Evidence

[Oafman]

Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

"Love without evidence is....stalking". Tim Minchin

The fact is, there is evidence for everything that we know to exist or to be true, including emotions. Speak to a psycologist.

 

[TillICollapse]

...or "evidence" is relative in nature (a human construct of the mind); that is, it is relative in how it might be interpreted and applied, and people don't realize this because they've been sold a bill of goods by the establishment.

Sure, 'evidence' is useful, but even the term "useful" is relative; useful for what and to whom? Moreover, the purpose(s) to which the usefulness of evidence are to be applied will be contextualized by the respective methods and goal(s) of the individual persons who are determining the useful of the evidence. Differing methods and goals will result in varying evaluations as to the "usefulness" (or cogency) of available evidence.

Are you able to think for yourself without being told by "the establishment" what to think ?

Now if you answer, "Yes," ... the follow up question is going to be: How do multiple people who think for themselves come together and understand one another and seek agreement on reality in practical useful ways ?

Your analogy had nothing to do with the Bible? Then, what was the point of using it as part of a response to a Christian (i.e. Kristina) in reference to 'evidences' connected to Christian faith---in a Christian Forum, no less?

To the point, Christianity does not require "extraordinary evidence." It only requires the evidences that you are willing to accept.

Many people claim evidence for Christianity apart from the Bible. Do you not see Christianity as a religion as being a separate issue from one of the Bibles used within it ?

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm at least partially in agreement with you. Too many people on both sides of the God debate tend to overstate what they think evidence is or what kind of evidence they think is needed to count something as true. Too many people think that you need absolute certainty, that something needs to be "proved" in the sense of being undeniably true before it can/should be believed. It doesn't work like that.

Consider the analogy I made on post #29 about the claim of a chicken that lays solid gold eggs. Would you require absolute certainty that this claim has been proven undeniably true before spending your entire life savings on such a chicken?

Ken

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm really not sure what better way there is to go about it. How is it daft? It would be dangerous for me to say "Any being or force I can imagine could exist, because part of its nature might be that there's no scientific evidence." I would be susceptible to cults, superstitions, anxiety, and a whole number of ridiculous things. It's not as if being open to spirituality would only lead me to Christianity.

I'm not saying there's anything dangerous or daft about being a Christian, but for those of us who aren't already there, it doesn't make sense to say that we should throw away our understanding of fiction vs. reality.

I agree with that.
If my Christian God is as he says he is (which I believe) then you can only analyse Him on His terms. The daftness I was getting at is the fact that humans cannot control God to show Himself how we want Him to.

I am not being smart when I say the best scientific test is simply to, humbly ask Him to reveal himself. He says He will!? I say humbly because that happens to be His way.

And neither yourself nor any Christian can do a thing about the outcome. Well sort of you/we can pray....

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Many people go about their lives living as an interactive process without stopping to assess any particular belief to it. I don't 'believe' I'm hungry at lunchtime, I know I am, the evidence is in the feeling created in me, the evidence is self evident. That's just a basic example, but if your belief in deity and the Christian faith etc is self evident, what further qualification do you need?

But the issue arises when you start to share your belief with others and expect them to share your self evident belief. If you actually share information that is objective then that position will be challenged. If you were to share the experience of being hungry you could know with certainty that most people will understand what you are talking about, but with reference to deity or religious belief etc, they are not physical experiences per-se (although no doubt we all have mysterious transcendent experiences at times) they are concepts presented forward. A Christian has to believe in certain things (concepts) to define themselves as a Christian, when clearly these concepts are not self evident to all, and so if others ask questions in the process of wanting to know what you believe and why then its a valid point of view.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained. After all, what intellectual lives without facts?

Its because you are sharing your belief, thus questions will be asked, its common sense.

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

Its called faith. its also applied to other areas of life.

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

If you are married you see the object of your desire etc. what is it you are loving when you love God?

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

If you make the claim that you are happy that's great. If you make the claim you are happy because you are sticking pins in yourself then I would challenge that position. Your feeling of being happy in that instance would not be enough evidence for me to stick pins in myself.

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

Other than my own experiences of life, why do I need to believe anything?

 

[Ken-1122]

Many people claim evidence for Christianity apart from the Bible. Do you not see Christianity as a religion as being a separate issue from one of the Bibles used within it ?

I do understand they could be separate. I also may accept some of the evidences of Christianity within the bible and outside the bible; I just don't accept all of it.

Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Go back and read it again you will see the analogy has nothing to do with religion I only applied it to religion after he applied his question to religion but the analogy can be applied to anything
Again leaving religion out of it do you agree if not please explain why

Who is "he"? Don't you mean "she"? Kristina (the author of the OP) is a 'she.'

Leaving religion out of it? Why? That's where the OP started.

I think...you and I are finished with this particular thread, Ken.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you able to think for yourself without being told by "the establishment" what to think ?

Now if you answer, "Yes," ... the follow up question is going to be: How do multiple people who think for themselves come together and understand one another and seek agreement on reality in practical useful ways ?

Many people claim evidence for Christianity apart from the Bible. Do you not see Christianity as a religion as being a separate issue from one of the Bibles used within it ?

