason to think that today. Events might
> change that by tomorrow noon.
>

Yes, if the artifact is found, Jeff should not be in contempt of the
people who believed that such an archaeological artifact will be found
in Jeff's garden.

If you leave open a possibility that such an archaeological artifact
may exist, you shouldn't be in contempt of people who believe such an
artifact exists.

The problem with atheists like Richard Dawkins is that they exhibit a
level of contempt for any believers that is unjustified and flat out
wrong. ( For record, Dawkins asserts that he is not yet fully
convinced that God does not exist ).

I may not believe in the same things a religious person believes in,
but, I would fight to defend the rights of a religious person to
practice their religion.

Regarding Jeff A's question on how devout Christians would deal with
Bayes rule, I guess they would deal with it the same way Reverand
Thomas Bayes dealt with :).