Howard wrote: "(2) This is called the “argument from personal
incredulity” and carries no weight outside of yourself."
Yes -- but always keep in mind its twin, the "argument from credulity."
"One of the reasons that I find the RFEP to be credible is that its
adoption as a working principle has functioned to launch the historical
natural sciences into their most productive era ever. That’s not proof,
of course. But it is, I believe, more than a mere personal whim."
As George pointed out a week or so ago, we must distinguish between faith
and theology. Theology is how we think about God, and, as Ian Barbour
points out, we have to use models to do this. I am not convinced that we
need a model to have faith; maybe I'm wrong on this however.
For myself, the RFEP model is highly useful; it is probably not my
"favorite," and it is clear it is not Don's "favorite." But it is highly
USEFUL, and that is what I ask any model to be. It might even be "true"
in some sense, but that is a conclusion I have no expectation of
apprehending, so it's "truthfulness" is moot. It's usefulness is as
Howard has stated above.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com/astory.htm (a story to tell)
Ubi Caritas
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Mon Mar 15 11:05:33 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 15 2004 - 11:05:42 EST