> Well. Not to push the obvious, but yeah. That's precisely what they
> are drinking and that is "all" they are eating.
----------------------
And any halfway decently trained Catholic theologian could simply undercut the the notion of *in fact* as you use the term. See the work of Richard Popkin on how radical skepticism [and it's cousin fideism] was used to defend religious claims between the 16th and 18th centuries -- "The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle". For a contemporary use of analytic philosophy to open a space for fideism and negative theology/deus absconditus see "Philosophy after Objectivity" by Paul K. Moser
>
> The thing is, we can keep throwing the works of different
> philosophers or existentialists back and forth, but at some point
> you need to draw a line in order to live a life of practical
> existence.We cannot live entirely in our heads and keep our bodies
> functioning. In any case, I have drawn it. And that line is one
> where I accept that which is generally recognized by science. I
> state this with the caveat* that science (and man) do not know all,
> likely never will and are at this moment almost certainly wrong
> about a number of things accepted as "givens".
>
> Indeed, in the end the human brain... as it physically exists....
> may be entirely incapable of comprehending the "truth" about
> existence. Just as a fruit fly cannot "do" philosophy, perhaps we
> cannot "do" a complete understanding of existence. As such, I am
> going to make the best of it and cling to that understanding of
> existence which shows the best promise for enabling myself and the
> species to survive. And yes, I'm going to assume that surviving is
> somehow important, for some reason that is not really clear to me as
> yet (not being entirely facetious).
>
> *not really even a caveat, but actually just good science.
>
> --
>
> Gary Williams
----------------------------
Well your statements above still leave open the question as to whether there's any "truth" to existence for us to grasp at all. So the issue of the term *in fact* is every bit as problematic for a non-drug using religious person, drug using religious person [as in a drug induced religious experience of conversion], a non-drug using atheist, and a drug using atheist. Your assertions above also point to a secular analog of fideism; namely that it is a *decision* by which you demarcate what is constitutive of *the meanings* of the term *in fact*.
Ian -- "I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no-one judges me" [Jethro Tull]