Faith is a judgment call, not a source of information(complete or incomplete).
You're dodging the question. If (as you've asserted) faith "involves incomplete information in all cases," it follows that there must be
some portion of that information that
is available
in all cases. I'll once again invite you to elaborate on whatever portion of that information is available.
I don't really know a whole lot about the Catholic Church, other than that the current Pope is awesome, the Church was integral in both destroying and preserving pre-Christian European religions(no, really), and produced some of the greatest art and music in the world.
It isn't special that the Catholic Church fostered so many artists down through the ages. They were basically the only game in town the entire time. It's also a disgusting and morally bankrupt edifice. Anyone who cares to have that assertion substantiated is welcome to extend an invitation and bring along their raincoat.
The fallacy of Special Pleading occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception.
Special Pleading involves the application of a double standard. I think it's easy to see how you've wandered into it.
Observe:
I'm therefore arguing an exception based upon the rule's very definition, not an irrelevant characteristic.
Or rather:
Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is D (where D is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.
(again, from The Fallacy Files, with a letter change for clarity.)
X in this case is faith, and Y is blind faith. (I don't think faith is generally blind, but whether it is or not isn't relevant to my current point). I, in this case, am x. Now, if you still insist that I'm special pleading, identify for me, if you will, what D is.
Easy.
D = "
my religion." Whether the religion is question ("X") is yours or not is utterly irrelevant. It is still "a religion" and is therefore still obliged to operate based on faith.
You've asserted that there are two sorts of faith, but failed to demonstrate any operative difference between the "blind" sort practiced
by others and the groovy, amendable type that
you're into.
I'm not attempting to make any additional distinctions regarding faith. So when you try to forge a distinction with nothing more substantive than an assertion that your faith is not blind while the rest are, I see no reason to not invoke special pleading.
X= Religion(s).
Y= Faith.
You are claiming that X is an exception because it is a "D."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've concluded that you've said that your religion differs from the rest because it is amendable based on new or contradictory information. Typically, this isn't how organized religions work. Especially not monotheistic faiths.
Anyway, you're already using weasel words when you say that you'd be perfectly willing to amend "your judgement." The real test would be whether or not your religion itself would be amendable.
Of course, I'd be perfectly willing to revoke the accusation of special pleading if it simply turned out that your belief system isn't in fact a religion at all, but rather your own personal brand of pseudo-Teutonic flakiness.
Shall we call it "Sutton Woo?"
---
The bold is mine, to illustrate that my case is not, in fact, special pleading. I defined what blind faith is: complete rejection of any new information that contradicts the faith-based judgment call. I then illustrated that my faith does not do that, by stating if new information came to light that contradicted my faith-based judgment calls, I'd accept that my judgment was in error.
Again ... you've not demonstrated anything. You've merely asserted it while shifting the burden of error away from your religion and onto your "faith-based judgement calls" (whatever that might mean).
There a reason for the rude sarcasm?
It might have been rude, but it wasn't sarcasm. It was more like open-contempt-bordering-on-scorn.
If I were pressed to explain its presence, I'd merely point to your assertion that you're willing to believe in some supernatural entity until it's proven to
not exist.
Wouldn't the more rational approach be to disbelieve in the proposed supernatural ghost/ghast/ghoul/wraith/wight/etc until there is evidence to think otherwise?
I won't be apologizing any time soon for viewing proactive belief in the supernatural as contemptuous.
Scientifically verifiable? None. But such evidence only matters in terms of scientific inquiry.
Is existence a matter of scientific inquiry or not?
Only if I positively assert that they factually exist to others, which I do not. As it's just a personal belief, I have no need to prove it to anyone but myself, if I so desire.
Your superstitious delusions are your very own. If congratulations were in order, I suppose that now would be the time to extend them.
Ever see Beowulf and Grendel?
Yawn. I own the DVD. I also have three translations of the book in my library.
So hwæt?
In that one, Grendel is a Wild Man, and called "troll" by the Danes. (Sadly, the film is more interesting than it is good.)
Sarah Polley was a grievous casting error for an unnecessary character and the whole film deviated from the poem too much for my liking. Otherwise, it was decent C-Grade fodder.
But enough. This isn't a film forum.
I'm trying to be honest in my arguments, though, and I'm not sure why you think I'm trolling.
Because claiming to honestly believe
in wights (or any such nonsense) strikes me as either willfully eccentric (and hence flaky beyond all belief) or simply a lame attempt at being provocative.
German Polytheism (see below) seems a rung or three below the Hare Krishnas or the Moonies. That's just the way it is.
When it comes to the world's major religions, I can at least conjure up a modicum of desire to understand them. Whatever you're operating with seems too ill-defined to merit any serious attention. You'd be in the exact same spot if you'd claimed to worship Marduk ... and then gotten pissy about me referring to you as Babylonian when you're in fact Sumerian as everyone ought to know blah blah blah. Observe:
... I don't identify as Buddhist(I just happen to agree with many of the Buddha's teachings), nor am I a Viking. That you label me as one doesn't do well for your argument, as it causes me to question how much knowledge on this subject you have, and the validity of the sources you use.
I opted to employ the word Viking because it's a suitable working label that encompasses a wide range of subsets. It was certainly a general blanket term used without much care for fine details by those who coined it.
Anyway, if there's a mod of Meier's game that features "Anglic-German-Polytheism-of-Saxon-derivation," I've never seen it. My "argument" in no way relies upon a passing reference to the conventions of a computer game.
In fact, I follow a more Anglic form of Germanic Polytheism. The raiders I'm closest to, therefore, would be the Saxons, not the Danes.
So you're saying that the Saxons and/or their forebears never went
a-viking?
Hey, fun fact. A grave site in Sweden that dates back to the Viking Age contained a Buddha figurine.
I don't doubt it. Those folks got around.
...
Look. You're obviously not entirely stupid, but you've brought nothing to the table aside from Germanic-flavored, retro-pagan flim-flammery. I'll be more than willing to let you have the last word should you so desire ... but I have no need to go on splitting hairs with you over how your Wotanic belief system differs from organized religion.
So thanks again for your time.
Not the prick who slandered his own kid while in disguise. ^_^ (No really. See for yourself: The Poetic Edda: Harbarthsljoth
