To further explain the post I was quoting;
To grant advocates of science at least some leeway; scientists approach the creation of knowledge in a different way than theists. They take their experiences based on indepth methodology and formulate a workable theory which is subject to change over a period of time based on progress in research methodology and tools available to scientists.
In contrast, theists primarily rely on evidence largely personal in nature and not subject to the same kind of rigorous internal checks as scientists. The system isn't open to advancement in methodology.
Where the two are the same is their reliance on a fundamental theory of knowledge which relies on the validity of the external senses, the belief in an external world independent from their own perceptions. In the absence of an objective, extraneous existence science is whittled down to a self-verifying system with no basis to overcome the religious.
A simple thought experiment to elaborate;
A blind, deaf man sits on the side of the road. Two others approach from different directions. As these three men meet an earth shattering event occurs. The blind and deaf man feels intense heat and intense vibrations.
One man, an ardent scientist, proclaims it do be a quake. This man is a seismologist who had seen the rictor scales vibrating. He received word from other stations around the world verifying this as an earth quake. He also observes plumes of smoke and observes the rock cleavage, finding out he is on a fault line. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.
The other man is a pious man. He looks across the horizon and sees rays of dark light shooting up from the ground. A demon appears on the horizon, taunting the pious man. A magical pony trots by telling the pious man, "Run sir, it is Lucifer!" This pious man had seen the pony on numerous prior occasions, always accompanied by foreboding and the appearance of the demon. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.
Now this man must decide, without any personal verifying faculties, who is correct. This man is the tabula rasa. How does he decide? Each man has their own internal verifying system of an inductive and deductive nature. Each has supporting evidence of different kinds and equal normality or consistency.
It is hard, but one must put themselves in the shoes of the blind, deaf man to remove the bias of what they perceive. How are they to distinguish themselves from who they think is the crazed beggard?
