Le 13-janv.-06, à 04:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a
> philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like something
> to be true, or not to be true, has no bearing on whether it is in fact
> true. I don't like what happened in Germany under the Nazis, but that
> doesn't mean I should believe the Nazis did not exist, so why should
> my revulsion at the thought of infidels burning in Hell lead me to
> believe that God and Hell do not exist? It might make me reluctant to
> worship such a God, but that is not the same as believing he does not
> exist.
Totally agree.
> But if it's scientific, it's not religion, is it? Religion means
> believing something in the absence of sufficient evidence.
But here the word "evidence" is too large. Imagine two seconds that
Christian religion is true and you face God after your earthly
existence. In that case you would have evidence for the existence of
God. Would it be a reason to stop believing in religion?
At the same time, operationally I do somehow agree with you, but then
you should accept the idea that many scientist are religious in the
sense that many scientist believe in the existence of a stuffy or
substancial primitive physical reality, but obviously there are no
evidence at all for this. No physicists does even postulate it in
scientific paper.
(People confuse often the belief in a reality and a belief in a
physical reality).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Jan 13 2006 - 10:13:43 PST