I accept that when there is plainly obvious evidence, evidence that is basically self-evident...then it is 'easier' to believe, so 'takes less thought' - because it's just plain obvious - but the difficulty of it is not the issue here. You may have to think, it may 'take more thought' to believe without evidence in the sense of you're going to have to think of reasons to believe without it! - because you're not thinking of what's already 'known' - but then that's superficial creativity and thought, until it is first given support[/i] (i.e - evidence) and the fact that it's superficial and creative rather than real and actual is the issue here, not how difficult or creative it is or isn't to believe without evidence.
So basically I was talking about rationality and not difficulty. Not the amount of 'thought', but rather the quality of the reason for believing.
It may be 'easier' to believe when there's plainly obvious evidence, because indeed, basically everyone religious or non-religious, accepts things with evidence - but then why I wonder is why the religious go on believing in something without it, and how they can justify that is rational? I still wonder this, and I'm still kind of...probing here.
EvF
So basically I was talking about rationality and not difficulty. Not the amount of 'thought', but rather the quality of the reason for believing.
It may be 'easier' to believe when there's plainly obvious evidence, because indeed, basically everyone religious or non-religious, accepts things with evidence - but then why I wonder is why the religious go on believing in something without it, and how they can justify that is rational? I still wonder this, and I'm still kind of...probing here.
EvF
