You are reading a single comment by @mashton and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@mashton
From that website (which appears to be a highly scholarly resource for all aspects of christian theology):
"According to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith, viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church."
So, in paraphrase: theological facts can be PROVEN only by referring to stuff that was written down centuries ago, in a different language or by examining what people have been behaving like for the last two millenia.
It is now obvious to me why many theologians are not satisfied by the flimsy definition of proof beyond statistical doubt offered by the physical sciences. How can repeatable, empirical observation of phenomena, coupled with a peer review process and incredibly precise statistical techniques (aimed at exposing error, not hiding it) possibly compete with their notions of proof?
Or, without sarcasm: fuck me backwards that is dumb.