Till,

Are you taking Ken's side here? With the way in which you've articulated the comments and questions you've directed at me, it's difficult to tell.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, 'evidence' is useful, but even the term "useful" is relative; useful for what and to whom? Moreover, the purpose(s) to which the usefulness of evidence are to be applied will be contextualized by the respective methods and goal(s) of the individual persons who are determining the useful of the evidence. Differing methods and goals will result in varying evaluations as to the "usefulness" (or cogency) of available evidence.

bhsmte already answered that: useful for determining whether some claim is truthful. This implies that it is useful to those who are seeking truth.

 

[TillICollapse]

I do understand they could be separate. I also may accept some of the evidences of Christianity within the bible and outside the bible; I just don't accept all of it.

Ken

I could be wrong, but it seems it's quite common for those who identify with Christianity, to not see a difference between God, the books of the Bible (there are 66 of them to consider in a standard Protestant version), Jesus, the religion of Christianity itself, etc. when considering "evidence". It often seems an all or nothing issue, for example. If you throw out one, you throw out all of them, etc.

Which points to another point that you raised: there are those who may accept *some* both within and without.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

bhsmte already answered that: useful for determining whether some claim is truthful. This implies that it is useful to those who are seeking truth.

Arch,

Right....but simply noting that some person is looking for truth via a generalized recognition that evidence is useful does not in and of itself tell us which theory of truth the inquirer has presumed--and thus begun with--in his/her approach to finding said truth. As you know, the whole epistemological process is a bit more relative, and complex, than what a simple statement about "usefulness of evidence" would imply.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch,

Right....but simply noting that some person is looking for truth via a generalized recognition that evidence is useful does not in and of itself tell us which theory of truth the inquirer has presumed--and thus begun with--in his/her approach to finding said truth. As you know, the whole epistemological process is a bit more relative, and complex, than what a simple statement about "usefulness of evidence" would imply.

Are you aware of a working epistemology that maintains the uselessness of evidence in pursuing truth?

 

[TillICollapse]

Till,

Are you taking Ken's side here? With the way in which you've articulated the comments and questions you've directed at me, it's difficult to tell.

In general I don't take a stance based on the side I think a poster may or may not be on, if that is what you're asking. Whether or not I'm interested in the truth specifically, or the person I'm talking to specifically regardless of the truth ... is a separate issue.

I asked you my questions based on my own interest. Apart from that I have no idea why you're asking me if I'm on someone's side or not. At this moment I would have to go back and read Ken's posts to even see what his "side" was, apart from the post he made in response to me specifically.

 

[Ken-1122]

Who is "he"? Don't you mean "she"? Kristina (the author of the OP) is a 'she.'

My mistake.

Leaving religion out of it? Why? That's where the OP started.

You mentioned you didn't want to discuss religion on this particular thread.

I think...you and I are finished with this particular thread, Ken.

It doesn't surprise me you would respond this way; sometimes a simple analogy can expose flaws in an agenda.

Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you aware of a working epistemology that maintains the uselessness of evidence in pursuing truth?

Did I imply uselessness was an aspect of any point of view, let alone a working epistemology? I don't think I did, Arch.

 

[Ken-1122]

I could be wrong, but it seems it's quite common for those who identify with Christianity, to not see a difference between God, the books of the Bible (there are 66 of them to consider in a standard Protestant version), Jesus, the religion of Christianity itself, etc. when considering "evidence". It often seems an all or nothing issue, for example. If you throw out one, you throw out all of them, etc.

I am sure there are plenty of people who think this way. I can only speak for myself though.

Which points to another point that you raised: there are those who may accept *some* both within and without.

Are you suggesting some Christians dismiss some of the claims of the Bible?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you suggesting some Christians dismiss some of the claims of the Bible?

Of course.

The majority of Christians agree with evolution, so they discount Genesis. Also, I am quite sure, many Christians discount Adam and Eve as literal and they don't agree with the flood account.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My mistake.


You mentioned you didn't want to discuss religion on this particular thread.


It doesn't surprise me you would respond this way; sometimes a simple analogy can expose flaws in an agenda.

Ken

Sure, flaws could be shown, but it wouldn't be my agenda we're talking about.

And no, I don't want to talk religion in connection to a defense of religious ideas. Why? Because when you say 'Bible,' I connect that directly with 'Christianity,' and not some generic, abstract notion of 'religion.' I'm not the one who is going to defend some abstract position within the philosophy of religion. Perhaps the OP might wish to, but I don't. Additionally, CF doesn't permit an apology of Christian ideas in this section.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In general I don't take a stance based on the side I think a poster may or may not be on, if that is what you're asking. Whether or not I'm interested in the truth specifically, or the person I'm talking to specifically regardless of the truth ... is a separate issue.

I asked you my questions based on my own interest. Apart from that I have no idea why you're asking me if I'm on someone's side or not. At this moment I would have to go back and read Ken's posts to even see what his "side" was, apart from the post he made in response to me specifically.

Well....have fun with that cognitive toy of yours.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course.

The majority of Christians agree with evolution, so they discount Genesis. Also, I am quite sure, many Christians discount Adam and Eve as literal and they don't agree with the flood account.

I just find it a bit surprising they would admit to it. My experience is they usually find a way around it by saying it's all allegorical not meant to be taken literal, and Evolution as the system God put in place to get where we're at.

Ken