RE: How is one orgins story considered better than another
December 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
False equivalence:
Faith is the set of uncertainty and belief based on unsubstantiated claims (or claims that cannot even be addressed).
Evidentiary Belief is the set of uncertainty and belief based on corroborated, demonstrable evidence.
Since both contain uncertainty, they are both faith-based.
So yes, you are pulling a false equivalence.
Absolute certainty is a bullshit useless concept for dealing with anything in reality. We take the our best guess with the current evidence, and nobody here is claiming that our beliefs are constant or absolute or even true in an epistemological sense. On the contrary, the only constant thing about evidentiary belief is that is must change when new evidence comes to light. Honestly admitting that we don't know for sure is the only rational thing to do, but it certainly isn't "Faith" in any sense.
Faith is the set of uncertainty and belief based on unsubstantiated claims (or claims that cannot even be addressed).
Evidentiary Belief is the set of uncertainty and belief based on corroborated, demonstrable evidence.
Since both contain uncertainty, they are both faith-based.
So yes, you are pulling a false equivalence.
Absolute certainty is a bullshit useless concept for dealing with anything in reality. We take the our best guess with the current evidence, and nobody here is claiming that our beliefs are constant or absolute or even true in an epistemological sense. On the contrary, the only constant thing about evidentiary belief is that is must change when new evidence comes to light. Honestly admitting that we don't know for sure is the only rational thing to do, but it certainly isn't "Faith" in any sense.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson
