Hi Poirot,

Yes, you have touched on something fundamental in this discussion: the incommensurability or otherwise of paradigms - one based on faith and the other on rationality and evidence. Incommensurability may not be the right word, as your account of Vatican scientists shows - 'talking past each other' ? 'Parallel universes' ? I don't know.

People with faith simply don't need evidence, even those in the form of Biblical fairy stories: their veracity or otherwise simply doesn't matter. True believers would even discount counter-evidence as being no more than god's testing of one's faith: I'm informed that in Islam, this aspect of a faith-paradigm is very common, that to many believers, Allah and Shaitan are always putting up false 'realities', 'evidence', one to test and the other to mislead, which they must ignore and resist.

On the other hand, people who try to base their view of the world on rationality and evidence don't need faith. They certainly may have faith in the veracity of scientific methods of research and discovery, in the confidence that such methods will reveal more and more of the complexities of the universe as time passes, and in the eventual worth of humanity and the environment. But faith in an unknown, and unknowable, X would seem pointless and idiotic to an atheist oriented to this paradigm.

Which means that something like the 'discussion' tonight on Q & A between Pell and Richard Dawkins will be more like two people talking past each other, rallying their respective troops to fight on neighbouring paddocks, perhaps within sight of each other but never really coming into contact. Each side can then record a Great Victory.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

The question is what should we deem "unknowable". Many revelations and explanations that we now take as "given" were once considered unknowable or, at least, beyond rational comprehension.

I find it an eminently reasonable proposition that man can augment his faith with investigation and understanding of the mechanisms of the material universe.

Hi Poirot,

As an atheist, I don't consider anything ultimately 'unknowable', if it exists at all. What doesn't exist doesn't have much interest for me.

And since the two paradigms don't really have any point of contact - one based on faith, one based on rationality and evidence - I guess it would be quite possible to 'believe' in both at once, to operate more or less simultaneously, or more likely alternatively, in both paradigms without much sense of conflict, precisely because they don't use each other's criteria for validation: unreasoned faith in one sphere or domain, rationality and sense in another.

I certainly hope that Dawkins can get beyond this impasse tonight.

Cheers,

Jo

Squeers, picking up on your invitation to visit the other thread and having a trawl I came across:

"Freedom of conscience is a matter of private conceit and indulgence, and shouldn't be used in the public sphere as an excuse for dumbing-down important issues."

Also, "The state of populist politics these days is such that no one seems to think they have to justify the position taken, it's intuitive. Freedom of conscience is starting to look like a euphemism for "I dunno it's just what I believe"."

I share with you a concern about the post-modernist notion that all viewpoints are equally valid (irregardless of how uninformed they may be), and that truth is relative. What spins from this is nobody has a "responsibility" to robustly justify their position, just the "right" to hold it. Post-modernism is infused into the education system so will be with us for quite awhile yet.

Your attack, Squeers, on those you disagree with you in the current topic, labelling them as "neo-liberals", is insulting because, IMO, most do write from an informed position, do seek one truth, do justify their position and are prepared to concede well argued points.

Your glass is half full, so stick to arguing your position with more respect. Vehemence and dismissing others as inferior with simple labels that unfairly encapsulate them do not make your argument stronger.

Thank you for conceding, at one point, that I just may have a little intelligence. Coming from you that was high praise indeed and I have had my chest puffed out all Easter!

A block-buster Easter Monday, Hawthorn v Geelong, Dawkins v Pell, but I agree with Joe, the guys won't be playing the same sport.

Experiential faith can not be denied and that's Pell's game and what he'll stick to. Dawkins won't touch him even when he's got him on the ropes, Pell spinning out of trouble jabbing with demands for proof there is no god, not just probabilities. Dawkins will slightly lose his lolly, I predict.

I'll watch both contests but the footy will have the clearer result

*The Catholic or any other church should not be aiming at credibility, they should be aiming for truth*

Dan, no doubt they did that, when the church had their little spat with
Galileo and locked him up. It took them some hundred years to
apologise, but they no doubt learnt a valuable less. Its pointless
claiming something as the truth based on interpretation of old texts,
if the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

Of course religions need to maintain some kind of credibility. They
are marketing a brand after all. Their brand can be badly damaged,
if even true believers can see that they are claiming outright nonsense.
Today those true believers can run off to some other Christian cult or church, to satisfy their spirtual needs.

When I see adverts in the paper promoting the Catholic faith, I guess
that is not so much different from those people flogging something else.
They all need customers for the goods or services that they
sell or promote.