it depends how you define evidence - you might have evidence that this belief is associated with good consequences for you and others
-
-
Replying to @houyhnhnm_
Then you have evidence of the good consequences, not of the truth. If you believe it to have good consequences but not to be true, no faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
something with good consequences may be an indication of the of truth, as may something with bad consequences, either way truth is tested
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @houyhnhnm_
What does that mean? It can indicate the truth about consequences but what else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
everything involves faith of some kind as nothing can be exclusively proven and all interaction involves a form of deontological exploration
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @houyhnhnm_
It doesn't really. You can just accept that we can't know anything for sure & then work on evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
humanists don't have some exclusive access to reason, rationality and knowledge - these can be accessed by people of religious faith too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I am not sure what your point is - even scientific theorists like Popper work on the uncertainty of knowledge as the basis of science.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @houyhnhnm_
I'm saying that the best epistemology available to us takes evidence as its basis.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The fact that all knowledge is provisional & religious people can rely on evidence for things other than religion doesn't counter that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.