# God v Science



## Wingnut (Jul 26, 2009)

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion."  The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

      "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"  

      "Yes sir," the student says.

      "So you believe in God?"

      "Absolutely."

      "Is God good?"

      "Sure!  God's good."

      "Is God all-powerful?  Can God do anything?"

      "Yes."

      "Are you good or evil?"

      "The Bible says I'm evil."

      The professor grins knowingly.  "Aha!  The Bible!"  He considers for a moment.


      "Here's one for you.  Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it.  Would you help him?  Would you try?"

      "Yes sir, I would."

      "So you're good...!"

      "I wouldn't say that."

      "But why not say that?  You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.  Most of us would if we could.  But God doesn't."

      The student does not answer, so the professor continues.  "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him.  How is this Jesus good? Hmmm?  Can you answer that one?"

      The student remains silent.

      "No, you can't, can you?" the professor says.  He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

      "Let's start again, young fella.  Is God good?"

      "Er...yes," the student says.

      "Is Satan good?"

      The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

      "Then where does Satan come from?"

      The student falters.  "From God"

      "That's right.  God made Satan, didn't he?  Tell me, son.  Is there evil in this world?"

      "Yes, sir."

      "Evil's everywhere, isn't it?  And God did make everything, correct?"

      "Yes."

      "So who created evil?"  The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

      Again, the student has no answer.


"Is there sickness?  Immorality?  Hatred? Ugliness?  All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

      The student squirms on his feet.  "Yes."

      "So who created them?"

      The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.



      "Who created them?"


There is still no answer.  Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom.  The class is mesmerized.  "Tell me,"  he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ , son?"

      The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

      The old man stops pacing.  "Science says you have five senses you use to  identify and observe the world around you.  Have you ever seen Jesus?"

      "No sir.  I've never seen Him."

      "Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

      "No, sir, I have not."

      "Have you ever felt your Jesus , tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

      "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

      "Yet you still believe in him?"

      "Yes."

      "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist.  What do you say to that, son?"

      "Nothing," the student replies.  "I only have my faith."

      "Yes, faith," the professor repeats.  "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

      The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.


      "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

      "Yes," the professor replies.  "There's heat."

      "And is there such a thing as cold?"

      "Yes, son, there's cold too."

      "No sir, there isn't."

      The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.  The room suddenly becomes very quiet.  The student begins to explain.  "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or  no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'.  We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

      "Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and  heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.  Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.  You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.  Heat we can measure in thermal units
because heat is energy.  Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

      Silence across the room.

      "What about darkness, professor.  Is there such a thing as darkness?"

      "Yes," the professor replies without hesitation.  "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

      "You're wrong again, sir.  Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

      "In reality, darkness isn't.
      If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

      The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him.
      This will be a good semester.  "So what point are you making, young man?"

      "Yes, professor.  My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

      The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.
      "Flawed?  Can you explain how?"

      "You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains.  "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.  You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.


      Sir, science can't even explain a thought.

      "It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.  To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.  Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

      "Now tell me, professor.
      Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"  

      "If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
      yes, of course I do."

      "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

      The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going.  A very good semester, indeed.

      "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?  Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"  

      The class is in uproar.  The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

      "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
      let me give you an example of what I mean."

      The student looks around the room.
      "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
      The class breaks out into laughter.

      "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain,
      felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain?"


      No one appears to have done so.


So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir."

      "So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

      Now the room is silent.
      The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

      Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.
      "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

      "Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues.  "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

      Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is.  We see it everyday.
      It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.  It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.  These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

      To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself.  Evil is simply the absence of God.  It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.   God did not  create evil.  Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.  It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

      The professor sat down.


----------



## scottmh59 (Jul 26, 2009)

wow..makes you think,great post brother


----------



## TCShelton (Jul 26, 2009)

Good one, but it could go both ways, evil being the absence of good, good being the absence of evil.  It all depends on which side you are willing to take, making duality a whole new arguement.  You can't have/measure one without the presence of the other.


----------



## JTM (Jul 26, 2009)

so furthering that line of thought, shelton... god needs evil to be good?


