Mar 30, 2010 -- 7:26PM, Blü wrote:

Mark

I do agree that much of what is called inquiry is nothing more than a veiled attempt to descredit a position rather than a desire to actually look at the evidence presented and try to make sense of it

That statement tells us that you, like teilhard, fear reasoned enquiry and regard its methods as inimical to your faith.

No ... "Reason" is NOT "inimical" to "Faith" ...

YOUR Problem, Brother Blu, is that YOUR ( supposedly ) "Reason"-able Materialist-Atheist World-View is Questioned ( which you perceive to mean, "threatened" ) by "Faith" ...

teilhard

I believe you are being more than a little disingenous here, Bro. ...

If they're real then they interact with reality, hence there'll be examinable evidence for them.

If they're not real, then they're imaginary.

What exactly is disingenuous about that?

I think we want to know because we are human and want to live as deeply connected humans and drink deeply of the springs where to quote Robert Bly " the spirit horses come to drink."

Jesus and the stories about him, and the living faith communities around him, can provide a rich focus for us which can in turn lead us to drink our fill.  And lest you all think I have gone over to the other side and become a fundamentalist, please know that I will say the same about my beloved Epic of Gilgamesh, and other great works.

Dave

Mar 31, 2010 -- 8:09PM, Kodiacman wrote:

Mar 31, 2010 -- 5:18AM, Blü wrote:

Mark

whether the individual is willing to be flexible in thier approach.

I have no bias or prejudice against them.  Instead I reject them as possibilities because that's what all the examinable evidence says.  When the examinable evidence says different, I'll say different.

 

Blu.

The skeptic has a view or a bias as all persons will have a personal view in which they see the world. The difficulty with skepticism is that it never provides a place to 'land' on. In other words it does not 'prove' evidence but simply is a means to criticize evidence. This lends itself to biases being honored wherein the skeptic can then 'pick and choose' what evidence suits them in thier own world view and they can then 'objectively' reject those things that do not comply with their own world view and biases rather than honestly admitting thier own biases.

blessings

 

Yes ...

The REAL Question in these Discussions is The META-Question, i.e., a priori "World-View" ...

Mark

skepticism ... does not 'prove' evidence but simply is a  means to criticize evidence.

No, it doesn't criticize evidence as such.  it's simply an aspect of reasoned enquiry, including the assessing of possible evidence - the strong preference for conclusions transparently reasoned from examinable evidence, instead of assumptions.  It's an essential tool in trying to maximize objectitivity.

This lends itself to biases being  honored wherein the skeptic can then 'pick and choose' what evidence  suits them

I think that's untrue.  Perhaps you can give us some examples of what you mean.

If you want to see evidence selected on the basis of bias, try those who select on the basis of religious belief (that is, belief without evidence, or in the face of evidence).  Such selections are at best arbitrary, at worst dishonest.

And no, I don't regard my preference for reasoned enquiry as being a 'bias'.  What alternative is there?