Journey Towards Creation

[Caid Ivik]

Then we can say religion is a source of psychological effects. That's a full empirical evidence you wanted so. I don't know why you call yourself a rationalist, when you say that scientific "breaktroughs" describes more than religion and base your logic on pure induction...

[Dante]

As far as I'm aware 'induction' is similar to 'introduction.' If so then I don't understand what you're saying.

Religion is indeed a source of psychological effects. It caused the Inquisition, it can (apparantly) cause inner peace, etc. But this by no means indicates that there's anything true in the networks of lies it spins. It is possible to create something true, empirically and logically, from something false.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, evolutionar theory caused the second world war, I would say it took much more... Induction is a logical way of finding facts about events trough how they mostly occur. In mathematics it is like this (V means event, k is random number): V(k)=V(k+1). Hume said in practical life it is enough. When you throw a stone to window, it will broke in first try, then when you throw to another, it may break as well. When you make ie ten such throws and all windows are broken, you may say the eleventh will be broken too. It is POSSIBLE it will do so. But there may come ie wind and the result will be different. That's the main problem of induction.

[Dante]

I know about Humne's example. Hense there is no such thing as certainty, only very high probability. And the probability is high enough for me. I see no certainty, probability, or even possibility of most religious theories being true.

[Caid Ivik]

For induction you need time. And divine things aren't dependant on it. We can't say ie what the dead do now and such. Here we can use only rational deductions. Take one specified problem and we can find a short description. However, truth doesn't play role here. It is irelevant. Colors are true, would someone say, but if I'm colorblind I wouldn't believe him. I would say we should more talk about function and influence.

[TMA_1]

actually acriku, I agree that most intelligent design proponents are laughable. Many of their ideas just make no darn sense.

Not all christian scientists agree with it though, remember that. Hugh Ross doesnt from what I can see.