Straggler writes:
First point: Your reluctance to consider a theistic example aptly demonstrates your own lack of faith in such an example to stand up to such scrutiny.
There is another logical conclusion that can be drawn:
It is not possible to present a "theistic example" for the simple reason that a person with no experience of God wouldn't/couldn't
get it. Whereas a person could be expected to get the example of my wife-to-be.
Clearly, a person with absolutely no experience of "thoughts turning to a person with whom they were having a relationship" wouldn't get the example of my girlfriend either - indicating the inescapable requirement that any example speak into the experience of the person I'm talking to.
Back to the point: the principle of non-empirical information being a valid basis on which to conclude things / arrive at a belief is a established by the example given. The belief can't be said to be blind - in the commonly used sense of that phrase. Nor can belief in God be said to be blind. You've no access to the information I possess rendering such a statement of yours a blind one. It's a question of innocent until proven guilty I think.
Second point: "Based partially" what does that mean? Does it mean that, as predicted, your feelings regarding your 'wife to be' are at root empirically derived? Also if you insist on using this example could you be more explicit as to what the non-empirical evidence is exactly and what specifically the conclusions derived from this "evidence" is.
As already mentioned, the non-empirical
information involved my observing my thoughts frequently turning in her direction. Just the fact of their turning - not the content thereof. The conclusion drawn what that this relationship appeared to be taking on a significance hitertoe not experienced. It is but one piece in the overall puzzle. Of course there were other empirical elements involved but this is an example of a non-empirical element.
If I think often of Galadriel (Lord of the Rings elven queen) does that mean I have feelings for her? Does it make her real? Does it mean I want to marry her? How does your evidence specifically relate to your fiance in a way that could not be applied to a wholly fictional character?
Whether or not the character is fictional or not is irrelevant to the point being made. Galadriel is significant to you on the same basis that my fiance is to me: both our thoughts turn in these womens direction. The significance might take different forms but that's an aside to the fact of there being significance. We both conclude from the evidence of our thoughts turning.
If you find your thoughts turning very frequently to her but reckon there is no more signifance at all then I'd find that very strange.
There is a very narrow point being made by me Straggler. It is that my belief is not blind - it is based on information. And that's all. Once the principle (that non-empirical information is an acceptable way to arrive at a conclusion) is established, the point has been made.
Why are you so afraid to do this? We can continue discussing your fiance if you so wish but really would a more relevant specifically theistic example not better exemplify your points?
The point is established by this example alone. The purpose is to stalemate those who would suppose faith necessarily blind.
™ Version 4.2
