Ideally if everybody has the same information then everybody should reach the same conclusion. Of course that isn't the case on many issues.
- Sometimes issues are so complex that a thorough and error-free analysis of the information is not possible for most people.
- Sometimes people don't care enough about an issue to analyze the information.
- Sometimes the information can only point to likely conclusions and Pascal's wager becomes applicable. For example the rewards and punishments if Christianity is true might make continued faith seem preferable. Or another example might be a married couple where loss of faith by one spouse might cause problems.
Even though I am an ex-Christian, this question can go either way. "Why do only some lose faith?" or "Why do only some keep faith?". People who are members of CF and debate with members of opposing faiths must have familiarity with the same information. Why do our conclusions differ?
- Sometimes issues are so complex that a thorough and error-free analysis of the information is not possible for most people.
- Sometimes people don't care enough about an issue to analyze the information.
- Sometimes the information can only point to likely conclusions and Pascal's wager becomes applicable. For example the rewards and punishments if Christianity is true might make continued faith seem preferable. Or another example might be a married couple where loss of faith by one spouse might cause problems.
Even though I am an ex-Christian, this question can go either way. "Why do only some lose faith?" or "Why do only some keep faith?". People who are members of CF and debate with members of opposing faiths must have familiarity with the same information. Why do our conclusions differ?