Posted: Feb 25, 2012 2:13 pm
stalidon wrote:Sadly, I think this thread is doomed by its own title, which I didn't think through before writing it. The title should read: "IF we accept that there are no absolute truths, how do we justify our criticizing of religion?"
Or perhaps, "If we accept that our perceptions of reality are relative ..." Thus avoiding the oxymoronic nature of stating that "truth" is "relative".
The point, as far as I recollect, was in acknowledging that we all start from assumptions, and the best we can say about these assumptions is that they are reasonable, logical, and seem to agree with the world as we perceive it. What *I* can't say, is that these assumptions are absolutely true, that they are grounded in a metaphysical indubitable source.
I would say that if an assumption is reasonable, logical, and seems to agree with the world as we perceive it, then its not really an assumption.
When we are talking about the assumptions that science is based upon, we are talking about things that cannot really be proven, but are assumed: the universe is not incoherent, evidence can be observed etc.
If someone is criticising a particular approach to understanding based upon the assumptions contained therein, they cannot seriously counter it with an approach containing more assumptions: ie omnipotent creators with incoherent abilities and undefined qualities.