Historians can be so proasic!

[MoreCoffee]

I watched a video called Reluctant Saint about saint Francis of Assisi. Nearly all of the things seen as miraculous by the faithful are reinterpreted as disease, coincidence, and symbolic but not actual events. It appears to be a sad reality that in our world of fact gathering pedantry no miracles can survive.

 

[psalms 91]

Only where people dare to believe the Word

 

[Lamb]

Miracles would be more believable if people wouldn't lie and claim some happened when they really didn't. So, it's only natural that people no longer want to believe in things that could potentially be untrue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Miracles would be more believable if people wouldn't lie and claim some happened when they really didn't. So, it's only natural that people no longer want to believe in things that could potentially be untrue.

Miracles were - in past times - accounted as among the evidences for the existence of the unseen realm in which angels dwell and also for the existence and goodness of God.

 

[Lamb]

Miracles were - in past times - accounted as among the evidences for the existence of the unseen realm in which angels dwell and also for the existence and goodness of God.

Were people perhaps more trustworthy when they spoke...or were people naive and wanting of believing any supernatural occurrence because not enough science was known for proof?

I like watching shows where "ghosts" get debunked. There was one series (VERY BRIEF) where scientists set up their equipment and captured things then showed the proof of what actually was going on in the building, all scientifically explicable. People want to believe in things that they don't know how to explain. SOME miracles are like that (not all though).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Were people perhaps more trustworthy when they spoke...or were people naive and wanting of believing any supernatural occurrence because not enough science was known for proof?

I like watching shows where "ghosts" get debunked. There was one series (VERY BRIEF) where scientists set up their equipment and captured things then showed the proof of what actually was going on in the building, all scientifically explicable. People want to believe in things that they don't know how to explain. SOME miracles are like that (not all though).

I do not doubt that some claims that this or that miracle happened are inaccurate but in the video about saint Francis of Assisi the stigmata were explained as symptoms of leprosy - no significant evidence of the saint having the illness was given it was just a non-miraculous "explanation". Making up "rational" explanation while having no evidence seems just as unjustified as making up miracles that did not happen.

 

[Josiah]

IMO.....

Part of the "problem" is that some "believers" seem to assume that God cannot use means/process to accomplish His purposes. I think this is a wrong and unbiblical assumption. And it leads to such absurd conclusions as if the event can be understood as "natural" then God had nothing to do with it.

I think of the MIRACLE where Jesus healed a blind man by making a spit ball and putting it in the man's eyes. A spit ball! And the man was healed. If God can use spit balls, He can use anything and anyone. The MIRACLE is not discredited based on the reality that a means was employed. MIRACLE has much more to do with who/what is credited/thanked than with means.

I believe the birth of my two nieces were both MIRACLES. I believe GOD knit them together in their mother's womb. I believe GOD gave them life and GOD gave them to their parents. Now, while I have precious little knowledge of biology (my sis is the one with the Ph.D. in biology, I'm almost entirely ignorant of that science), I know enough to know God USED some means (including a bit of bedroom activity) to bring this about, but it no less HIS miracle... and no less reason to give GOD praise and thanks.



My half cent.


Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I watched a video called Reluctant Saint about saint Francis of Assisi. Nearly all of the things seen as miraculous by the faithful are reinterpreted as disease, coincidence, and symbolic but not actual events. It appears to be a sad reality that in our world of fact gathering pedantry no miracles can survive.

If I choose to read a historical treatment of past events, I want only facts to be presented. Presenting events that cannot be satisfactorily verified, or attributing supernatural explanations for things that have a natural explanation has no true explanatory power. Historians may choose to present certain hypotheses, but it should be made clear that such things are hypothetical (with sound reasons for the hypothesis), and not verified.

 

[Josiah]

If I choose to read a historical treatment of past events, I want only facts to be presented. Presenting events that cannot be satisfactorily verified, or attributing supernatural explanations for things that have a natural explanation has no true explanatory power. Historians may choose to present certain hypotheses, but it should be made clear that such things are hypothetical (with sound reasons for the hypothesis), and not verified.

With all due respect, if one allows ONLY what the one currently at this moment consider "science" as verification, then there has been created a perfect circle, there is no other possibility that all else will be regarded as irrelevant, nonexistent. This is no different than a theist insisting that only the supernatural can be accepted and all "natural" cannot be considered.

