So basically you agree that in the case of faith evidence it is totally impossible to distinguish between misplaced faith leading to false evidence and faith based evidence that points towards the truth?
Is there no test that can be done to seperate misplaced faith from faith in the truth?
- we assume the difference between our internal thoughts and what arrives at us by sense data is actually different. We assume what we perceive as sense data is actually relfecting an external-to-us reality. There is no way to verify this but we do so in order not to be solopsists. That we do so automatically doesn't make any difference. Sense data arrives through (we assume) various channels; sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch.
The key difference is that I can objectively corroborate my sense data with other people.
We can independantly analyse the data, test it and come to common and consistent conclusions about reality.
We can independently make predictions based on these conclusions and then test EACH OTHERS predictions to verify that our common conclusions are sound and that our perception of reality is actually consistent with each other.
Through mass consistency of perception and detailed independant predictive testing we come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a common physical reality, or physical truth, for all.
It is of course theoretically possible that we are all suffering a matrix style mass delusion but it is one on a grand or even cosmic scale.
- I do the same thing with another sense data as we all do with the above sense data. I assume it reflects an external reality simply because it has the same attribute as other sense data to whit: I perceive it as reflecting an external reality
In the case of faith there is ultimately nothing other than internal perception. There is no way to verify that the faith evidence you have is the same as the faith evidence anyone else has.
Sure you can discuss it and even conclude that it is the same as someone elses faith evidence.
BUT there is no objective way, predictive or otherwise, to test whether any two people actually have consistent 'faith evidence' on which they are basing their conclusions.
Thus accurate conclusions made on 'faith evidence' require only that the INDIVIDUAL be delusional for them to be based on false evidence.
Whilst conclusions made on physical evidence require that EVERYONE be delusional for them to be based on false evidence.
Therefore - if faith evidence can be classed as evidence at all which I question - it is inferior and infinitely more prone to delusional error than empirical evidence.
If this does not actually dismiss your 'faith as evidence' position surely it weakens it to the point of irrelevence?