@digitalimpression “Its a bit discouraging that 20 people thought the first answer was a great one.”
Really? All it demonstrates to me is consistency. That is the most parsimonious answer.
No evidence, inconsistent evidence, anecdotal evidence in the case of extraordinary claims = no belief. A simple but effective baloney filter.
I’m trying to think of other fields of inquiry where belief based on insufficient evidence is considered a virtue.
All I can come up with, in addition to most religions, is pseudoscience (e.g. astrology, talking to dead people, dowsing), alternative medicine (e.g. homeopathy), and fad diets. Not surprisingly, the common denominator seems to be the desire to believe something sufficiently strongly to override people’s normal day to day skepticism. Hence, part of the reason for the acceptance of so many unsubstantiatied beliefs (e.g. lose weight without effort, your future is written in the stars (and conveniently in the back of your local paper), bottled water will help with your chronic insecurity, you can live forever, the creator of the universe knows and cares about you, and more often that not just happens to be the same god your culture indoctrinated you with, and of course you’ll meet dead loved ones again).
The alternative to the first answer being a great one, is a great answer being one that starts from a conclusion (i.e. my particular version of god(s) exists) and then makes up “Just So” stories to justify continued belief regardless of the lack of supportive evidence.
I think the only great thing about such answers is their capacity to perpetuate falsehoods.