Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, March 15, 2008, 10:45 (6095 days ago) @ David Turell

David Turell writes: "I applaud dhw in his quest to ask for real evidence, obviously from science, rather than feelings and convictions not based on hard evidence. We should deal with reasoning before arriving at faith in some concept." - I'm most grateful for the applause (a rare occurrence on this website), but must confess that I deserve only half a clap. My posting was a question rather than a quest. I can best illustrate the problem through my own beliefs or lack of them. - In my posting, I used two examples. The first was abiogenesis, and here David is absolutely right: it is a scientific hypothesis, and I need scientific evidence before I can believe in it. However, the second example was near-death experiences, and this is different. I don't have any conviction either way about an afterlife. However, if I were to have a near-death experience like those of Pim van Lommel's patients ... entering a different world etc. ... it's perfectly possible that it would dramatically alter my attitude. It might well be "evidence" for me, and give me an inner conviction without any scientific basis. The question that I'm asking is why some people believe in the first hypothesis without evidence, and automatically reject evidence of the second. (Similarly, I could ask of a Creationist why he/she believes in the Genesis account and rejects the findings of science.) What constitutes evidence, and what is the nature of belief?