----------



## TCShelton (Jul 26, 2009)

JTM said:


> so furthering that line of thought, shelton... god needs evil to be good?



That gets into a sticky arguement about my concept of God.  I will say that _people_ need evil to even comprehend good.


----------



## JTM (Jul 26, 2009)

heh, was just kidding


----------



## TCShelton (Jul 26, 2009)

JTM said:


> heh, was just kidding



No, it is a good reply though.  I love any post that makes me think.


----------



## LRG (Jul 26, 2009)

Wingnut
Where did that great find come from?


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jul 26, 2009)

Great post, definitely makes you think.


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 26, 2009)

First time I saw it was on a blog, but it showed up on the SR Message forum also.


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 26, 2009)

I believe to answer the flip side of duality question it would really depend on which is the more base instinct.  Reminds me of the of Sioux story about the two wolves that live inside every man.  One good, one evil.  They are always fighting.  Which one wins depends on which one you feed the most...


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 26, 2009)

“There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it.”  -- Buddah


----------



## RJS (Jul 26, 2009)

That was an awesome read.  Thank you for sharing it.


----------



## RedTemplar (Jul 27, 2009)

Reminds me of the old adage: How can you appreciate sunshine if you have never experienced rain?


----------



## LRG (Jul 27, 2009)

aha / How can you appreciate a clean shoe if you've never stepped on crap


----------



## JTM (Jul 28, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> No, it is a good reply though.  I love any post that makes me think.



it was meant as both, i suppose.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 8, 2014)

This "written thing" lies severely about "science". However, if that's what some so-called "believers" need to congratulate themselves over how much better they are than everyone else, no amount of truth can alter their distorted stereotypes of "science" and "scientists".


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Jul 8, 2014)

And now they've made a movie out of this hokey BS story.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 8, 2014)

Who was the "scientist"? What was his name? What was the institution? When did this happen? Did this all actually happen or is it just a conveniently made-up lie?


----------



## jvarnell (Jul 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Who was the "scientist"? What was his name? What was the institution? When did this happen? Did this all actually happen or is it just a conveniently made-up lie?


 Oh my  God, Oh yes I said God this just point out it is faith in what data is excepted by one person may not be excepted by another but it makes it no less right or true.  I have faith that next winter we will have an absence of summer heat.  LoL


----------



## jvarnell (Jul 8, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> And now they've made a movie out of this hokey BS story.


 It would be a good one with the same amount of fact and any other movie.


----------



## jvarnell (Jul 8, 2014)

Has any of the story been made up or replaced like NOAA did with weather data?  Was the hotest day in recorded US history in the 80's or in 1936?  If you don't understand what I just said get on your Google machine and lookup NOAA 1936 because you will not have felt the heat in July 1936.  HaaaHaaa


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Jul 8, 2014)

jvarnell said:


> It would be a good one with the same amount of fact and any other movie.



The name of the movie is "God's Not Dead" starring Kevin Sorbo (of tv's Hercules fame).

I have a friend who was insisting I see it. He said it's based in a true story, the story listed above. I have no problems with stories, it's when they get passed around and people start claiming they are true without even checking for sources that bothers me. And not just religious stuff. I'm no fan of Obama but most of the crap people spread about him are based nowhere in fact. People are way too damn willing to spread misinformation these days with no critical thinking and reason. As Freemasons we should be better than that, at least I thought that's what we are about.


----------



## ej6267 (Jul 8, 2014)

This is an old one ascribed to Einstein.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 8, 2014)

I have read several versions of this, it is based on the straw-man fallacy.  Basically both sides say "this is what you believe and here is why it is wrong.  It is easy to prove the other guy wrong if you get to say what he believes.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 9, 2014)

jvarnell said:


> Oh my  God, Oh yes I said God this just point out it is faith in what data is excepted by one person may not be excepted by another but it makes it no less right or true.  I have faith that next winter we will have an absence of summer heat.  LoL



Who was the scientist? What was the institution? Is this little story an event or just a pretty little lie made up so some people could congratulate themselves on how smart they think they, themselves, are? Let me guess, the story is just a lie, and the lie is used to attempt to bolster religion. That's pretty sad.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 9, 2014)

jvarnell said:


