goodthief, i think it's obvious we're not getting anywhere. you jump on my use of the word "method" but you talk of "way of thinking". you simply have not indicated any other "way" of thinking. all it amounts to is that you believe some things which can't be proved. fair enough. so do i. but the difficulty comes depending upon WHAT unprovable things you believe. it's not a case of anything goes.

if you believe there is a loving god, then i have no objection (and am actually envious though i cannot share your belief). if you believe something like this god works through the miracles performed by mother teresa, then i have huge objections.

in other words, to the extent that your beliefs ae testable by empirical methods, then they are answerable to such tests. to the extent that your beleifs are untestable then, for me, they are neither here nor there.

Bushbasher, Perhaps you’re right, and I’m happy to leave it. Had no intention of “jumping” on your words. I was really trying to communicate.

For what it’s worth, I agree that any specific belief that is contradicted by empirical evidence has to be abandoned – so long as it’s conclusively contradicted. So, I’m not a creationist because of the evidence of the world’s age – and also because I believe in God’s integrity (I’m not buying the notion that He perversely made it to look older than it is).

I think we both use logic. But, we differ in the way we apprehend facts – facts which we then work on logically.

I’m not advocating that “anything goes” – that the move out from empiricism carries no sense of reasonableness or responsibility. For me, this is taken care of by my starting point – God, and my understanding of God’s character and God’s relationship with the world. Proceeding logically – and often empirically – from this base has never, that I know of, led me to something patently unreasonable (except from the strict empiricist point-of-view, of course). Yet, it has given me access to more than science can confidently account for (at present).

Happy to continue, or not, as you like.

Pax,

goodthief, i think that's enough for now. not out of grumpiness - i've appreciated the discussion - but just i think we pretty much know where each other stands. diminishing returns. i do appreciate you haven't thrown empiricism out the window, and don't engage in special pleading (unlike a depressing numbers of christians who contribute here).

as you agree, it's not "anything goes". there are rules and standards for our beliefs, whatever their origins. and i'm always interested then to try to flesh out what those rules are. but it's probably best to leave further discussion for a new impetus.

all the best.