Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
Like Dawkins, he's such a died in the wool empiricist that he can't appreciate the possibility that some theists approach the question of God without attempting to justify God's existence with evidence rooted in sensation.
|
I worked with a (liberal) Mennonite pastor a couple of years ago, and he was curious about my non-belief-based (Batchelor-esqe) buddhism. He was willing and able to discuss the grounds for his faith, and believed fully that the sensations he had and emotional connection he had related to his faith were themselves a sort of empirical evidence. (He also later bought my veggie-powered 300SDL!) Though certain sensation-based experiences of my own (in college, ahhhh college) left me dubious as to the ultimate veracity of anything sensory, he seemed convinced and at least he'd given it some thought. I could respect his position even if I found it wanting, because he at least recognized the importance of investigating his beliefs.
I think the problem is that most folks do not give it any thought at all, or any sort of sufficient critical thought. Too often, self-righteousness precedes the requisite investigation that would so-entitle the pontificator. But perhaps I'm a bit of an an empiricist shill myself.