Blatham wrote:
.. It is logically improper, and transparently so, to claim as you do (or come close to doing) that scepticism (uncertainty, absence of a truth claim) and belief (certainty, presence of a truth claim) are identical.
If this were so, it becomes a tad difficult to ascertain how it is we might learn anything, or make intellectual progress in any direction at all.
Illogical. First you beg the question, then you follow with a non-sequitor. What is the skepticism you prize so well? In the universe of propositions concerning some matter, the proposition that A is true, or that B is true, and the proposition that "not A" is true, are all equally propositions, as is the proposition that "one cannot tell with the evidence at hand".
Blatham wrote:
As set suggests, there is a real functional difference in play here which you conveniently ignore (for an obvious reason, which I'll get to in a second). The earth, we now know, is not at the center of the solar system nor the universe. That knowledge was only possible as a consequence of scepticsm, uncertainty, and the recognition that truth claims impede us if held as anything other than tentative.
On the contrary, I regard all such "truth claims" as tentative. I do however make a distinction between what I know and what I believe. All of us act on the presumption that certain things are true, even though in many cases we don't assert we "know" they are true (or make a truth claim about them). I am flying out of Dulles for San Francisco on Monday. I will leave for the airport at 1100 AM on the belief that my flight will depart, but I don't know that it will.
Blatham wrote:
I said earlier that 'creationism' is a rearguard action. It has risen as a response to a more compelling, but contradictory, understanding of the world which secular investigation has permitted. Faith holders (of a certain variety - those who ain't gonna let that faith slip away no matter what) have had but two possible defensive strategies: to compete on the empirical/scientific battlefield, thus creationism; or to do what you are doing, to argue that all truth claims are equally theory-laden and resting upon bias such that none are superior to any other.
That's where your constant dualism and refusal to differentiate stems from george.
Interesting digression, but it is beside the point of our earlier discussion. Do you believe that such ?'faith holders' have or ought to have the same civil rights and rights to political advocacy that you enjoy? Yes or no?
Frankly, I don't see that there is any intellectual competition between the ideas of physics, biology and a creator. The big bang and the latest formulations of relativistic superstring theory don't prove or (what is more important) claim to prove there was no creator, anymore than do the many physical facts surrounding the evolution of species. So far, at least, the two notions are entirely independent. It is only ignorance on both sides that supports the notion that evolution in the Darwinian description and the idea of a creator (or even the allegorical meanings in the Bible) are mutually exclusive. They are not. Those who hold to the mutual exclusivity of these ideas would be wise to be tentative about that as well.
Blatham wrote:
You can be counted on to argue that one person accepting biblical authority is no different that another person accepting the authority of, say, Louis Leakey. But there is a difference. One is held tentatively, and can be discarded. Not so the other.
Sophistry and nonsense. There is nothing intrinsic to these "authorities" that either requires anyone to hold either without modification or even renunciation. There are sufficient examples in respect to both to amply prove that point.
The liberty of some Anglican groups to accept homosexual prelates is no different from the liberty of other such groups to reject it. Based on what I have read, both sides appear to be equally dogmatic in this dispute. I have no quarrel with either, and would continue to let both groups live and vote as they wish.