Antitheism? - Discuss Atheism:
But faith, as such, is blind - not reasonably justified by evidence...
Clardan
I don't think that is true. Whilst there may be debate about the 'reasonably' bit of 'reasonably justified,' my faith (and I can only speak for my own) is not without evidence.
I fear you are misled by Richard Dawkins and his ilk. Faith, says Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, 'means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.' He is mistaken.
Lavengro
Actually Lavengro, I thought this independently of Dawkins, but how is he mistaken? I take it you agree that it is not reasonable to believe in things independently of evidence, and that a belief can only be rationally justified by sufficient evidence. How then is your faith rationally justified ?
Clardan
Dawkins is mistaken by the common fundie mistake of assuming some=all. He compounds that by the common atheist mistake of refusing to consider personal evidence. If I am convinced I have had a (Kantian) transcendental experience, and have examined that experience dispassionately as the scientist I am and found evidence that it was indeed transcendent, there is no possibility of reproducing that evidence for another. It happened to me. It was based on the integration of all of the mental and psychological factors that make up my mind which cannot be imposed on another. But if you trust my judgment as a scientist why can you not trust my evaluation of my experience as transcendent. "
2 comments:
What is "personal evidence?"
Suppose my good friend comes to me with a detailed and authentic sounding story of their alien abduction. I could come to the conclusion that they believed they had been abducted. If they claimed the abduction occurred while that were at work, in full view of their co-workers at all times, the story would definitely stretch credulity. If they claimed that the aliens had implanted a control device in the back of their neck, I would want objective evidence of this claim and if no device was found, I would conclude that they were a little screwy.
If you said to me, "only I have had the ultimate transcendental experience" and I paid you 10% of my income for you to guide me and make life decisions for me, you should find other "followers" and start a cult/church.
If I were venial enough to sell my experience, I could probably find enough followers to start a cult. But it would be much better to invent a transcendent experience that would be more appealing to the masses, and sell that.
I am profoundly skeptical of transcendence that is offered for sale. It usually only benefits the seller.
But if a friend wants to share a transcendent experience that helps explain herm life choices, I will listen sympathetically and try to understand, not with the aim of buying into herm transcendence although that is possible, but to understand why it is important to herm. I don't ask for proof or justification, I accept it at face value as something meaningful for them. I will at least learn something about my friend, and just possibly something about myself, by my reaction, pro or con to herm experience.
Post a Comment