Dalek Prime wrote:Rell, I'm not about to study parapsychology before I dismiss the idea that my outhouse is infested with ghosts, and not raccoons. So, no, some things really are that obvious.
And on what epistemic grounds do you base your knowledge of this obvious state of affairs? Is it really obvious? (If it were, wouldn't children have no trouble with ghosts in the closet?) Or are you relying on a rather robust legacy of rational inquiry into this particular matter? That is to say, you're trusting that those who have come before you have done the work I.C. suggested is so critical, no? And what, then, of knowledge of God, when those who have come before overwhelmingly support the conclusion opposite what you appear to hold?
All that to say, when you choose to reject the knowledge of those who have gone before you, not ensuring that you properly understand the thing you reject is, indeed, ridiculous.
EDIT: For example, I am inclined to reject the existence of ghosts, but I have spent enough time in study to know that I properly understand them in order to reject them. Of course, that study has also made it clear to me that to reject their existence is a probabilistic endeavor, and that it is by no means
obvious that they do not exist.