Faith’s Failure: epistemic certainty

P1: The degree of belief/disbelief in any proposition must map to the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence as assessed by the epistemic agent for that belief/disbelief to be deemed rational.
P2: A human epistemic agent accesses the world subjectively, and therefore is necessarily limited to subjectively obtained relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence when entertaining a proposition (rather than having an objective view and understanding of the totality of all the confirming/disconfirming evidence).
P3: For a human epistemic agent, the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence for a given proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the poles of absolute confirmation/disconfirmation to qualify as rational. (P1 & P2)
P4: Any rational belief/disbelief of a human epistemic agent in a non-tautological proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the binary poles of absolute certainty. (P1 & P3)
P5: Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality. (P3 & P4)
P6: The Bible promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents. (Acts 16:31 / Acts 8:37 / Romans 10:9 / John 3:16 / Mark 11:24)
CONCLUSION: The Bible promotes irrationality. (P5 & P6)

---

Filed under: Faith's Failure

Faith’s Failure: blind is better?

P1: Jesus considered those who believe with less confirmatory evidence more blessed that those who believed with more evidence. (John 20:19-31)
P2: Falsehoods are more likely to have less confirmatory evidence at their disposal than have truths.
P3: Those who believe with less confirmatory evidence are more likely to believe falsehoods.
CONCLUSION: Jesus considered those who are more likely to believe falsehoods more blessed. (P1 – P3)

---

_{The notion of faith is absurd.}

Filed under: Faith's Failure, blessed, credulity, evidence, faith