But, IMO, you perhaps have missed the point: this is not about PROCESS, it's about GLORY, credit. I simply disagree with you that because a choice is made to regard the Divine as irrelevant and non-existent, ergo God is irrelevant and non-existent and CANNOT have anything to do with this. You may CHOOSE to not credit any divine for anything - just as another may CHOOSE to thank the Divine for things - but these are choices. THAT much, IMO, should be admitted. But again, to impose one's dogmatic ELIMINATION of any divine possibility - no consideration of such is permitted - then concluding BASED ON THAT that ergo there is no divine possibility of involvement is unacceptable. I find that SOME who speak so much of an "open mind" have the most closed minds of all ( of course, not implying that refers to you, personally, of course).

And again, this is not exclusively about PROCESS. I may understand the PROCESS by which the sun "rises" each morning, but that has nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with my giving thanks and glory to God for its rising. IMO, there is a very, very flawed and errant opinion that faith is about explanations of nature - an odd view that I have no idea how this opinion came about. Faith has to do with trusting/relying.... religious faith has to do with trusting/relying on the Divine.


I have no idea if St. Francis was involved in any "miracles." But again, I think EVERYONE is involved CONSTANTLY with miracles. Luther once spoke of farmers as miracle workers..... I'm quoting from memory but essentially he said, "we have become so accustomed to seeing the grain grow out of the ground that we don't consider it a miracle. God uses the farmer, the seed, the sun, the water to perform a wonderful miracle for which we thank and praise God." It is very probable Luther did not know the biology here (frankly, I don't either - not my field of expertise) BUT he knew God.



Thank you!


Just my half cent - I'm sure you and I will fundamentally disagree here, my respected friend, as we have before on this.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

With all due respect, if one allows ONLY what the one currently at this moment consider "science" as verification, then there has been created a perfect circle, there is no other possibility that all else will be regarded as irrelevant, nonexistent. This is no different than a theist insisting that only the supernatural can be accepted and all "natural" cannot be considered.

Well, I don't hold historians to the same rigor as scientists, but if I'm reading an account of a battle in the Civil War, and the writing historian attributes the victory of that battle of one side to some supernatural agent, this doesn't explain anything (it would be opinion or belief, not fact). I would rather hear about those things that are actually known (are verifiable) to have influenced the battle, such as the number of troops, the decisions made and strategies used by the commanding officers, etc.

But, IMO, you perhaps have missed the point: this is not about PROCESS, it's about GLORY, credit.

History is a process, of human events and cause/effect.

I simply disagree with you that because a choice is made to regard the Divine as irrelevant and non-existent, ergo God is irrelevant and non-existent and CANNOT have anything to do with this.

As I said, injecting a "God hypothesis" into historical accounts, has no explanatory power. Historical accounts should be a fact-based accounting of past events, or at least that's why I want from historians.

You may CHOOSE to not credit any divine for anything - just as another may CHOOSE to thank the Divine for things - but these are choices. THAT much, IMO, should be admitted.

Yes, we are all in fact entitled to our own beliefs, but we are not entitled to our own facts. When I read non-fiction, which history should fall under, I don't want beliefs, I want facts, that is, things backed by evidence. I don't want historians injecting their beliefs, I want a factual account of past events, nothing more.

But again, to impose one's dogmatic ELIMINATION of any divine possibility - no consideration of such is permitted - then concluding BASED ON THAT that ergo there is no divine possibility of involvement is unacceptable. I find that SOME who speak so much of an "open mind" have the most closed minds of all ( of course, not implying that refers to you, personally, of course).

If we open our minds so much that belief is allowed to parade as fact, then we only weaken the strength of what is fact.

And again, this is not exclusively about PROCESS. I may understand the PROCESS by which the sun "rises" each morning, but that has nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with my giving thanks and glory to God for its rising. IMO, there is a very, very flawed and errant opinion that faith is about explanations of nature - an odd view that I have no idea how this opinion came about. Faith has to do with trusting/relying.... religious faith has to do with trusting/relying on the Divine.

We are discussing history here, which I see as a process...one event leading to another. Historical accounts should be based in fact, not belief. Now, if a historian wants to give an accounting of the past from a faith-based (or any non-factual) perspective, then he/she should make that clear so that those like me who wish only for fact can make an informed choice about taking precious time to read it.

