Evidence

[Ken-1122]

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

If that were true, it wouldn't be so difficult to get you to answer a simple question.

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.

Why do you continue to bring the Bible and religion into this conversation? I specifically asked you to leave religion out, and respond to the analogy as stated!

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Then you have no reason to dispute bhsmte's point that evidence is useful in seeking the truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If that were true, it wouldn't be so difficult to get you to answer a simple question.


Why do you continue to bring the Bible and religion into this conversation? I specifically asked you to leave religion out, and respond to the analogy as stated!

Ken

What relevance does a "golden eggs" analogy have outside of the realm of religion?

Of course, I understand that all you're simply trying to say is that under Realist evaluations, special claims will not be acceptable to anyone. Sure, that's fine as far as it goes. But, unlike you, if someone offered to sell me a chicken that supposedly laid golden eggs, I would not ask him/her to prove it, I would simply walk away because that claim would not cohere with reality, or even with Christianity for that matter.

 

[Ken-1122]

What relevance does a "golden eggs" analogy have outside of the realm of religion?

The person I was responding to implied if you are going to use extreme scrutiny for some claims, you should use such scrutiny for all claims. I was refuting that claim.

Of course, I understand that all you're simply trying to say is that under Realist evaluations, special claims will not be acceptable to anyone. Sure, that's fine as far as it goes.

Humm... sounds like we finally agree! Thanks for answering my question. With that said, I think we should quit while we're ahead.

Peace
Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then you have no reason to dispute bhsmte's point that evidence is useful in seeking the truth.

Arch,
My response to Bhsmte (see below) was in my contention of his asking about the usefulness of evidence when I was concentrating on making a statement about the relative nature of evidence.

Of course, the usefulness of evidence goes without saying, especially in this case if I've already said that evidence is something that can be variously interpreted and applied. Application implies usefulness.

But since my point was centered on the relative nature of evidence as a human construct of the mind, it also goes without saying that usefulness will likewise have a relative meaning and application respective to the one who is making an evaluation of the evidence (for whatever purposes).

Originally Posted by 2PhiloVoid

...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.
​

Bhsmte replied:

Do you believe evidence is useful in determining realities of the world?​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The person I was responding to implied if you are going to use extreme scrutiny for some claims, you should use such scrutiny for all claims. I was refuting that claim.


Humm... sounds like we finally agree! Thanks for answering my question. With that said, I think we should quit while we're ahead.

Peace
Ken

Sounds good.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch,
My response to Bhsmte (see below) was in my contention of his asking about the usefulness of evidence when I was concentrating on making a statement about the relative nature of evidence.

Of course, the usefulness of evidence goes without saying, especially in this case if I've already said that evidence is something that can be variously interpreted and applied. Application implies usefulness.

In your comment here, although conceding that evidence is useful, you asked "useful for what and to whom?" I think that question was already answered by bhsmte before you asked it: it's useful for sorting out truthful claims from untruthful ones. It's useful to those individuals who want to do that.

But since my point was centered on the relative nature of evidence as a human construct of the mind, it also goes without saying that usefulness will likewise have a relative meaning and application respective to the one who is making an evaluation of the evidence (for whatever purposes).

Yes, I think I can see what you're getting at here. It can be cast in terms of signal detection theory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In your comment here, although conceding that evidence is useful, you asked "useful for what and to whom?" I think that question was already answered by bhsmte before you asked it: it's useful for sorting out truthful claims from untruthful ones. It's useful to those individuals who want to do that.



Yes, I think I can see what you're getting at here. It can be cast in terms of signal detection theory.

Yes...good call, Arch.

 

[TillICollapse]

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

Yes, in fact it goes beyond Genesis, etc. There are some who think all Paul's writings should be tossed, for example.

 

[TillICollapse]

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

I don't recall having a posting history with you, so I can't tell if you're trolling or having a conversation with yourself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, in fact it goes beyond Genesis, etc. There are some who think all Paul's writings should be tossed, for example.

I wonder what Christianity would look like if that happened.

 

[TillICollapse]

I wonder what Christianity would look like if that happened.

I would guess it would either look more Judaic, since the ones I've known who feel that Paul was a false apostle, etc, typically seemed to have favored the "Law" and following more stricter versions of it. Or it would perhaps be a "Jesus red words only" issue, tossing aside anything that seemed to contradict Jesus' own words. Maybe. I bet a quick search in the Unorthodox section of the forums would pull up threads dealing with whether or not Paul should be accepted or not.

