Reply
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 09:33 pm
Context:
This is the very same faith that will not stoop to reason when it
has no good reasons to believe. If a little supportive evidence
emerges, however, the faithful prove as attentive to data as the
damned. This demonstrates that faith is nothing more than a will-
ingness to await the evidence - be it the Day of Judgment or some
other downpour of corroboration. It is the search for knowledge on
the installment plan: believe now, live an untestable hypothesis until
your dying day, and you will discover that you were right.
-Sam Harris
@oristarA,
Yes, an abundance of evidence that supports the belief. Using "downpour" adds the nuance of "sudden," as judgment day happens, supposedly, right after you die.
@oristarA,
The following question seems to be posted before by me. But I failed to "google" it out (my google is blocked).
The author went on:
Quote:But in any other sphere of life, a belief is a check that everyone
insists upon cashing this side of the grave: the engineer says the
bridge will hold; the doctor says the infection is resistant to peni-
cillin -these people have defeasible reasons for their claims about
the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not.
Nothing could change about this world, or about the world of their
experience, that would demonstrate the falsity of many of their core
beliefs. This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examina-
tion of the world, or of the world of their experience. (They are, in
Does "this world" refer to "the world of science"?
@oristarA,
The "this world" would be the objective world that people assume exists independent of and individual's perception of it. It is in contrast to "the world of their experience."
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
The "this world" would be the objective world that people assume exists independent of and individual's perception of it. It is in contrast to "the world of their experience."
In that case, "Nothing could change about this world" seems not necessary there. What is the author talking about? What does it to do mullahs?
@oristarA,
Quote:these people have defeasible [sic]* reasons for their claims about
the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not.
*defensible
The engineers (and scientists) have empirical evidence to support their beliefs. The religious people do not. No matter how much changed (naturally) in this world, it would not either prove or disprove their religious claims. In other words, their religious claims are not subject to empirical evidence. Thus, the requirement for faith in such religions.
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Quote:these people have defeasible [sic]* reasons for their claims about
the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not.
*defensible
The engineers (and scientists) have empirical evidence to support their beliefs. The religious people do not. No matter how much changed (naturally) in this world, it would not either prove or disprove their religious claims. In other words,
their religious claims are not subject to empirical evidence. Thus, the requirement for faith in such religions.
That is, "nothing could have changed about the world" refers to "nothing in the religious brief could have changed with respect to the realistic world"?
FBM wrote:
The "this world" would be the objective world that people assume exists independent of and individual's perception of it. It is in contrast to "the world of their experience."
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace