Bishop says that " under “rational empiricist evidential practice,” our overall experience of the world is equally plausibly interpreted on either a theistic or an atheistic reading, thereby leaving open the question of God's existence."
I agree that this is rational, and would argue that leaves us open to our internal subjective inclinations and perspectives in making a theory choice.
I wonder how the atheist would apply Ockham's razor here, though? When is an individual internal inclination sufficient to rationally add an additional entity or mind in our schemas?
Even though I don't subscribe to Christianity any longer, Luther's idea that our faith is our fundamental orientation to the world still rings true to me. I see a similar, if not the same, idea in the later philosophy of Wittgenstein.
2 comments:
Bishop says that " under “rational empiricist evidential practice,” our overall experience of the world is equally plausibly interpreted on either a theistic or an atheistic reading, thereby leaving open the question of God's existence."
I agree that this is rational, and would argue that leaves us open to our internal subjective inclinations and perspectives in making a theory choice.
I wonder how the atheist would apply Ockham's razor here, though? When is an individual internal inclination sufficient to rationally add an additional entity or mind in our schemas?
Even though I don't subscribe to Christianity any longer, Luther's idea that our faith is our fundamental orientation to the world still rings true to me. I see a similar, if not the same, idea in the later philosophy of Wittgenstein.
Post a Comment