Re: atheism vs theism

From: Jim Beardsley (
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 19:24:23 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: atheism vs theism"

    [Forgive me if my comments are over-simplified.. new here, and
    not degreed, but I am a humble arm-chair science student,
    philosopher, and Christian.. reply off the list if more

    Steve's comments also struck me:

    --- Steve Petermann <> wrote:
    > fundamentalists. They require a high degree of
    > for belief (must have empirical evidence) and they view their
    > revelatory resource (typically science) as absolute and
    > sufficient. ...

    Firstly, if an atheist / fundamentalist "requires a high degree
    of certainty for belief", is it TRULY impossible for him to
    believe in things he does not yet KNOW? (No asteroids EXIST
    until/unless they are SEEN? Falling trees make no SOUND
    until/unless they are HEARD?) Even if he can believe in things
    he does not yet know, how could his DIS-belief in things that he
    CANNOT "know" prove they don't exist? (Okay, no atheist would
    let himself fall into that trap, right? ..or is that flawed?)

    Then again...

    Even if "truth" (scientific or not) must be considered somewhat
    relative and subjective (many religions, multiple geometry
    theories, Q.M., etc), isn't it obvious humanity must
    collectively "know" very little of this "truth" so far? Then how
    can our LIMITED knowledge be trusted to DEDUCE anything about
    what we don't yet know? Are "most" atheists too proud to deny
    this obvious ignorance they are flaunting? (Perhaps I simply
    need some reading suggestions..)

    Science has its implied limits, am I right? By the method's own
    definition, it must eternally attempt to disprove itself, or at
    least to discern the limits of its own reach. (..still valid?)
    Then how could any atheist be foolish enough to rely on science
    or any other "reveal-ant" process to prove his opinion?

    Science is incredible, powerful, and fun (for us), BUT unless it
    can someday revolutionize ITSELF (where can I find such a
    discussion?), it seems to me that it can never and neither be
    omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, the only fact I've imagined
    so far which science has proven repeatedly, is how weak and
    easily "threatened" humanity's collective Faith may always be.
    ..sure keeps ME humble.

    I rarely get into debates (yet), and I'm not qualified to grade
    my own thinking, so I don't know how well that would stand up to
    a formidable opponent (nor a critical audience). I welcome your

    Thank you, love this list and your dialogues,

    Jim Beardsley
    Christian father, IT laborer, unactualized academic
    Columbus Ohio

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 19:24:30 EDT