Jump to: Board index
June 13th, 2012, 11:59 am
June 14th, 2012, 12:37 am
Zeichner1 wrote:As for your second comment "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence." I find this to be a very interesting stance on the matter and cannot help but agree to what you have said to some extent. I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance? I would take a stance where I agreed that indeed it is rational to, by all means, accept what evidence most points to. ie, 1 + 1 = 2. Based on human understanding of concepts and the invention of mathematics. I would accept that the answer to the question was indeed 2, based on mathematical proof in relation to human understanding. However as mathematics itself is a man made concept, true belief may quite possibly remain unjustified, whereas one could easily accept this claim. Whether one truly believe something may be a different matter entirely to the rationality of accepting it.
June 15th, 2012, 1:22 pm
Zeichner1 wrote: I was attempting to suggest that it may be more rational to accept that which evidence points to, not necessarily believe in it. ie, One can accept a proposition based on evidence regardless of whether or not they believe in it.
Should true belief not be saved for that which absolute conclusion exists? As you said, conclusion is only legitimate when no opposition or doubt can exist for its evidence.