[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

None of the above criteria are considered to be particularly accurate for anything but religion, and I see no need to consider them more accurate in another area, just because in that area they can't be proven wrong.

But why are you trying to apply them to another area? The whole point is that the areas don't have to interfere with one another. One can have philosophical thoughts about philosophical matters, and scientific thoughts about empirical matters.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But what is there to consider when the subject is unknowable? What criteria do you use to choose among the countless premade possibilities and the uncountable ones yet to be made up?

I am personally very much of the "sure, but does it put food on the table?" school of thought. I find all forms of philosophy to be incredibly boring, at best. But I don't begrudge other people their desire to think about things, and to imagine things that seem likely or interesting to them. Everyone's criteria is going to be different, as you said, but I don't have a problem with that. That's why people can talk about things as well as think about them. But Queequeger's original statement was

I know this will make a lot of people angry/judgemental at/of me, but I think "faith" is a bad thing. "Faith" means "I will hold this belief in the contradiction to all the evidence against it." It makes no sense, and it doesn't make someone strong. Just like ignoring all contrary evidence in ANY forum, it is a stubbornness.

We all get on the cases of people who won't change their arguments, people who won't listen to astounding evidence. Yet somehow if it's being stubborn for God it makes it something to be admired.

His definition of "faith" is completely inaccurate for many people. Faith can be applied to plenty of philosophical matters without ever contradicting empirical evidence.