Is it a "leap of faith" to believe that others beside yourself have a mind, and aren't just preprogrammed robots?
What would you call a "skeptic" who questions your sanity for "believing" such a thing?
Sane? Logical? Rational?
"If at some point you need 'faith' to glue your conclusions to your axioms, isn't it fair for a use-reason-only skeptic to call 'foul'?"
Is it a "leap of faith" to believe that others beside yourself have a mind, and aren't just preprogrammed robots?
---
No, but that form of argument is a 'argument by authority'... okay, so everybody has a mind.
How does that help prove anything?
------
"What would you call a "skeptic" who questions your sanity for "believing" such a thing? Sane? Logical? Rational?"
This is a process question, not about 'sanity' or conclusions. A skeptic would not call 'proven' any argument that has 'leaps' in it.
So, my question really was asking this:
You've made a point, but do you really think your point would convince a skeptic?
that was all.
I think the answer is no, unless you fill in the steps of the argument. what I inferred from you was:
1. lots of people believe in the afterlife.
2. these people are sane and reasonable.
3. therefore the belief is sane and reasonable,
4. since its sane and reasonable, it is true.
... is that your argument?