(June 21, 2009 at 5:27 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well the fact that you haven't looked at the presented evidence for something as absurd as reincarnation, (so far believed to be absurd by people such as me anyway) that of course doesn't mean there can't be any evidence, indeed. Because you can't possibly know that and you haven't checked it out yet, right.Well seeing as I have looked at the evidence I don't see how this is related to my argument. I of course believe reincarnation is absurd as you do, but I base this on the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. The point I am making is that when someone presents me with what they claim is evidence, I will not just fall back on my previous belief that it is absurd; I will evaluate the new evidence. My mind may change, it may not.
Quote:But what I wonder is if there's no real, practical reason to take it any more seriously than the FSM...then I'm thinking that if you believe that Kyu's attitude is indeed as you say "that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks"." and that "Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded." - then I wonder if you would also say that it's anti-scientific and close minded to say that anything releated to the FSM is automatically bollocks?I say it is anti-scientific and close minded to reject any claim without first actually evaluating it. The only options that are rational to take are to either ignore the claim and give up your right to say "there is no evidence...blah blah blah" (since evidence was presented but you ignored it), or to evaluate the evidence and hold onto your right to say whether you accept it or not.
Quote:Now on principle, of course you can't absolutely know that anything related to the FSM is bollocks. But in a practical and sense you can very seriously argue that it's so bloody improbable that it's not bollocks that it's a waste of time to look into it right...(the FSM that is)...would you agree with that? And if so...do you believe it's the same case with reincarnation or not?In a practical sense yes, but I'm afraid "so bloody improbable" is in no way close to "100% impossible". Like I have said before, it is worth looking into if the evidence ever arises, but you are not obligated to. You can forfeit your right to claim there is no evidence in this case, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
To reject something outright without even considering evidence for it is ludicrous, given that we know hardly anything about this universe, and science does not reveal truth, it reveals probable truth. Science is constantly improving its answers, and if this is to continue, nothing must be rejected. Why do you think we keep pressing the Discovery Institute to publish a document on I.D for peer-review? It is not just making a point that no evidence exists as of yet, it is making the point that if the Discovery Institute (or anyone else for that matter) were to publish such a document, it would meet the same standard of scientific scrutiny and evaluation as any other.
