So would that be.. partially beasian with a fallibilism qualifier? I know you love labels and I was actually hoping for one.
With regard to your question:
I would say I believe in God because the available evidence (subjective and experiential) seems logically indicative and rational and this coupled with experiencing both the opposite position and this position, one is indicatively more pronounced in it's usefulness is more justified than the opposite position would be and the sum of it's alternate positions.
I think that's right.. you're catching me at the bottom of the fuel tank.. I'll think more on it tomorrow.
With regard to your question:
I would say I believe in God because the available evidence (subjective and experiential) seems logically indicative and rational and this coupled with experiencing both the opposite position and this position, one is indicatively more pronounced in it's usefulness is more justified than the opposite position would be and the sum of it's alternate positions.
I think that's right.. you're catching me at the bottom of the fuel tank.. I'll think more on it tomorrow.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
