HopperWolf Posted June 26, 2003 Report Posted June 26, 2003 Your sig is so amazingly funny! thought I'd let ya know Erm, for the rest of you sorry for wasting your time, really shouldn't do that should I? tisn't polite. must be something. OH! This was one of my exam questions last week, how bout anyone wants to can try to answer it here This is from a philosophy of Religion exam: ' " It is wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence" Discuss.'
Nobody of Consequence Posted June 26, 2003 Report Posted June 26, 2003 Umm, how's it go: belief without proof=faith. I'd think that in the modern world a religion based on belief with proof would be called a science
HopperWolf Posted June 26, 2003 Author Report Posted June 26, 2003 Ah, but it says sufficient evidence, not proof. Besides, not even science always has solid undeniable proof. Still, That was essentially a fifth of my answer. Anyone else got some answers?
Nobody of Consequence Posted June 26, 2003 Report Posted June 26, 2003 Ah, but it says sufficient evidence, not proof. One of the reasons I got tired of philosophy/semiotics and all those related disciplines is that you end up spending half your life defining terms Anyway, sufficient evidence for belief = proof, far as I'm using the term. Just so we're clear-ish
Wyvern Posted June 27, 2003 Report Posted June 27, 2003 It's rather simple, really... This topic will eventually lead into a discussion about the ultimate meaning of life, the universe, and everything... and we all know that the answer to that is 42. ;-) R.I.P Douglas Adams... While I'm at it, I might as well note that I find James' new sig hilarious as well... Never underestimate the devastating power of a smiley epiphany!
Rhapsody Posted June 27, 2003 Report Posted June 27, 2003 Eh, I have a poem on about faith if I can find it. I really hope this thread doesn't turn into the ugly trash-talking threads it always does on every other board. I like Douglas Adams' answer. 42. Period.
Ayshela Posted June 28, 2003 Report Posted June 28, 2003 *shrug* first you'd have to define "right" and "wrong" to determine whether or not something is wrong. then you'd have to determine what constitutes "sufficient evidence". for myself, the first rule is "do no harm". as far as i'm concerned anyone can believe whatever they want. If there's concrete evidence against their beliefs they may run into problems (ie. believing it's sunny when it's hailing), but as long as one's beliefs harm no one else, why does it matter? simple fact is that there's a lot of our daily lives that we accept as "given" states because doing so simply works. is there in fact "sufficient proof" for many of that which we simply accept? maybe, maybe not. a question like this will always gravitate toward the religion end of the spectrum though in fact it applies to many other things as well, most of which we don't so question. (mind blanking due to sleep deprivation.. sorry)
lumpenproletariat Posted June 29, 2003 Report Posted June 29, 2003 uh, sorry to go off track, but.... Hopper - I'm 99% sure its a music video by Radiohead called "Just" - good watching
Recommended Posts