Fail blog: Evidence & Doubt

Originally posted by Suzianne
Irresponsible? No, not at all.

I do not subscribe to your concept of Logic as God, that's all. Yes, I have "psychological certainty". Yes, there is no public "evidence" of God, nor can there ever be. Yes, I have no doubt, and yes, I disparage the idea of a Christian having doubt. (Non-Christians are welcome to as much doubt as they can carry. ...[text shortened]... seech others in this forum to believe, even though they have not seen. Believe, and be blessed.

I do not subscribe to your concept of Logic as God, that's all.

I do not have a "concept of Logic as God". I have a concept of logic as a grammar that concerns proper modes of reasoning and inference. Contrary to what you imply, logic clearly has a necessary place in theological discourse, just like it has a necessary place in any cognitively meaningful discourse. The point here is not that logic is God; or that logic reigns supreme; or any other such vacuous catch-phrase. The point is that you do not justifiably get to ignore logic selectively as it suits you; you do not get to rely on logic pervasively in your everyday affairs and then just chuck it out the proverbial window anytime a discussion turns to the subject of God.

"Supposed to be"? According to whom?

According to very reasonable epistemic norms. The idea that some measure of doubt is appropriate in the absence of maximally conclusive evidence is overwhelmingly plausible, perhaps even just conceptually true. Hence, one reason why your pair of posts constitutes a clear FAIL on the face of it. You can keep stating that -- somehow -- this obvious truth ceases to be true when we turn our attention to God. But that is just some silly ad hoc stipulation to try to make your own psychological certainty, as well as your admonishment of doubting believers everywhere, seem more reasonable. The same goes for your distinction about public versus private evidence. The idea that evidence somehow robs one of freedom is completely absurd, and I have already refuted that in other threads. Regardless, if you're going to make that absurd claim, at least be consistent in making it. If having incontrovertible public evidence would -- somehow -- turn us all into slaves or robots, then why wouldn't one's having incontrovertible private evidence -- somehow -- do the same to that individual?

I think you do a major disservice to honest believers everywhere who happen to have some doubts here and there. Your accounts of angel visitation, etc, that constitute your own putative personal proof are fair enough; and I would not presume to detract from them here in this thread. But, as you yourself claim, they were for you alone. So why would you presume to project your own psychological certainty – which is admittedly based on private experiences for you alone -- onto other believers everywhere, to the point where you would disparage the idea of a Christian who has some doubts?

Your stance is incoherent, so something has to give.