Quote:
|
Yes, that is the very issue at hand. But you haven't explained why. You just keep restating yourself.
There are two (essentially equivalent) claims you're throwing out there: (1) Absence of evidence is sufficient to obligate someone to withhold belief. (2) Good consequences (namely happiness) are not a reason for belief. But why are either of these true? Lots of our activity is with the express purpose of becoming happy. Why should our rational activity be strictly excluded? |



