Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
I think you're exactly right. So now the question is, what's wrong with a theist assuming consciousness is something special from god? Or abiogenesis for that matter? He can easily state: "Well, I can't think of how it got there without some involvement from god, so I'm going to assume godditit". To my knowledge, this doesn't contradict anything known by scientific evidence. So is there still reason to 'cling' to their guess? Problem is, I don't know of a single theist who would call their belief in god a 'guess'. You'd probably be the most likely candidate, but I doubt even you refer to your belief as a guess. Or am I wrong?
I think it should be as persuasive to others as if I'd guessed.
Of course, I dont think beliefs are formed or chosen so much as discovered, our language often misses this (People will ask "Why do yuo believe...XYZ?" As if you've sat down and calmly decided to). Consequently, sometimes when I'm faced with a lack of data - I remain ignorant without adopting any working hypothesis. In other cases - I think about it for a while and discover that I have a belief about where it comes from - a belief which is not logically compelled from the available evidence, but which is also consistent with it. I think it's rational to hold such a belief, provided you recognise it as amongst the most weakly justified. As an example:
I dont see any reason to proceed from the phenomenon of consiousness and think "Gee I need an answer to this. Can't think of one. Must be God." Therefore, I dont posit God as the explanation, I just dont know where consciousness comes from.
In contrast, I have a funny feeling in my head and (for some reason unknown to me) I
do find this a compelling reason to believe. I dont think it's irrational to hold that belief - provided I acknowledge the slender evidence backing it up. (On my view of belief - there's not much I can do about it anyway other than think about it some more and see if it goes away).