Yes, but as I said, that then just collapses the argument into "is it true"
-
-
-
Yes. As I said, I think this is a valid measure of progress. We progress when we become less wrong.
-
How do you measure this? Without a destination in mind how do you measure positive movement against negative? Change isn't always good.
-
In that case, I was talking about factual accuracy as a measure. Having more of that.
-
Pretty hard to apply to religion generally.
-
Well, yes. Disbelieving in them seems the most likely to be accurate.
-
But by doing this we are abandoning the idea of becoming less wrong and just falling back on feelings.pic.twitter.com/sOlDzqAoYV
-
What? Going with the probabilities and evidence is the opposite of this.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Science cannot challenge religion. It doesn't have the right tools. We are bound by the limits of our minds & need something to believe in.
-
It's a different kind of thing. I am currently working on something about our need for cohesive, satisfying narratives.
-
Do tell.
-
Not in tweets. Anyway, I need to gather my thoughts and clarify my argument.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.