>The problem centers around
>the fact that experiments and hypothesis are, in science, dynamically
>altered in relation to one another and the paradigm. I might
>argue that a "ghost" which each of us can see but no insturment
>can detect or record is a "dream" or your "imagination".
>QED, right? But then you will say "not fair: when I said 'ghost'
If you are saying that there is no possible way to prove that
this isn't all just a dream, then I agree. Is it reasonable
to assume that this isn't a dream? I think so, so I can't
say it is an unreasonable belief (whatever you want to name it).
>>Are you going to ask why to every purpose until we arrive at
>>some core values that are their own respective reason?
>
>Do you know of an alternative?
I was just trying to figure out where you were going with this.
>[Hints at the purpose of CoV:]
>>- - to promote critical thinking
>>- - to see if it is possible to base a religion on memetics
>>- - to have conversations with people around the world
>>- - to collaborate on a piece of conceptual art
>>- - to help create an interesting future
>>- - to convince the world that everyone can be a scientist and an artist
>>- - to experiment with memes and meme-propagation
>>- - to send our fave memes and genes off world to ensure long term survival
>
>Which of these is in conflict with faith?
Leaving the f-word alone for a moment, I think unreasonable
belief conflicts with:
- to promote critical thinking
- to help create an interesting future
- to convince the world that everyone can be a scientist and an artist
- to send our fave memes and genes off world to ensure long term survival
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/