Thursday, February 5, 2015

Makin' Shit Up (MSU) is not a good basis for determining facts

I had a lot of comments published in the very lively discussion of the article "Conflict or Mutual Enrichment? Why Science and Theology Need to Talk to Each Other". I'm not quite sure why my spiel on basic epistemology didn't make it.

The normal way we determine facts and truth indicates that religion is either extremely unlikely to be true, or at best it is unknowable. That isn't a scientific position, it's everyday life. Science just applies this thinking with a bit more rigour.

Playing meaningless word games, and saying that you have invented a new way of determining what facts and truth are is simply not valid. Some people say there are "other ways of knowing". But unless there's any evidence, these "other ways" are no different to a concept I like to call MSU - also referred to by commenter AG as "making stuff up" although I don't use the word "stuff" in my definition.

There has to be evidence. Nothing else counts. Wishful thinking certainly doesn't count. This article repeatedly talks about a human desire or a human need or a kind of hunger for god and religion. It's not a need that I feel, but if it were, me wanting it wouldn't be evidence it was true.

No comments:

Post a Comment