There's no principled way to choosing between a nearly endless number of unfalsifiable religious claims, or of persuading others to your way of thinking.
Sean, yes there is. First hand experience with the meaning of religious claims. Bypassing mentation, logic, and reason entirely.
Re-ligio - that means reunion. It is at core an inward-turned project of discovery of meaning beyond the senses of sight, sound, touch, etc. The world of experience in which we might care about such practicalities as "scientific falsifiability" is often of no interest to the happy sage, or only matters as the vivid echo of his own core of universal silence.
So true! I agree. But the happy sage Isn't choosing from other people's "claims" but rather is experiencing things for himself. And that experience, being internal, would then be objectively unprovable to others.
I have no issue with people who "believe" based on personal experience, even if that experience cannot be objectively falsified. My issue is with those who believe based upon the unfalsifiable personal experiences of others. In the latter case, there are too many to choose from and no principled means of deciding among them. Faith in any particular one is therefore "blind faith."
And I don't even have a problem with blind faith. My problem is with people who have blind faith but deny it by insisting that their faith is based on objective evidence. There simply is no objective evidence that can support unfalsifiable claims (except maybe Occam's Razor).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit