What's real about it Ms. Atheist?
If its not reproducible to you its based on faith (faith in persons who can reproduce it) , period.I could very well be as dumb as a box of rocks, but that doesn't make the non-empirical basis for faith any more rational. It's still based on the authority of subjective non-reproducible states of mind which are notoriously unreliable.
If its not reproducible to you its based on faith (faith in persons who can reproduce it) , period.
then if they can't penetrate the empirical basis of it, it remains for all intents and purposes non-empirical for them.I say you are wrong because science doesn't depend on authorities proclaiming something. It is backed up by observable evidence. This is true even if a person isn't educated enough to correctly interpret that evidence.
and if one doesn't have that understanding, its based on faith, period.Sure. And as long as we're talking about worldly things, this isn't really a problem.
One can learn physics even from a drunk or hostile physics teacher, for example.
Our lives generally do not depend on having the correct theoretical understanding of physics. Or biology, sociology, English grammar or whatever.
its different when the subject is dependent on personal relationship to the subject to be knowne.But it's different when those who claim to teach us about things that are about "who we really are" and "what is best for us" are drunk or hostile.
It's hard to take seriously the teachings on love from someone who hates you.
its different when the subject is dependent on personal relationship to the subject to be knowne.
For instance an openly inimical attitude to the president certainly prevents one from directly perceiving him
Why would you be friendly towards someone who is hostile to you?
Why not be compassionate towards them, or tolerant, or argumentative instead?