> Has any of the story been made up or replaced like NOAA did with weather data?  Was the hotest day in recorded US history in the 80's or in 1936?  If you don't understand what I just said get on your Google machine and lookup NOAA 1936 because you will not have felt the heat in July 1936.  HaaaHaaa



Ah! I see! So, then, the Christian virtue is to point to someone else's sins and that means that the Christian is free to commit the same sins! Just pointing at someone else's sins makes a sin into a virtue! Adultery? Just point to someone else committing adultery and God will adore adultery! Murder? Just point to someone else committing murder and God will adore murder! Lies? Just point to someone else committing lies and God will adore lies!

In sort, the whole point is that believing in God is no better than not believing in God, since those who believe in God are free to live according to the lowest standards of those who don't. After all, that's what "somebody ELSE does it" boils down to.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 9, 2014)

ej6267 said:


> This is an old one ascribed to Einstein.
> http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp




Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

Truth DOES NOT MATTER to believers! All you have to do is cite possible lies made by purported nonbelievers, and that makes any amount of lying by believers 100% good, moral, upright, virtuous, and just!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 9, 2014)

By the by, I am a Christian. I just despise using lies in the alleged service of Christ or of God. They all ultimately serve Satan. If you don't care if lies are used in such a way, then why bother pretending to any moral code at all?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 9, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> In sort, the whole point is that believing in God is no better than not believing in God, _*since*_ those who believe in God are free to live according to the lowest standards of those who don't.


Brother, I do not wish to upset you further, but I feel it only fair to point out the _*unspoken assumption*_ in what you have written.  If we remove the word _*since*_ and replace it with _*if*_  I am in complete agreement with what you say.  However, using _*since*_ paints everybody with the same dirty brush, and that I cannot go along with.


----------



## otherstar (Jul 9, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
> 
> Truth DOES NOT MATTER to believers! All you have to do is cite possible lies made by purported nonbelievers, and that makes any amount of lying by believers 100% good, moral, upright, virtuous, and just!



"Truth DOES NOT MATTER to believers!" This is not logical at all! I'm offended by that statement to the very core of my being! I have a Master's degree in philosophy with specializations in the philosophy of science and Medieval philosophy. As a philosophical realist who recognizes the findings of science (at least those that do not contradict religious faith --- and there are none that I can think of off of the top of my head), and the conclusions of good philosophy (derived from our sensory experience) truth matters a great deal to me. If there were no such thing as truth then we cannot know anything at all (even language would be impossible)! If you are a Christian, is there no place for faith in your worldview? If so, what place is that? You seem to divorce  your faith from your science entirely while I think your faith should inform your science as it did so many great scientists in history (Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Mendel, and Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, to name a few) In many of your posts on this site, you place a great deal of stock in that which can be scientifically verified and hardly ever mention faith, yet the resurrection is one event that cannot be scientifically proven, it is something we Christians hold by faith! Faith and reason can, and should, coexist to the exclusion of neither. 

For example, it is logically possible that the universe has always existed, as Aristotle thought. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, except that Aquinas added that Christians believe that God created the universe from nothing based on Scriptural Revelation. This does not rule out evolution because it is possible to posit that creation simply refers to the origin of the universe and life from God, and not some chance event.

When I read the story in the OP, I was reminded of the argument that Aristotle used in the _Physics_ about privation. That is, privation is a lack that something has and as a principle in an accidental change, represents the end towards with the change is moving (before being boiled, water lacks a certain temperature...that lack is the privation). In metaphysics, privation is  used to demonstrate that God, as Goodness itself cannot create anything evil (even Satan is good insofar as he was created by God), but anything that lacks goodness to any degree is said to have that degree of evil in it: evil is the privation of good. That is one point illustrated in the OP. If you wish to pick nits about the rest of the article, go right ahead...but to infer that truth does not matter to all believers is, at best, intellectually dishonest.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 9, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Truth DOES NOT MATTER to believers!!


It is the source of this idea that baffles me.  I lived on the north side of Houston for 16 years and I feel that I have met my share of "died in the wool" believers (and I belonged to some of their churches).  But I always knew that some of them were truly trying to be good people, even if some of them were (please forgive me here) ignorant, holier than thou, bigots.


