Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 20:00:37 EDT

Dave Siemens wrote:

> In response to your first question, we don't know. We're finite. Even
> with the kind of proof in math and logic, "truth" is at best conditional.
> We recognize truth as an absolute standard which we hope to approach. But
> truth is a requirement for knowledge. So knowledge can only be to the
> best of our ability (and hope). The only way out of this that I have
> found is the declaration, "I'm right [which implies holding only the
> truth]! And if you don't believe I'm right, ask me, and I'll tell you how
> right I am." Of course, most people holding such a view do not state it
> publicly: it's a tacit commitment.
>

Well said. It's irrational to expect that we can gain
access to absolute truth. We must live with some doubt
no matter what the source is --- even if it is our very own
eyes. When we depend on other peoples eyes (teachers,
theologians, journals, etc.), we have to make some estimate
of the credibility of the witness. Moreover, I still catch myself
getting stuck in dichotomies of "True" or "False", but many
matters of life involve varying shades of gray.

Perhaps one of the reasons why many former creationists
turn to atheism is because they think they can find that
"absolute truth" in science. The appeal of being "self-
correcting" is certainly better shown in science than
in religion, but few ideologues of scientism ever consider
that science may have real epistemological limits.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Thu Sep 2 20:22:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 20:22:05 EDT