An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Maelstrom wrote:But wouldn't they just be the same thing then, only one replaces the other over time? How do you consider those not somewhat synonymous?
Agreed.scott wrote:If a person believes a proposition because the person believes the personally known evidence indicates that the proposition is true, then the person does not believe it out of faith but rather because of the evidence
Agreed.scott wrote:Alternatively, if the person admittedly thinks the evidence warrants a contrary belief, can the person actually believe?
Exactly that, they choose to believe. A person can belief whatever they want; logical or not.scott wrote:They can say they choose to believe despite the evidence or despite the lack of evidence, but what does it mean to choose to believe?
It means they do not have evidence to support their belief. Or they are simply uncertain and may want more evidence, depending on the case, but choose to continue to believe as they originally did.scott wrote:It's one thing when a person is so biased or stubborn or even delusional that they allegedly misinterpret the available evidence or biasedly seek out any evidence supporting them while ignoring the other evidence. But when a person genuinely admits that they do not have enough evidence to support their position, what is that?
I believe this fallacy is called begging the question.scott wrote:We may call it faith, but is it not self-delusional, a peculiar form of denial in which the person is not only in denial but is actually admitting that they are in denial?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests