Well, cdn, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I understand the idea of being curious about non-rational beliefs, and asking such a believer why he believes something that seems runs so contrary to our normal naturalistic physical reality beliefs. I'm all for that if the desire to understand is there, or even for skeptics who want to expose something that might be fraudulent.
What I'm referring to (the "road to pain" part) is demanding evidence or proof; that is, feeling like the believer owes you evidence or proof. Because nobody owes you anything, the way I see it, and if you insist on believing they do, and trying to squeeze out something someone doesn't give you freely, you'll never feel fully compensated.
However, like I was telling Michael, if someone's beliefs interfere with your choices, then demanding convincing evidence, or resisting their interference, is perfectly appropriate in my book. Still, nobody owes you anything, even in that case.
|