This again is based upon the false assumption that empirical evidence is the only legitimate form of determining truth. Even within logic, there's the concept of an axiom - where an assertion is believed true without evidence. In fact in order to believe empirical evidence is truth you already have to operate on the axiom that is true.
How does one empirically prove the laws of Logic true? You can't. You place trust in their truths to begin with.
Sigh. I don't feel like I am being heard.
My point was that there is no basis for convincing someone of truth with religion. It makes this whole discussion a waste of energy.
Religion cannot DETERMINE truth, nor can it even NEGOTIATE truth except
by using science or logic or some other more tangible method as an intermediary -- it can only ACCEPT truth and ASSERT truth, and if the other person has a different metaphysical understanding of truth, then there is no agreement possible.
Everything you are saying is in your head.
If you were to die in a moment, I would lose the ability to hear what was in your head.
Those ideas would be gone.
The sort of evidence I am describing (as more the purview of science) is a body of evidence that exists outside of the human mind. If I die in a moment, others can perceive exactly what I was perceiving and come to similar conclusions.
In fact, EXACTLY the same.
A degree is still a degree.
A millimeter is still a millimeter.
An 800Hz note is still an 800Hz note.
This is not the case with your beliefs.
Your beliefs might or might not be accepted and matched by another person.
They live in your head.
Beliefs -- religious perception -- lives inside everyone's heads separately.
Sometimes beliefs can coincide, but it's hard to tell how much of that is originating inside the person and how much is true on its own, especially when people communicate said truths to each other. It's all necessarily personal and subjective.
I love how I was just taking your words and basically showing you an inherent contraction in how YOU stated things... regardless of whether your statement was rationally correct or not, it really didn't matter to me which it was, I was just critiquing the mistake you made in how you said things... and you just deny it.
"Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without presuppositions’…a ‘faith’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method – a right to exist…It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
Sure. It's the same "faith" that leads me to think I can sit on a chair without it collapsing -- it's tried and experienced and tested.
This sort of "faith" is a far cry from any "faith" that you seem to be laying claim to, because as I stated a number of times, the faith you believe is a faith that cannot and does not hinge primarily on proof of any sort. It involves no replicable testing. It involves nothing related to life experience that can be observed by multiple people at once. It must either be accepted or declined.
You're in essence playing word games with the term "faith" here, to obfuscate the discussion. And then appealing to a non-authority (Nietzche, nonetheless!) to support your claim.
Science is a means to an end, and operates according to certain presuppositions. Those presuppositions are provided by philosophy and religion. The belief that science has nothing to do with religion is itself based off a philosophical presupposition - namely that of metaphysical naturalism.
Nice -- now you claim that science is owned by philosophy and religion, so that you can take ownership of the term and the process.
When you want to actually show, in a way that actually can be agreed upon via mutually acceptable evidence, that religion owns science, let me know.
The problem is that you can't.
It's an ASSERTION...
...that must either be ACCEPTED or REJECTED.
You either agree or you don't.
I don't agree, and I reject your ASSERTION
since you can't offer any third-party evidence to show me why your way of seeing is more accurate than mine.
So the conversation is done, logically, right?