You say they're unrelated. But I fail to see how they're not related.
In both cases you are believing with something despite the fact there's no evidence, and to believe without evidence is irrational. Why make the exception just because evidence isn't even possible in this case?
Belief in the non-evidential, I would argue to be the least rational you can be when it comes to beliefs. To believe in something that it's not even possible for there to be evidence for, ever - is about as irrational as it gets in my view.
How does evidence being impossible increase the rationality? Never mind evidence being possible but there just at least currently being none. It's evidence that makes beliefs rational, that's how we know they have support and are worth believing in.
Note: I will next post here tomorrow, since It's my birthday today - I won't be foruming much, or at all again until the very early morning tomorrow.
EvF
In both cases you are believing with something despite the fact there's no evidence, and to believe without evidence is irrational. Why make the exception just because evidence isn't even possible in this case?
Belief in the non-evidential, I would argue to be the least rational you can be when it comes to beliefs. To believe in something that it's not even possible for there to be evidence for, ever - is about as irrational as it gets in my view.
How does evidence being impossible increase the rationality? Never mind evidence being possible but there just at least currently being none. It's evidence that makes beliefs rational, that's how we know they have support and are worth believing in.
Note: I will next post here tomorrow, since It's my birthday today - I won't be foruming much, or at all again until the very early morning tomorrow.
EvF
