Psycho-Babble Faith | about religious faith | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: The 10,000,000 Dollar Question FredPotter

Posted by Ritch on September 18, 2002, at 0:26:50

In reply to Re: The 10,000,000 Dollar Question, posted by FredPotter on September 16, 2002, at 20:22:40

> Religions say general empirical things about existence. This means they can't even in principle be falsified and are therefore lower in status than theories. Neither of course can they be proved. One interesting religion is Atheism which states the null hypothesis as being true. You can never know this as you can never be sure you've looked everywhere. So Agnosticism seems the only sensible belief for the very reason that it doesn't believe anything


I was going through a text for a Philosophy of Science class I was thinking about taking for an elective while I was in college twenty years ago. Anyways, I think the author was Karl Popper. From what I understood, he said that religious arguments were "unverifiable" or "unfalsifiable" in the world of senses and logic we use as humans. So, his conclusion was that religious arguments may not be *scientific* arguments, but that didn't make them *invalid arguments*.

any comments?





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Faith | Framed

poster:Ritch thread:882