I have no idea if St. Francis was involved in any "miracles." But again, I think EVERYONE is involved CONSTANTLY with miracles. Luther once spoke of farmers as miracle workers..... I'm quoting from memory but essentially he said, "we have become so accustomed to seeing the grain grow out of the ground that we don't consider it a miracle. God uses the farmer, the seed, the sun, the water to perform a wonderful miracle for which we thank and praise God." It is very probable Luther did not know the biology here (frankly, I don't either - not my field of expertise) BUT he knew God.

It is fine to impose beliefs as explanations, particularly when discussing things with those who share our beliefs, but this cannot be considered factual in the truest meaning of the concept of fact. It has no power to explain the cause of events objectively to those who don't happen to share our beliefs.

 

[Josiah]

Mark, if you choose to define "facts" so that it only includes what YOU choose to accept, then IMO, you are doing the same thing you are rebuking.

On THIS point, I agree with you: Somehow stating that GOD made something to happen IMMEDIATELY (without any means) might suggest some documentation - but the only part of that which would have relevance to YOU (given what you chose to EXCLUDE from possible) would be the immediate (without means) part. An Eskimo (without access to scientific medical intervention) has a terminal disease and suddenly, the disease is gone. THAT, perhaps, you'd need to accept as a "miracle" (although I'm SURE you would not) - but the real point of a miracle is NOT whether means was involved but if GOD was involved - do I give sole "credit" to the... well.... nothing.... or to God (whether or not means was involved)?

And I agree with this: Yes, if one does not share the faith than they likely won't share the "explanation." I don't share your faith that the divine is impossible and thus cannot be a factor. I DO believe in "nature" but then I see even that as a gift of God, a miracle of God, by no means the antithesis of God, in opposition to religion or theism.


I know - this is a point on which we quite fundamentally disagree. And I doubt we'll resolve that (and I doubt either of us has that as an agenda).




- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

No, as I only ever have, I define fact as that which is verifiable. The supernatural is not verifiable, and therefore is not fact in the truest sense. That's why it has no explanatory power, and is belief instead. It is an assertion made, but which has no compelling evidence.

My not accepting a positive claim for lack of evidence is not faith...it is simply skepticism. I make no claim regarding the supernatural, I simply reject any positive claims made about it for lack of evidence. If someone were to tell me they know there is no God or gods, then I would ask them to tell me what evidence they have to make this claim. If they could provide no compelling backing evidence, then I would tell them I reject their claim for exactly the same reason I reject the claims of theists.

I only offer this as an explanation for my views, not to be combative or completely dismissive of beliefs...I only object to belief being treated as fact.

 

[Josiah]

No, as I only ever have, I define fact as that which is verifiable.

... by what you currently define as "natural." A closed circle, IMO.

The supernatural is not verifiable

Obviously not by the natural ... you've simply eliminated any possibility of verification by eliminating it from reality.

It is an assertion made, but which has no compelling evidence.

"There is no supernatural." "God does not exist" Both are assertions with no compelling evidence. Again, if you eliminate any supernatural, then you've eliminated any possibility of evidence within such. Your ASSUMPTION is circular, self-authenticating. The exact thing you rebuke others for?

Of course, friend, in the sense you mean, nature is an assumption...... we both could be Martians hooked up to some electronic entertainment device PRETENDING that nature exists, physics exists, time exists.... we may not even be in the dimension we "think" we are.... "we" may not even exist, "think" may not even exist. There are ASSUMPTIONS here..... you've predetermined some are closed and will not be permitted "on the table", while others will be.... Some call that being "open minded" others the antithesis of that.

"Compelling evidence" Well, again, if you simply choose to disregard evidence as nonreality, then to YOU it's a non-reality. But friend, this does not mean it's a non-reality, only that you won't permit it. If all I will permit is things that are black, then it is a product of my assumptions that I reject the reality of oranges. THAT doesn't make oranges unreal, of course.

"Compelling". Seems pretty subjective, pretty slippery, lol. And of course, I think you mean IN YOUR OPINION - which you note is extremely narrow and exclusive. It MIGHT - just MIGHT - make you unable to "see?" To learn? Oranges just MIGHT be real...... you FEEL the "evidence" of non-reality is "compelling" simply because you reject anything not black? See my point?

The "issue" I see in what some call "skepticism" in themselves is that it is usually entirely void of skepticism.... it's just their chosen assumptions, their faith. Often quite unexamined (not saying so in your case); they then rebuke others for THEIR chosen assumptions which in THEIR opinion are unexamined.


