>>10884079>Is the accusation that he’s acting on bad faith, or what is the exact accusation?
The accusation is that there is no good grounds for believing in Christianity.>The Pope hardly thinks he’s right about everything
He is CERTAIN that Jesus is the Son of God sent on Earth to redeem mankind. That is his truth, and it is a dogma, which means he is not willing to discuss it, he does not question it. The Pope might not think he is right about everyhting, but he thinks he is right about certain bold and unsubstantiated claims about the world. That's bad enough.>If the scientist isn’t willing to discard science, why should the Pope be expected to discard Catholicism?
Scientists are usually willing to discard old theories if a new theory turns up which works better than the previous ones. The Pope doesn't seem very willing to discard his old religion, or he would convert to Islam. And IF he were to convert to Islam, he would stop being Christian; while a scientist can stop believing in a theory without stopping being a scientist, if he stops believing on the basis of new evidence.
Science is not a set of particular dogmas like Catholicism; it is a framework of general rules taht are justified by the fact that they work in practice, whereas Christian dogmas have no real justification besides blind "faith".>What counts as evidence is obviously subjective, according to whatever you find compelling.
For science what counts as evidence is what is empirically observable and measurable. And this criterion seems to work better than any other. If Jesus appeared to me in my dreams and told me I can fly, I might take that as "evidence" of the fact that I really can fly. Of course I would die or break a few bones if i were to jump out of the window, which shows that any other kind of evidence besides empirical evidence seems to be unreliable.