Faith and how much we depend on it.

[Archaeopteryx]

Some definitions of evidence:

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

2. something that makes plain or clear ; an indication or sign:

: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

1 a : an outward sign : indication

a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:
----

I put these definitions together and say that evidence at its most basic level is something that indicates that something is true. Whether you think that some information indicates that something is true or how strongly you think it indicates that something is true is a matter of opinion. Two people can look at the same information and draw different conclusion about they think it indicates to be true.

You keep avoiding my question: who gets to decide what is supported by the evidence? We can all have different opinions about to what extent various assessments are indicated by the evidence.

I did answer it. The evidence is what differentiates. For example, whether faith healing works isn't decided by opinion, but by evidence.

Indeed, but again, I'm talking about someone who examines the evidence and concludes that they have sufficiently better reason not to maintain their belief. In that case, their reason to continue holding the belief would be removed and a belief that is maintained without a reason to maintain it would be maintained uncaused.

Then you're talking about something entirely different to what I've been talking about.

You said they considered the contrary evidence and found it to be overwhelming,

No, I never said that.

If they examine the evidence in favor of your position and consider it to be overwhelming, then they agree with your position, or else they wouldn't consider it to be overwhelming.

You keep missing the point: I never said that they agreed.

Data is something that indicates that something is true, so data is evidence.

No, data is data. Data can be evidence.

Assessments require interpreting data, which is what makes them inherently subjective.

Some assessments are more objective than others.

The same data can be interpreted by differently people to indicate two mutually exclusive positions, so it is evidence for both positions by definition.

If it points to multiple incompatible "truths," then it doesn't seem to point to truth at all, and therefore cannot be considered evidence, even by your definition.

Both people think that their position is justified by the evidence. So, again, who gets to decide which person, if either, is objectively right?

What do you mean 'who'?

I think that the reasons I have for holding all of my beliefs justify holding them, or else I wouldn't hold them, and the same goes for you, and for everyone else. My beliefs are according to my opinion, your beliefs are according your opinion, and everyone else's beliefs are according to their opinion.

That's not the point being disputed. We aren't talking about your opinion on whether you are justified in believing as you do, but whether you actually are justified. You are continually shifting the discussion away from the point at issue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is not a different type of thing from verifying the events in the Bible.

Yes, it is. Because none of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified. Not even all of the non-supernatural claims can be verified.

"A reasonable expectation based on evidence" is a good definition of religious faith.

No, it's not. For reasons I explained clearly, but which you are rejecting with but a handwave.

If "just believe" was the only reason to believe that Christianity was true, then there wouldn't be any Christians, so it's not clear to me why you are pretending like that's the only reason.

How do you objectively verify that Jesus raised from the dead? That Mozes talked with a burning bush?

How do you objectively verify any supernatural claim? Both in and not in the bible?

This most definatly is a matter of type, not of scale.

We have good reason to think that the Gospels are high quality eyewitness accounts because of many of the things in the accounts that we have been able to verify.

New York exists and several Peter Parker's live there. That doesn't mean that one of them is Spiderman.

For example, if you were creating a story to took place in France 100 year ago that used over 100 of personal names, the chances that you would pick the right sort of names in the right frequencies to be an historically accurate representation would be very slim.

Que?

200 years from now, you could say the exact same thing about Spiderman. And Superman. And Batman.

I fully expect that the bible would be mentioning names and cities that actually existed or fit the culture of the times that the stories originated.

There are many other details that can and have been independently verified

Again, one part of a story being accurate, does not make the entire story correct.

Eyewitness evidence still qualifies as evidence.

Sure. It's just very bad and very unreliable evidence.

Everything that is verifiable is subjectively verifiable. In order to objectively verify, you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to be false, which would be impossible.

No, that is not what I mean with objective verifiability.
When I say "objectively verifiable", I mean that it doesn't matter who is doing the verifying. This is why a hindu and a muslim can both agree on how gravity works.

You have yet to demonstrate how your idea of religious faith is even possible.

I'll just point to the billions of people who believe things on bad or no evidence.

Let's consider a religious belief that we both would agree on is nonsense:
Muslims believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Do you think that muslims have "good and verifiable reasons" to believe that this is true?

Someone who didn't have a base for their belief would never have their belief formed in the first place.

Apparantly, you aren't aware how emotions, for example, can get in the way of reason. Apparantly, you aren't aware of things like cognitive disonnance etc. Which is rather ironic. But you probably don't get how it is ironic.

A belief that was formed without having a reason to form it would be uncaused, which is absurd, so I am not at all joking.

There are always reasons why people believe things. But those reasons are not always sound or based on evidence.

Feel free to explain how it is possible for someone to form any of those beliefs without appealing to a reason for forming them.

Brainwashing, indoctrination at a young age, misplaced trust, misinformation, emotions,......................... etc.

Emotional reasons still qualify as reasons.

Invalid reasons. Bad reasons. Reasons not based on actual evidence.
The point exactly.

They don't get demoted from counting as reasons because you don't think they are good reasons.

They are demoted as being invalid or unsound reasons. ie: faith based reasons.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But it is verifiable and not something that is "just believed". And that's when we get to discarding your meaningless concept of religious faith.

Dude........

If your religious claims were actually verifiable, then everybody would be a christian, just like everybody accepts gravity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So wheres my local parish scientist helping to organise the working man?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are always reasons why people believe things. But those reasons are not always sound or based on evidence.

