[Solar]

Good stuff, E. Albright. Language is so ambiguous and dependant on interpretation, it's a wonder we humans manage to communicate at all.

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I'm agnostic in terms of universal creation (i.e., I hold that certain truth in this regard is ultimately unknowable). And I know that in this sort of debate a declaration of any form of agnosticism is generally viewed right up there with declarations that "I'm rubber and you're glue...", but there you go.

Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it.
Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit.
As human beings, what does our "reality" consist of? The input received by our senses, our brain's interpretation of that input, and memories of past input and interpretation (experience). Based on observation, we make assumptions about the nature of the universe. We have to, otherwise we couldn't function.
Every morning I step out of bed without looking, because I believe there will be a floor there. This belief is based on my experience (my senses told me there was a floor there Last night), my faith in the reliability of my senses, and my understanding of the laws of the universe, based on a lifetime of sensory input (floors don't just move during the night). Do I KNOW the floor is still going to be there? No, but I have a pretty good idea. So until I jump out of bed and fall into the downstairs bathroom, I believe in the static-ness of my bedroom floor. This example may seem silly, but I think the same goes for belief in creationism, evolution, Norse myth, or anything else.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

How is belief based on choice? Try as hard as you want to believe that the earth is flat, but you won't be able to truly believe if it contradicts your understanding of the universe. We believe what we believe because it makes the most sense to us based on our input, experience, and interpretation (or because we have an emotional need to believe, which is another can of worms entirely), but do we really KNOW? My input, experience, and interpretation tell me that certain things are unknowable.

Science is great, but it's based on the assumption that what we perceive is real and unmovable. If we are really brains in vats hooked up to the matrix (and how can we prove that we aren't), then everything we “know” is invalid. Science and religion both boil down to somebody‘s "best guess".

And now you can see how a steady diet of philosophy and science fiction over the course of 25 years can really mess with your mind.

Solar

[ December 12, 2002, 19:53: Message edited by: Solar ]