:-) Oh, come on David, you aren't dense...you're stubborn. I wasn't
criticizing your intellect.
Given that we have invested intentionallity in all kinds of complex
phenomena (volcanoes, hurricanes, the stars, the internet) more or less
incorrectly...what would you propose we use at the "good evidence" for
making the intentional assumption? Doesn't that evaluation criteria become
an axiomatic system which will eventually be demonstrated inconsistent or
incomplete.
Like I said, you can bury it IN AS MANY LAYERS of philosophical and
scientistic double talk as you like. Good evidence makes the assumption of
the intentional stance reasonable. What defines "good evidence" and how do
we veryify THAT axiomatic system...Ad infinitum. At the core is still a
leap.
>>Perhaps. What is inconsistent about a belief in God?
>
>Which God? Brodie's? The Christians'?
Either, both.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------