Basically it is like that. I ask "Why do you totally reject X?". I am asking for some nuance. The atheist replies "There is no evidence at all." For example X = "awareness is at the basis of matter".
Practically speaking, all the evidence that each scientist personally has is only in books, authority of other scientists, etc. It is all based on trust. The logic is within your mind, but the basic evidence is not. I would be entitled to reject this evidence using the same argument that atheists use to reject evidence presented about life after death, etc.
I do trust more science than I trust other tradition of knowledge. The above was just an extreme position to explain that evidence always depends on trust, and it is always subjective. I cannot understand that someone would totally reject all accounts of the reality, etc. that we find elsewhere. There should be some nuance here. Things aren't back and white. "No evidence" is a very absolute answer, typical of a believer.
2007-10-12
17:22:50
·
13 answers
·
asked by
My account has been compromised
2
in
Religion & Spirituality