I’ve long said that the only religious people I can converse with are the fundamentalists, as they at least acknowledge that truth exists. They may seek it from their holy book rather than bayes and occam but at least they acknowledge it. The ‘liberals’, when pressed hard enough, tend to go into some kind of relativism that really negates the entire notion of ‘conversation’.
That seems like an extraordinarily hasty generalization. What you seem to be saying is that most non-fundamentalist religious people won’t agree to even a common-sense definition of truth; I’m very skeptical of this claim. Have you tried using really really simple examples, like “snow is white”?
I’ve long said that the only religious people I can converse with are the fundamentalists, as they at least acknowledge that truth exists. They may seek it from their holy book rather than bayes and occam but at least they acknowledge it. The ‘liberals’, when pressed hard enough, tend to go into some kind of relativism that really negates the entire notion of ‘conversation’.
That seems like an extraordinarily hasty generalization. What you seem to be saying is that most non-fundamentalist religious people won’t agree to even a common-sense definition of truth; I’m very skeptical of this claim. Have you tried using really really simple examples, like “snow is white”?
You are right. It is a hasty generalization, hence the word ‘tend’. When handled with care, these can be useful.