Precisely. I've repeated this point several times now: it's not merely about whether the religionist is able to produce a reason for their belief, but whether those reasons justify the belief. We all acknowledge that the religious are able to give many reasons for their supernatural claims. The question is whether those reasons are strong enough to warrant the confidence they have in those claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So wheres my local parish scientist helping to organise the working man?

She is in the schools teaching your children how to think critically; in the hospitals, treating patients with medicine that has been tested and found to work; in the lab, developing new technologies that make life better in various ways; in the government, campaigning for policies to effectively address the challenges we all face in the near and distant future (e.g., climate change).

 

[The Cadet]

@Soyeong let me make an analogy. Let's say someone told you that a man regenerated his arm, much in the same way Piccolo does in this scene. What would it take for you to believe that? Would you accept an old text making the claim? Would you accept one man's testimony? What if it was one man's testimony, but you couldn't actually speak to that man, because he's been dead for a very long time? What if that man's testimony was rooted in an ancient tome that testified to numerous other fantastical things, and made predictions or statements that did not come true or could not be true?

 

[Emmy]

Dear AHH who-stole-my-name. Faith will always lead us on if we love to follow our Lord and Master.
In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all our hearts,
with all our souls, and with all our minds. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40 we are told: " In the two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love and God wants loving sons and daughters. Do we have faith enough to follow these Commandments daily? Love God and love our neighbour?
Love is very catching, and in Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " Ask and you shall receive," we keep asking for Love and Joy, the thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour. (neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friend and not friend) God sees our loving efforts, and God knows that we have faith also, Faith enough to keep on loving and caring.
A Christian`s weapons are Faith enough to love and care, to be always kind and ready to give the helping hand.
The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY.
I say this with love, and send greetings. Emmy your sister in Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Dude........

If your religious claims were actually verifiable, then everybody would be a christian, just like everybody accepts gravity.

If religious claims weren't verifiable, then nobody would be a Christian.

Yes, it is. Because none of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified. Not even all of the non-supernatural claims can be verified.

Sure they can.

No, it's not. For reasons I explained clearly, but which you are rejecting with but a handwave.

I showed how it was evidence vs. evidence, not evidence vs. no evidence, so it's a matter of scale, not of type.

How do you objectively verify that Jesus raised from the dead? That Mozes talked with a burning bush?

How do you objectively verify any supernatural claim? Both in and not in the bible?

This most definatly is a matter of type, not of scale.

You don't objectively verify any claim because you can't show that a claim is impossible to be wrong, so it's always a subjective process. What you can do is anything that causes you to become more confident form nothing ---

New York exists and several Peter Parker's live there. That doesn't mean that one of them is Spiderman.

Really? That has nothing to do with what I said.

Que?

200 years from now, you could say the exact same thing about Spiderman. And Superman. And Batman.

Not really. It wouldn't be a large enough sample and the names picked would be an historically accurate representation of which names were used and their frequencies.

I fully expect that the bible would be mentioning names and cities that actually existed or fit the culture of the times that the stories originated.

If you were making up a story that took place 100 years ago in a different country that uses over 100 personal names, you might be able to pick out a few names that were popular at the time and mention major cities, but would not be able to pick an historically accurate representation of which names were used and their frequencies. Furthermore, you would not be able to accurately name backwater villages and list travel times between them. There is a stark contrast when you compare the use of person and place names in the Gospels and Acts with the use names with apocryphal gospels.

Again, one part of a story being accurate, does not make the entire story correct.

Of course, but verifying that many minor details in the Gospels and Acts are accurately remembered means that we have little reason to think that the major details were inaccurately remembered.

Sure. It's just very bad and very unreliable evidence.

If you admit that testimonial evidence is evidence, then the difference is in the quality of evidence rather than type.

No, that is not what I mean with objective verifiability.
When I say "objectively verifiable", I mean that it doesn't matter who is doing the verifying. This is why a hindu and a muslim can both agree on how gravity works.

Both a Hindu and Muslim can verify the Bible.

I'll just point to the billions of people who believe things on bad or no evidence.

You can perhaps point to billion of people who believe things with what they consider to be good evidence, but you personally consider to be bad evidence, but you can not point to a single person who believes something with no evidence, because then their belief would be uncaused.

Let's consider a religious belief that we both would agree on is nonsense:
Muslims believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Do you think that muslims have "good and verifiable reasons" to believe that this is true?

People don't go from having no confidence that that is true to having a high level of confidence that that is true without a cause. Verification must have happened in order for them to obtain their level of confidence. They think it is a good reason and whether or not anyone else agrees is not relevant.

Apparantly, you aren't aware how emotions, for example, can get in the way of reason. Apparantly, you aren't aware of things like cognitive disonnance etc. Which is rather ironic. But you probably don't get how it is ironic.

Emotions can influence our ability to reason and evaluate evidence, but they are not in themselves a method of reasoning.

There are always reasons why people believe things. But those reasons are not always sound or based on evidence.

Reasons can not exist uncaused independently of evidence.

Brainwashing, indoctrination at a young age, misplaced trust, misinformation, emotions,......................... etc.

I said to feel free to explain how it is possible for someone to form any of those beliefs without appealing to a reason for forming them.

Invalid

reasons. Bad reasons. Reasons not based on actual evidence.
The point exactly.

Without being based on actual evidence, there wouldn't be emotional reasons.

They are demoted as being invalid or unsound reasons. ie: faith based reasons.

Nowhere in the Bible is "faith" used to refer to invalid or unsound reasons and no Christian I know uses it that way. I am trying to help correct your misconceived understanding of "faith".