= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Religious and Rational? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
This changes the entire color of your text. It makes it sound like its intended audience is believers, not seculars.
There are two main problems with that statement. First, the secular view has no place for the category of "faith." It's just not a concept we use. It's seriously inaccurate to call our reliance on sensory experience "faith." Second, everyone starts from sensory experience, including religious people. All your conceptions of the divine were learned via some sensation (reading, conversation, etc.).
I think it's fine to call it faith in sensory experience - I choose to use it as data.
The second is the stronger argument, IMO.
Actually, if the Rev made that argument to religious people, that would be a strong argument in favor of basic empiricism. You only get to God through empiricism.
Though that's probably a better argument for a Deist than a Methodist.
What else could you ever possibly use as data?
Things you imagine. Things you reasoned "a priori".