Apologies to ThinkAloud for slow reply, been away.
If you accept that in everyday life, why not in deciding whether there is a Creator or not?
You maybe right, its possible I do that unconsciously. My usual reaction is to look for evidence on topics, as people look for evidence as in the process of a court of law. I also accept that there is a state where a case is "unproven" - a strong element of the Scottish system (I am not Scottish, although my wife is), where the Law accepts that many situations will occur the weight of evidence is insufficient to prove guilt, however that verdict clearly states that innocence was not proven either. As guilt must be proven absolutely - ie innocent until proven guilty - charges dismissed, case Not Proven. A crude example parallel would be charges dismissed on a pure technicality before evidence heard, a common state of affairs - in Scotland its possible, not always, but possible to be "Not Proven" as a verdict.
Don’t make too much of the analogy, as poor as it maybe, my main point is we all have our own standards by which we judge things, by which we accept reality or not. Life is never simple, foolish to believe it can be reduced to such a level. For me the balance of evidence is not strong enough to make me a "believer", that as far as I am concerned is true. However, you could also say, bringing in the Scottish system of Law, I could more accurately describe it as "Not Proven". No, I don’t sit on the fence, or use grand terms such as "Agnostic" or whatever, its just the genuine expression of what I feel inside myself - and the Scottish system in Law of "Not Proven" is the best way I can express that.
I don’t imply that others are "wrong" and I'm "right", its not a question of that. Others want to believe, go right ahead, no problem with that whatsoever. Although I concede excessive zealotry by some, which almost seems they are affronted that others think differently, does get me going a little
You waiting for others to behave according to what they say to be convinced that what they say is truth? you cant reach truth that way.
Not attempting to, because you are absolutely right, that would be kind of nuts to go down that road.
Leaders of Faiths, Organisations, Governments - whatever - have an added responsibility, whether they like it or not. They are Leaders, they must show the highest possible standards of the principles that their Institution represents. Lead by example. Unless they do, since they are the public face of that institution how can you expect people to believe in that institution. A silly extreme fictitious example; the Pope walks into St Peter's square and machine gun's 100 visitors, and gets away with it, still remaining Pope etc. Kiss goodbye to any future converts, and you'll have a hard time keeping the majority of current believers (for the record, once again, I am not suggesting he would do that .......).
In the same way, the leader or representative cannot continually deliver smoke and mirrors as explanations or as the ultimate solution for unpalatable events - bad example, people are not stupid, and get angry. Leaders must lead by example. In all this the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are Leaders at different levels, unless they show absolute adherence to the Faith and its values - and at worst show genuine contrition and genuine resolution when they slipup - don’t expect others to follow them, continually apologising is not enough (albeit its a start).
