Audie wrote:I dont see how it can be the same kind of faith, when you can do the one based on very concrete facts and repeatable tests, and the other is based on.....?
What reality is it that one comprehends, in a religious belief?
Prove to me that Positivism is true based upon your same criteria for justification.
Audie wrote:Prove to me that it is possible to determine what is inside a brick.
That sounds a bit childish to me.
My question is a valid question and is often asked of those who hold to Positivism like you appear to advocate when you asked for "concrete facts and repeatable tests."
It is interesting that many who believe that science can only provide true knowledge, appear to say silly things like Philosophy is dead and not needed (e.g., Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss).
Their theory of knowledge, and justified belief, is a philosophical stance. Indeed, the scientific pursuit is steeped in philosophy of how science functions and should work. The syllogisms in ruling out scientific theories based upon tests, our reasoning ability and rational facilities that are often unquestionably accepted, even belong foundationally within Philosophy itself.
So if you wish to also support these philosophically blind secular scientists, then prove that your "scientific" methods of determining truth are absolute and do not require faith. For example, what do you mean by "concrete facts"? And if all justified knowledge is only that which can be repeated in tests then on what grounds do you accept that very position (Positivism) itself as being justified?
You can either make yourself look more silly by asking me to again prove what is inside a brick, or you can actually try and provide a well-thought out response.