Return to Answer

My advice to you is, if you're working hard to prove that scientific fact is just opinion, and that the scientific methods are some collective religion no different than religious mythology, then you get Robert Audi's Epistemology and begin a genuine study of epistemology. While most philosophers seem to disagree on most things, one thing they tend to agree on is that there are degrees of belief that culminate in certain knowledge. But the notion that all belief is faith is simply a naive philosophical position, and one that has been rejected repeatedly by some of the brightest thinkers over the last 500 years and produced the modern secular society replete with antibiotics, cars that drive themselves, supercomputers that can answer trivia questions better than people, tools for redesigning genes, rockets that land themselves, planes that fly themselves, ad nauseum. Simply put, human continue to accrue reliable knowledge.

My advice to you is, if you're working hard to prove that scientific fact is just opinion, and that the scientific methods are some collective religion no different than religious mythology, then you get Robert Audi's Epistemology and begin a genuine study of epistemology. While most philosophers seem to disagree on most things, one thing they tend to agree on is that there are degrees of belief that culminate in certain knowledge. But the notion that all belief is faith is simply a naive philosophical position, and one that has been rejected repeatedly by some of the brightest thinkers over the last 500 years and produced the modern secular society replete with antibiotics, cars that drive themselves, supercomputers that can answer trivia questions better than people, tools for redesigning genes, rockets that land themselves, planes that fly themselves, ad nauseum. Simply put, humans continue to accrue reliable knowledge. And that's a fact.

My advice to you is, if you're working hard to prove that scientific fact is just opinion, and that the scientific methods are some collective religion no different than religious mythology, then you get Robert Audi's Epistemology and begin a genuine study of epistemology. While most philosophers seem to disagree on most things, one thing they tend to agree on is that there are degrees of belief that culminate in certain knowledge. But the notion that all belief is faith is simply a naive philosophical position, and one that has been rejected repeatedly by some of the brightest thinkers over the last 500 years.

My advice to you is, if you're working hard to prove that scientific fact is just opinion, and that the scientific methods are some collective religion no different than religious mythology, then you get Robert Audi's Epistemology and begin a genuine study of epistemology. While most philosophers seem to disagree on most things, one thing they tend to agree on is that there are degrees of belief that culminate in certain knowledge. But the notion that all belief is faith is simply a naive philosophical position, and one that has been rejected repeatedly by some of the brightest thinkers over the last 500 years and produced the modern secular society replete with antibiotics, cars that drive themselves, supercomputers that can answer trivia questions better than people, tools for redesigning genes, rockets that land themselves, planes that fly themselves, ad nauseum. Simply put, human continue to accrue reliable knowledge.

To many, not all views are based on faith. According to WP:

To a physicalist who acknowledges fallibilism, your claim that all views are based on 'faith' is resoundingly rejected, starting with the idea that intuitions are not faith. We all start out with what might be termed a naive realism. From WP:

Not really. Each one of these objections is a legitimate philosophical skepticism, and each of them has well-developed responses (to long to detail here), that are philosophical positions. And once you raise them, you are firmly in modern philosophy if you can let go of the notion that your first principles are metaphysical presumptions, not universal truths. That's the dividing line between theology and contemporary philosophy.

To many, not all views are based on faith. As such, it becomes simple to prove things are real given an adequate definition of proof and real, a subject of ontology. According to WP:

To a physicalist who acknowledges fallibilism, your claim that all views are based on 'faith' is resoundingly rejected, starting with the idea that intuitions are faith. They're not. We all start out with what might be termed a naive realism. From WP:

Not really. Each one of these objections is a legitimate philosophical skepticism, and each of them has well-developed responses (too long to detail here), that are philosophical positions. And once you raise them, you are firmly in modern philosophy if you can let go of the notion that your first principles are metaphysical presumptions, not universal truths. That's the dividing line between theology and contemporary philosophy.