For example we often see atheists making the claim that there is "no evidence" for the views they reject. Sometimes this is without clarifying (or even refusing point-blank to answer even when asked about very specific examples) what is meant by 'evidence,' perhaps because testimonial evidence - on which we all depend every time we watch the news or weather report or read about some scientific breakthrough - would shatter the "no evidence" rhetoric if it were acknowledged as a modest but valid form of evidence. But even more fundamentally than that, the demand for evidence or boasting that there is "not a shred" of it reflects a particular approach to belief, roughly described by A or B below, which in itself may not be justified by the critics' own standards... and often isn't even recognized as such!
Conversely, many theists make claims and arguments which really seem persuasive to them, but likewise seem to depend on underlying assumptions which critics just don't share. For example in the case of apologetics around Jesus' resurrection it's roughly described by C below - they just try to knock down alternative scenarios to claim that resurrection is the best explanation. Or in the case of the 'moral argument' or variations on Pascal's wager it would be something more like E below.
In one thread a while back I outlined what I think are the main types of epistemic approaches:
- Principled - Belief as an intellectual stance, which should be measured by specific criteria
A > Accepting only what is proven with certainty
B > Accepting only that for which we have 'sufficient evidence' or justification
C > Accepting the most reasonable theory/s of any given question/s or data
Pragmatic - Belief as a normal process, which should be questioned and refined
D > Accepting what we start out believing, unless and until we find reason to change those beliefs
E > Accepting whatever seems most beneficial to ourselves or our community
Of course there's worthy criticisms of all approaches. For example, A is usually impossible. B can be entirely arbitrary. C fails in cases of (or fails to account for) big uncertainties or lacking data. D is somewhat arbitrary, in the big picture. E is subjective.
So what about everyone else:
Which epistemic approach/es do you adopt? Do you profess a lack of belief and demand 'sufficient evidence' before accepting something (B), or cling to your existing views unless and until they're disproven (D), or something else? Have I missed some important approach?
Whatever approach you take, how do you justify it? Perhaps you even simply take it as axiomatic, unjustified but necessary?
And what potential problems or weaknesses do you see in the approach you take?
You were talking about "faith" in your weatherman. Why you would have "faith" in your weatherman in the first place is beyond me, but your claim that anyone can understand meteorology to the point of making their own forecasts is obviously even more bonkers.
