[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.