You continue to be in denial.
You admit that we make all definitions, but then claim they are meaningful "because we have deciddd they are meaningful."
What wonderful circular reasoning.
You still don't address the questions I ask.
Your go on and on about scientific process, but, of course, you belief in that ultimately rests on assumed but unprovable assumptions, just like religious people believe in assumed but unprovable assumptions.
At least you have come far enough to admit that "no standard exists by which we can determine abstract "rightness"."
Good. You are getting a bit closer to the truth here. Your belief in rightness is based on the same abstractions as others' belief in God.
In the end, you continue to be in exactly the same situation as religionists. Your contend that your religion is based on science, but of course science itself is based on unprovable assumptions just as religious writings are.
No matter how much you squirm, it comes down to the same thing. Whether what you believe in is God, or science, or moral rightness, it all starts from your accepting unprovable assumptions and proceeding from there.
You may choose different things to believe in than Christians, or Jews, or Muslims do. But you are in the same place they are. |
