True enough, but all faith is not exactly blind. There are many anecdotal experiences people have had, not all of them kooks, which are difficult to explain. I have a couple myself. That said, much of that has some logical explanation more than likely, but still some things, especially if personally experienced make one wonder. I would never present that as evidence and expect to be taken seriously, but the experience happened none the less. Absolute certainty still unattainable at this point in time.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on God
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
Like, say, when God told W to run for president so he could invade Iraq?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html
I see we are at the end of serious discussion.
Sorry, but anecdotes leave a lot to be desired. W is reportedly a very religious man. So why would his anecdote be any less valid than anyone else's who is wrapped up in his faith/belief?
There is no anecdote that is valid from a scientific perspective which is why I wrote that they should not be presented as evidence of anything other than personal experience. If Dubya says God told him I believe he believes that. I also believe it's unlikely what he believes was actally the voice of a God.
Exactly. And that is how I view other (religious) people's anecdotes. There tends to be a lot of wishful thinking and confirmation bias wrapped up in their stories because their faith is integral to their lives; their self-identity seems to depend on it. I know a few such religious people, so I have seen it before. A True Believer will only look at what supports his "theory" while dismissing whatever may contradict it. Whereas a scientist operates differently:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b14
Who is more credible?
You are mistaken. Indisputable evidence is not absolutely required.
Evidence so indisputable it would be perverse not to call it scientific fact, is what's required.
Science proves without absolutes. Absolutes exist much like God in that they don't really. Better things like the sciences are available to base fact on rather than things that don't exist.