We've had this discussion...... from various perspectives..... several times now. :smile:



And of course, respected friend, I'm NOT suggesting stupid gullibility, I'm not suggesting tossing out reason for an equal embrace of any silly idea. But nor am I limiting reality to only that such most SCIENCE (in 2016) regards as it's tuff (at least SINCE a few microseconds after the Big Bang)..... I accept "nature" in the sense of physics since the Big Bang, but I don't mandate it MUST be limited to such - and thus, therefore, anything other than that CANNOT be real. And your rubric: you'll only accept "evidence" from science as you currently consider such since a few microseconds after the Big Bang and reject any "other" since that "other" isn't real only creates a circle that has no other possible function that to confirm your assumption. Seems like the very thing you are rebuking? And of course, you are left with the issue of what if TODAYS' "understanding" is as wrong as wrong as it was 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago? What about BEFORE the Big Bang? What about outside our universe (and perhaps dimension)? Maybe the "evidence" you put SO much FAITH in..... isn't evidence at all? Ahhh.... ain't always so tidy.


I respect your choice (although I see some "holes" lol)..... I hope perhaps you'd permit others other choices (even if there are at times "holes" lol)..... And yes, all should be careful of circular, closed arguments. And yes, the older I get.... the more I "know" .... the more small I feel, the more mystery "reality" is. Not always so tidy. You and I have the same love and embrace of "nature" (we have far more in common than may be apparent) .... I just am not "closed" to such, I lack the ego for that. And I've come to appreciate realities beyond the lab and the majority view of scientists in 2016 (which may be VERY different 50 years from now). Reality likely is bigger than the synapsis of MY brain.... in 2016 (time itself is!).

I only offer this as an explanation for my views, not to be combative or completely dismissive of beliefs..

I know. And I appreciate greatly! Please accept my expressions also as just my expressions, not to be combative or dismissive of the "reality" you embrace. I "get it" more than perhaps you presume? And PLEASE don't take any of this as personal or as an "attack" on you. Not at all. IMO, you and I are coming at this remarkably similarly - just making different assumptions; choosing different faith. Know this too, friend. Do I consider it POSSIBLE that when I die, I'll just... die? And perhaps all this God stuff well..... isn't? Yes, of course (it's also possible I'll wake up from some dream and discover all "nature" was.... wasn't). But meanwhile..... I have peace, joy, strength, courage, hope...... I know love, mercy, forgiveness..... I have been moved to love, to give, to serve, to comfort..... and in MY opinion, those things are very real (not to imply some pragmatism as foundational).



Well, we're off topic..... and we've been over all this turf......



Thank you.


- Josiah





.

 

[MarkFL]

... by what you currently define as "natural." A closed circle, IMO.

What else do we have for objective verification? We have things that everyone can observe one way or another, and then we have assertions made about things that cannot be observed. Fact deals with the former.

Obviously not by the natural ... you've simply eliminated any possibility of verification by eliminating it from reality.

Again, I am not eliminating anything, I am only drawing a boundary between that which can be put forth as fact, and that which is belief.

"There is no supernatural." "God does not exist" Both are assertions with no compelling evidence. Again, if you eliminate any supernatural, then you've eliminated any possibility of evidence within such. Your ASSUMPTION is circular, self-authenticating. The exact thing you rebuke others for?

For the umpteenth time, I make no such assertions. If I were to declare these things as fact, then I would carry the same burden of proof that those who claim the opposite as fact do.

On the charge against God of existence, I do not find Him innocent, rather, I find Him not guilty, to use a courtroom analogy. When a court declares the accused to be not guilty, they are NOT making a statement that the accused is innocent, they are simply declaring that the evidence was insufficient to declare the accused to be guilty.

Of course, friend, in the sense you mean, nature is an assumption...... we both could be Martians hooked up to some electronic entertainment device PRETENDING that nature exists, physics exists, time exists.... we may not even be in the dimension we "think" we are.... "we" may not even exist, "think" may not even exist. There are ASSUMPTIONS here..... you've predetermined some are closed and will not be permitted "on the table", while others will be.... Some call that being "open minded" others the antithesis of that.

Yes, we must assume that we are not "brains in a vat" and that what we observe is reality, and all that philosophical stuff.

"Compelling evidence" Well, again, if you simply choose to disregard evidence as nonreality, then to YOU it's a non-reality. But friend, this does not mean it's a non-reality, only that you won't permit it. If all I will permit is things that are black, then it is a product of my assumptions that I reject the reality of oranges. THAT doesn't make oranges unreal, of course.

Compelling evidence is that which we can all objectively agree upon, without any baggage on top of the assumption that we aren't brains in a vat. There is compelling evidence that the speed of light is a natural speed limit for matter. There is compelling evidence that we are apes. These are things which have evidence clearly pointing to them. The supernatural has no such evidence. Now you can accuse me of being close-minded because I need evidence before accepting a claim, but I call that skepticism and intellectual honesty, rather than close-mindedness. My world view permits things stated as fact as those things which are backed by compelling evidence.

"Compelling". Seems pretty subjective, pretty slippery, lol. And of course, I think you mean IN YOUR OPINION - which you note is extremely narrow and exclusive. It MIGHT - just MIGHT - make you unable to "see?" To learn? Oranges just MIGHT be real...... you FEEL the "evidence" of non-reality is "compelling" simply because you reject anything not black? See my point?

It behooves us to be selective in what we accept as fact. The true slippery slope is when we begin to allow non-fact to permeate what we consider fact.

The "issue" I see in what some call "skepticism" in themselves is that it is usually entirely void of skepticism.... it's just their chosen assumptions, their faith. Often quite unexamined (not saying so in your case); they then rebuke others for THEIR chosen assumptions which in THEIR opinion are unexamined.

Skepticism, applied correctly and honestly, simply means not accepting positive claims without solid compelling evidence. That it. It's not a faith-based system as you have tried to claim on a multitude of occasions. You are simply wrong about that.

We've had this discussion...... from various perspectives..... several times now. :smile:

Indeed we have. :gathering:

And of course, respected friend, I'm NOT suggesting stupid gullibility, I'm not suggesting tossing out reason for an equal embrace of any silly idea. But nor am I limiting reality to only that such most SCIENCE (in 2016) regards as it's tuff (at least SINCE a few microseconds after the Big Bang)..... I accept "nature" in the sense of physics since the Big Bang, but I don't mandate it MUST be limited to such - and thus, therefore, anything other than that CANNOT be real. And your rubric: you'll only accept "evidence" from science as you currently consider such since a few microseconds after the Big Bang and reject any "other" since that "other" isn't real only creates a circle that has no other possible function that to confirm your assumption. Seems like the very thing you are rebuking? And of course, you are left with the issue of what if TODAYS' "understanding" is as wrong as wrong as it was 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago? What about BEFORE the Big Bang? What about outside our universe (and perhaps dimension)? Maybe the "evidence" you put SO much FAITH in..... isn't evidence at all? Ahhh.... ain't always so tidy.

Evidence does not require faith...it is there for us to see and verify. Simple, no?

I respect your choice (although I see some "holes" lol)..... I hope perhaps you'd permit others other choices (even if there are at times "holes" lol)..... And yes, all should be careful of circular, closed arguments. And yes, the older I get.... the more I "know" .... the more small I feel, the more mystery "reality" is. Not always so tidy. You and I have the same love and embrace of "nature" (we have far more in common than may be apparent) .... I just am not "closed" to such, I lack the ego for that. And I've come to appreciate realities beyond the lab and the majority view of scientists in 2016 (which may be VERY different 50 years from now). Reality likely is bigger than the synapsis of MY brain.... in 2016 (time itself is!).

I respect the choices you have made regarding what beliefs you hold...it is your right to do so. But back to the topic of this thread, history is about facts, and facts are verifiable, and the supernatural is NOT verifiable, and so does not belong in a strictly historical recounting of events. That is all I am saying...but it always seems to get blown up into the "big debate" when I make the reasonable differentiation between fact and belief. Now a belief can be true, but unless we can demonstrate it to be true, then we can't call it a fact.

I could look at a large truck filled with sand and declare that the number of grains of sand in that truck is a prime number. I may very well be right, as the number of grains is either prime or composite. But unless I have some evidence for my assertion, a skeptic would reasonably reject my claim. This isn't to say that they are claiming the number is composite, even though the probability is much greater that the number is composite. A skeptic would simply say there is insufficient evidence to make a claim either way...and this is the stance I take on theism. My claim is that we cannot make a claim, if you will.

