Originally posted by SkyRock
Well, we can only do what we as humans are capable of doing when it comes to "knowing" anything. We form a set of principles or standards of evaluation to determine, something that is the case, and/or something that actually exists. The outcomes of these evaluations must be in agreement with fact or reality. "Knowing" still poses many problems between the believers and non-believers, which is the case in most "religions". Hence the need for a system of standards in which to base knowledge that is, as best as humans can do, considered to be "fact". Given the history of mankind, it is and always will be unwise to confuse fact with faith or, even in the slightest, to give faith equal weight when building a database of knowledge for the posterity of mankind.
And of course, there in lies the problem. Who decides, what is the proper evaluation? Who decides the standards?
The issue is never "Facts" or "Evidence" it's always in the interpretation of those facts. Even if we agree, that we will not deal is matters of faith, and we agree on how we define what "matters of faith" are. Let's assume I believe a society should be based on the "Respect of Persons" perspective (which I do), but you believe the foundation of society should be based on the Utilitarian perspective (which you may or may not). The two are diametrically opposed. (Yes both operate in our society, but they always class, and decisions must be made as to which point of view will take president over the other.) It's not an issue of faith, at this point it's an issue of authority. Which of us, has the authority to enforce our views on the other? If the answer is neither, then what is to be done? We allow a majority consensus to decide what the "Flavor of the Month is" as far as the basis for our government, and what moral code we will follow.
The point being, it will always change, because there is no standard, other than "This seems right to me" So whether it's across religious lines, cultural lines, racial lines, or philosophical lines, there is never really agreement on what is "Right" And if this is the case, then why would my "This seems right to me" be discounted, because someone believed it was rooted in my belief in God? If it is acceptable to the majority, then it has been given the validity as any thing else accepted by the majority. If the defining authority is a majority consensus?; and if that is not the defining authority than what is?
Best regards,
--Tachus
