Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Scientific vs religious "belief"
Message-ID: <1149@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 11:38:19 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1149
Posted: Tue Jan 10 11:38:19 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 08:23:57 EST
References: <1118@uvacs.UUCP> <1138@mit-eddie.UUCP> <462@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 15

As I recall, Rich Rosen was arguing on behalf of "what we learn in
school is borne out by evidence, and what we learn through faith is
not."  I was merely countering by stating that "there is no absolute
proof for what we learn in school, neither is there for what we believe
through faith, so the latter should not be discarded for lack of
evidence."  If the theory turns out to be incorrect, the evidence must
be re-evaluated.  Therefore, evidence should not be the sole criterion
for forming a belief, and lack of evidence should not be the sole
criterion for rejecting one.


-- 
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
Gds@XX (arpa)