Ok thats a correct as a general premise- how that applies to religion gets itself into various epistemological difficulties. Just like a high school drop out does not perceivethe benefit or applications of theories in relation to an electron, simply because they cannot perceive the electron to begin with
My point was that to accept such a refutation or even discuss its implications requires more than confidence statements (or even wonder statements)
Initially yes, just like faith (or inductive reasoning if you want to call it that) is the initial requirement for any field of knowledge ... but such a platform of knowledge (ie faith) is not the position of perfection (direct perception is)
Well, suppose one is learning 1+1=2 as a 4 year old. Suppose someone is learning the sqaure root of 100 as a 10 year old and suppose someone is working with calculas in a university - its not that the 4 year old is wrong compared to the university student, its that he is on a different platform of knowledge ....its just a figure of speech
Oh, it sounds like it's from a book or something. You do realize that science is a platform of knowledge, and that direct perception is great when realizing personal truths, but not so much when deducing scientific fact.
spidergoat Its a figure of speech I probably picked up from reading some book - language works like that yes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what is an example of a scientific fact (distinct from scientific theory) that is not perceivable somewhere by someone on the level of direct perception?
You're talking about two different forms of "faith." One is the faith that you have in someone that is presenting a testable and objective reality as fact. The other is the faith that the superstitious develop when religious cult leaders present untestable mythology and fantasy as fact. Your kind of faith equates to blind trust without evidence. Of course, you're doubtlessly more than prepared to offer us a plethora of postmodernist and sophist poppycock in attempt to muddy the waters between reality and common delusion.
Many scientists perceive it, headed up by einstein - their perception, while still dependant on empiricism, can be considered "direct' (ie they arrive at the speed of light by dint of their own assessment of the evidence first hand) as opposed to some physics who just takes it for granted that its been calculated and works with 2.99792458x10(8) m s(-1)
No. I don't. I'm an agnostic atheist. If there's a god, it almost certainly isn't one of the thousands of different and often contradictory deities invented by humanity. But I see no need for a god in the universe therefore I make no silly, superstitious assumption that one exists. It isn't faith but lack of it.
