| > Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations. > accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality") The irony. You People fascinate me to no end. > can be provisionally rejected I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be? > and scientific heuristics I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements. > They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel. Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking. > Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically. "haven't...that can be explained" > No, I don't think you're dumb or confused. Then why do you talk to me the way you do? > taken to its logical conclusion Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"? > where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs. I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot. |