----------



## BroBook (Jul 9, 2014)

I remember years ago while I was still blinded before seeing the marvelous light, I was asked , what I really wanted my answered was "truth" period nothing else will do me.WWEA!!!


Bro Book
M.W.U.G.L. Of Fl: P.H.A.
Excelsior # 43
At pensacola


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jul 14, 2014)

Sorry, but the logical fallacies are just too glaring to let go. Not that it isn't a seductive argument, but the student should have stopped at "I have only my faith".  Science demands that the things in it's domain be approached empirically. Things must be examined and measured to be "known". Heat, for example, is a thing we can know. It can be measured. It's properties are fairly well established. And yes, "cold" is the relative absence of heat". Making metaphorical comparisons of "heat" and "good" (God), or "cold" and "evil" (Satan) are dicey at best. There is no empirical approach by which we may "know" good or evil. We could, if we're generous with the comparisons' validity, still lean on the metaphor for illustration at least, but the story really went over the cliff when the student started in on evolution. There, he simply tells lies about the nature and observability of brains, and evolution.
Treating faith and reason this way does a disservice to both.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 15, 2014)

THIS IS GREAT!!!! Very, very, very good.


----------



## ARizo1011 (Aug 16, 2014)

Wingnut said:


> A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion."  The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
> 
> "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
> 
> ...



That brother was a great read. I will be sharing this at both my lodges!


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2014)

ARizo1011 said:


> That brother was a great read. I will be sharing this at both my lodges!


Your a member of 2 lodges ?


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## ARizo1011 (Aug 17, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Your a member of 2 lodges ?
> 
> 
> Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App



In time  . The lodge I am a member of is Hialeah-Opalocka and we eon a masonic building where we meet Thursdays. Now there is also a wonderful lodge that meets in our building in Tuesdays, and ever since I became a member and was regularly initiated an EA I would always go to Hurricane lodge 401 in Tuesdays because I wanted to be more active. I just loved being involved. When I lived in the southwest  FL area I to visited the lodges in my district while I was only a candidate. The reason was because I had lived with a 33rd• mason and he was like a father to me and took me every where and I got to see what masonry was like. Ever since then I try to be as active as I can without over doing it. I not I'm just a FC  and can't do much but traveling helps me with understanding the work when I get to see the degrees preformed in different lodges  and of the fact that I walk into any lodge an the brethren will make me feel as of I'm home is just a wonderful feeling.. Knowing we have brothers all over


----------



## coachn (Aug 17, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Who was the "scientist"? What was his name? What was the institution? When did this happen? Did this all actually happen or is it just a conveniently made-up lie?


Just as the made up legend of HA, it's an Allegory. You either find value and truth in it, or you don't.


----------



## coachn (Aug 17, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> ...Truth DOES NOT MATTER to believers! All you have to do is cite possible lies made by purported nonbelievers, and that makes any amount of lying by believers 100% good, moral, upright, virtuous, and just!


So you believe that for truth to exist, it must be based solely upon fact?


----------



## coachn (Aug 17, 2014)

The basis for both good and evil is the Value that is being sought by the person who is doing the labeling.  Common Values must be present for this tale to have its intended impact.  Those who are in the discussion have yet to shake out what is considered valuable to all involved.  This is why there is so much conflict in good-evil discourse. 

At its Core: Good is what is considered Valuable.  Evil is what is considered Destructive to what is Valued.  And what is Valued by one person may not be Valued by others.  Likewise, what is labeled good or evil by one person, may not be labeled the same by others.  The core of this story is premised upon relative terms and how they are commonly used and abused in discourse. 

The story is an excellent piece to learn by if one were to explore the premises, arguments and conclusions (logic) coupled with the use of Rhetorical manipulations used by its author.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 17, 2014)

coachn said:


> So you believe that for truth to exist, it must be based solely upon fact?


I would not say that.
Truth is exists independent of our knowledge of it; whether we are able to prove it, to establish it as fact, or not.

A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"


----------



## coachn (Aug 17, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> I would not say that.
> Truth is exists independent of our knowledge of it; whether we are able to prove it, to establish it as fact, or not.