I know. And I appreciate greatly! Please accept my expressions also as just my expressions, not to be combative or dismissive of the "reality" you embrace. I "get it" more than perhaps you presume? And PLEASE don't take any of this as personal or as an "attack" on you. Not at all. IMO, you and I are coming at this remarkably similarly - just making different assumptions; choosing different faith. Know this too, friend. Do I consider it POSSIBLE that when I die, I'll just... die? And perhaps all this God stuff well..... isn't? Yes, of course (it's also possible I'll wake up from some dream and discover all "nature" was.... wasn't). But meanwhile..... I have peace, joy, strength, courage, hope...... I know love, mercy, forgiveness..... I have been moved to love, to give, to serve, to comfort..... and in MY opinion, those things are very real (not to imply some pragmatism as foundational).

Josiah, I enjoy our discussions because you do not attack, nor do you throw up straw men. I don't wish to undermine the faith of anyone either...I simply wish for the boundary between fact and belief to be clear.

Well, we're off topic..... and we've been over all this turf......

Well, we have strayed perhaps, but we are still within sight of the topic...what do we want from a historical account? Personally, I want only facts to be given as such. A historian may include their beliefs, but those should be given as such, and not as fact unless they can stand as fact. That's really all I wish to add to the main topic of this thread.

 

[Josiah]

Mark, we disagree on your limitations to (indeed, the very definition of) the word "fact." And I put far, far less credence of and importance to what you consider "observable." I suspect your own position is more akin to mine.

But we've been over this territory before.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

To me, and perhaps I am alone here, a statement given as fact must be verifiable, otherwise I consider it to be speculation or belief. That's my position on fact.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To me, and perhaps I am alone here, a statement given as fact must be verifiable, otherwise I consider it to be speculation or belief. That's my position on fact.

Events can be unique and hence not verifiable in the sense in which you've defined it.

 

[visionary]

Some people are living testaments to the miracle.

 

[psalms 91]

Miracles have happened verified by doctors, x rays and so on. No medical reason for healing yet there it is. Thats a fact

 

[Josiah]

To me, and perhaps I am alone here, a statement given as fact must be verifiable, otherwise I consider it to be speculation or belief. That's my position on fact.

Mark -



I think many define/understand "fact" in a different way than you. And "verified".... by what? Again, if you exclude something from reality, then you aren't going to "verify" it as reality..... Again, if you simply choose to disregard evidence as nonreality, then to YOU it's a non-reality. But friend, this does not mean it's a non-reality, only that you won't permit it. If all I will permit as "real" and "facts" are things that are black, then it is a simply a product of the assumption that I oranges aren't real. THAT doesn't make oranges unreal, of course. IMO, the process you promote is circular, and the very thing you rebuke. The process you suggest simply functions in the sole way it can, the sole way it is intended: to be circular, to affirm the assumption.

Well, I said my "piece" in #13.

Yes, we must assume

Yes. Thus, I disagree with your elimination of any assumption. We ALL assume..... we ALL begin with faith..... It's not the tidy, objective thing that I think you are suggesting....

Evidence does not require faith...it is there for us to see and verify. Simple, no?

Simple, NO! That's kind of my point. Again, by you (not 'we') ASSUMING and determining IN ADVANCE what is and is not.... by you (not "we") limiting what will and will not be accepted as "evidence" by predetermining what is and is not "real", you simply have created a closed circle that has not other function than you confirm what you predetermined.

And of course, those assumptions YOU (not "we") make.... the predeterminations YOU (not "us") make.... ARE faith. You TRUST/RELY very, very, very strongly. And IMO your faith is supremely exclusively. And some would wonder if it is the skeptical, examined thing you seem to suggest faith should be? If in your own individual sense (you, not "us"), if it cannot be "confirmed" by your sense of science (since a bit after the Big Bang) then it can't be real, can't be fact (because your faith is limited exclusively to such) then your faith has predetermined the result. Where is the so-called "skepticism" there? Where is the claimed rejection of individualism there? Where is the lack of assumption, reliance (faith) that is claimed?

My claim is that we cannot make a claim, if you will.

Yet you seem to made huge, bold claims...... your entire concept of reality, of "facts," of evidence, of verification, of epistemology....... All claims, all assumptions, all faith (not from "us" but from you).... Is it not a claim that "facts" are limited to nature since a few seconds after the Big Bang (perhaps only in this dimension?) as you personally/individually currently understand it?



Again, sorry for the diversion. And I'm afraid we're just rehashing stuff we've shared before, wink.



My half cent.



- Josiah




.