On Thu, 5 May 2005, Chip Berlet wrote:
> Then I had a dialog with one student who had indicated he held those
> beliefs. I got him to admit that he thought--given my politics and
> ideas--that I was in service to the devil. I said I understood that he
> might believe that, and he had a right to believe that, but what if he was
> wrong?
I think at least theoretically, this is the key bridge bridge between science and religion. They both hold it to be one of their highest principles that we can be never be certain. One thinks it's because we can never know God's will; the other because a true allegiance to science means we must remember probability is not certainty, everything is possible, and everything is revisable.
So at least in theory, you can based mutual tolerance between these worldviews on the principle of (scientific and religious) humility. It's the point where they overlap. People ignore this principle all the time. But it's part of their identity that you can call on. And it's the place where their identities overlap. And it's the fundamental principle of tolerance.
Which brings us to the larger question. The entire idea of incommensurability between worldviews is based on two fallacies: that there exist worldviews with no points of overlap; and that there worldviews that never evolve under influence from the outside world. Neither of those things is ever true.
Michael