Some people believe for a truth to exist, it must be supported by facts.  Some believe that, for truth to exist, one has only to recognize it independent of any supporting factuality.  

I do not see all truths having to be supported by facts.  There are some truths that transcend time and space and hence cannot be substantiated though physical facts. 

Facts are based upon agreed and accepted  descriptions of actualities.  Truths are based upon described realities that may or may not be agreed upon.  And truths are what we conclude once faced with either descriptions of actualities or realities.


> A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"


Oh so many loaded directions my Brother.  Back to facts and truths, two separate things, at least, for some of us...

Why would you not accept any truth, regardless of its source especially when it rings true for you?  If it is a shared truth, and you know it to be such for you, then what matter does the source make?  The problem that shall arise any time such a question is put forth pointing out a self-proclaimed authority is that you are already dismissing the source and hence the source's offered light due to that source's dismissed credibility.  To dismiss the light because the source is dismissed is like throwing away gold just because it was first swallowed by a dog before it was delivered to you.  Gold is gold, no matter how it comes to you.  Even an idiot can offer light if you know how to listen properly. 

Secondly, you shall always have a problem accepting offered light when you use the phrase "version of 'the truth'" to frame it first due to another dismissal implying such things are personal fabrication rather than conveyed realities, which, if you truly think about it, is the basis of all truths.  The phrase "version of 'the truth'" redefines the word truth for all who listen to what is then offered. 

Truth is conveyed reality.  And all truth has to be taken within the context of its revelation for it to begin to be recognized, understood and accepted by those who hear it.  Otherwise, it shall be dismissed because the listener has yet to first become properly receptive to it.  This is why so much of truth is conveyed as good allegories.  Good allegories have levels for everyone and everyone will listen at the level they have conditioned themselves to hear.  And allegories are not based upon facts, but they do convey truths that are indisputable, at least to those able to hear them.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 17, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Your a member of 2 lodges ?


Four for me... (we should take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion).


----------



## ARizo1011 (Aug 17, 2014)

trysquare said:


> Four for me... (we should take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion).



What lodges brother?  That's great that great that you are so active in masonry


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2014)

ARizo1011 said:


> In time  . The lodge I am a member of is Hialeah-Opalocka and we eon a masonic building where we meet Thursdays. Now there is also a wonderful lodge that meets in our building in Tuesdays, and ever since I became a member and was regularly initiated an EA I would always go to Hurricane lodge 401 in Tuesdays because I wanted to be more active. I just loved being involved. When I lived in the southwest  FL area I to visited the lodges in my district while I was only a candidate. The reason was because I had lived with a 33rd• mason and he was like a father to me and took me every where and I got to see what masonry was like. Ever since then I try to be as active as I can without over doing it. I not I'm just a FC  and can't do much but traveling helps me with understanding the work when I get to see the degrees preformed in different lodges  and of the fact that I walk into any lodge an the brethren will make me feel as of I'm home is just a wonderful feeling.. Knowing we have brothers all over




Seems like your in a good place. But remember you cant travel to other lodges alone unless you are accompanied by a master mason from your lodge.

When your raised then you may travel on your own!


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 18, 2014)

coachn said:


> Why would you not accept any truth, regardless of its source especially when it rings true for you?


Ah, but it was the "ring" that did it for me, not the source. 


> If it is a shared truth, and you know it to be such for you, then what matter does the source make?


Who said that the source matters? I did not. I _am _saying that, for the thinking person, any given source should not automatically be accepted as a fount of truth. An earnest search for truth demands effort. It can not be made through trust alone.


----------



## coachn (Aug 18, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Ah, but it was the "ring" that did it for me, not the source.


  Yes, so the acceptance of a truth has nothing to do with the source providing it?


> Who said that the source matters? I did not. I _am _saying that, for the thinking person, any given source should not automatically be accepted as a fount of truth. An earnest search for truth demands effort. It can not be made through trust alone.


Oh.  I was left with the impression by your statement: 





> A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"


 that the source was important in accepting an offered truth.

Thank you for the clarification Bro.


----------

