View Single Post
Old 9th May 2012, 11:43 AM   #125
Bill Thompson 75
Graduate Poster
 
Bill Thompson 75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,437
Originally Posted by SkeptimusPrime View Post
The argument used by the religious (at least the ones who make a cogent argument) is to say that one has to accept that empirical thinking is valid without any proof, since proof would necessarily rely on empirical thinking and would therefore be circular.

The argument is therefore that we accept methodological naturalism in a sort of faith based way.

I think the primary failure here is a sort of confusion about degrees of certainty, as if because we cannot be 100% sure of empiricism means that believing in it puts you on equal footing with people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old because a book said so.

Just because neither claim can be demonstrated as true with 100% certainty doesn't mean it is equally reasonable to believe either one.
This is the crux of the issue, that one requires more faith than the other.
Bill Thompson 75 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top