(September 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why is it any more rational to believe in something without evidence when there can't be evidence, than to believe in something without evidence when there can be evidence?As the two are unrelated, how is the question valid??
Sure you can compare.. believing in something you know is a no brainer. Believing in something you have scant evidence of involves some cognitive ability. Believing in something there is no evidence of becomes entirely cerebral. So it looks like belief in the non evidential is the most rational you can be.