 

[Davian]

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.

That an individual accepts a particular religion as an accurate description of reality does not make it so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is why I never ask for evidence in such discussions.

Christianity, like all forms of supernaturalism, is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous. You don't get to pretend to have evidence for something you've never coherently defined and never provided a mechanism by which information about it may be gleaned.

There is literally nothing to address until they remedy this fact. No supernaturalist ever has. Very few have even tried.

The most glaring problem religion faces. It produces innumerable conflicting supernatural claims, but offers no means for determining which of these claims are true, and therefore, which religion one ought to adhere to.

Worse still, the intellectual culture of most religions is poisonous to any inquiry that might be construed as a challenge to dogma. Attempting to critically examine the claims of religion is thereby discouraged for fear that the assessment will fail to render the desired outcome. To many religious believers, failure is not an option. Those who persist, despite the warnings of religious authorities, often find themselves shifting theological commitments or discarding them altogether.

 

[Freodin]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

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.

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?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

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?

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.

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?

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

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

In some systems, there is too much complexity conflicting with the basic human method of wanting to simplify things for this "evidence" to work correctly.

But all these complex systems are based on indeed simple foundations.

To take you example: I am married, and my wife does indeed love me very much. Or at least, so I am told. I cannot present any kind of evidence for that - none at all. I do not have love letters written by her... or to her. I don't have any photographs showing the two of us in loving embrace. I cannot recall any conversation I ever had with her.
If you were to visit my home, you wouldn't find clothes belonging to her, necessaries, documents... nothing. No official papers of any kind exist to show that I am married, who I am married to, who this person is, whether she even exists.

But I am married to the most loving wife ever, so Christi... err, sorry: "some people", tell me.

Do you understand why I personally do not believe that I am married?

 

[kristina411]

Mainly, you are speaking of a tactic--a debating tactic used primarily by posters who oppose what you say but don't have much of a rebuttal to offer.

The thought to keep in mind is that this is a discussion board, and if the opposition in any particular instance is going to snipe but not counter or even discuss ideas, let your contentions stand just as you've explained them.

Thank you, I needed to hear this. I get so wrapped up sometimes when I post my ideas and get attacked from every direction. I was under the impression that this board was supposed to be about philosophy, and philosophy is a passion of mine, I'm disappointed that it seems to be more of Christian Apologetics (somehow it slips in but isn't that against this board?). I have to learn to laugh and walk away.

 

[quatona]

Thank you, I needed to hear this. I get so wrapped up sometimes when I post my ideas and get attacked from every direction. I was under the impression that this board was supposed to be about philosophy, and philosophy is a passion of mine, I'm disappointed that it seems to be more of Christian Apologetics (somehow it slips in but isn't that against this board?). I have to learn to laugh and walk away.

Throwing out your ideas and walking away as soon as someone challenges them is not really meeting the purpose of a discussion board, though.
It´s not a particularly "philosophic" attitude either, in my perception.

 

[kristina411]

People can believe in whatever they like; biblical creationism, etc. etc., but when they engage in the If a person with faith beliefs, would avoid the above, I would never question their beliefs.

If a non believer would avoid using evidence I wouldn't ha e to write this post. If a non believer just didn't say anything's about their post I would have nothing to say to them... So they should keep quiet and I wont need to bother them.

Can you see how this is horribly backward thinking? You make claims that Christians constantly try to say their ideas are facts, you are not as good as them, etc. If they didn't say that (which I have never yet had trouble with even you) there would be no problems, according to you. According to you, so long as Christians can not freely speak their ideas everything will be fine?

 

[kristina411]

Throwing out your ideas and walking away as soon as someone challenges them is not really meeting the purpose of a discussion board, though.
It´s not a particularly "philosophic" attitude either, in my perception.

When the subject changes from philosophy to Christian apologetics I can, and will walk away.

 

[kristina411]

I know.

She actually did claim to present evidence to support her position and her evidence was her explanation.

I tend to think, some just may be confused as to what is evidence and what is not evidence.

Show me where I have ever claimed evidence without proving.

You are sourly mistaking "I believe" with "I have proof".

Any claims I have stated I had proof, I gave proof. Any claims I stated to be fact I gave evidence (statistics and links to places you could find the evidence). Yet my belief is demanded proof for as well and that is how it is turned into Christian apologetics.