That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 02:07 AM
That's Not Evidence
Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
13-08-2015, 02:14 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

The quality of the evidence is irrelevant, it is always down to interpretation. Even the best "upper-case" evidence is ultimately subject to interpretation.

I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 02:23 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

I really want to start a thread where I go in depth into defining evidence and belief threshold but I'm just too Damn lazy. Anyways I might say number 3 is a problem from a logical point of view since science pertains to processes in the natural world. If God is supernatural, then it should be non overlapping magesteria.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 02:24 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:14 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  The quality of the evidence is irrelevant, it is always down to interpretation. Even the best "upper-case" evidence is ultimately subject to interpretation.

I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Archi

Wow really? So you don't think say, a successful scientific theory is an objectively better reason for believing something than say, its emotional appeal?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 02:30 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:23 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I really want to start a thread where I go in depth into defining evidence and belief threshold but I'm just too Damn lazy. Anyways I might say number 3 is a problem from a logical point of view since science pertains to processes in the natural world. If God is supernatural, then it should be non overlapping magesteria.

It's a pretty complicated subject to tackle. As you can see, I decided to crowd source. Big Grin

I have never really agreed with the whole Stephen Jay Gould "Non overlapping magesteria" view. I have a hard time coming up with any Theist claims that wouldn't have natural consequences measurable by science. Take for example the validity of miracles and the accuracy of supposedly divine texts. It seems to me that Theism brazenly trespasses into the territory of science yet doesn't hold itself to the same rigorous standards.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
13-08-2015, 03:14 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:23 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I really want to start a thread where I go in depth into defining evidence and belief threshold but I'm just too Damn lazy. Anyways I might say number 3 is a problem from a logical point of view since science pertains to processes in the natural world. If God is supernatural, then it should be non overlapping magesteria.

If they are non-overlapping, then God can have no effect in the natural world.
In which case, there is no reason to believe that theology isn't all just made up because there is no evidence of any gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
13-08-2015, 04:00 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
Good evidence should be something that is capable of changing belief or opinion and is undeniable regardless of any presuppositions or bias.

I don't want to believe my mother is a murderer. She may be in prison and found guilty but I still don't want to believe it. Someone telling me they saw it happen still wont make me believe.However, show me the CCTV footage of it happening and I'd have no choice but to believe.

I'm not asking for CCTV footage of the creation or any other biblical claims... Just something as equally undisputable. Until then... Its only a story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheStraightener's post
13-08-2015, 05:30 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

Something that is always lost, is that acceptance of something being true, or accurate, by any individual person involves a great deal of subjectivity. And even more so when it comes to the question of God, which is often weighted by one's own negative or even positive experience among the religious, etc... Questions of truth, particularally ones that can have serious implications on one's life, can not be processed objectively, and to ignore our own subjective weights and imagine the they don't exist, is to deceive ourselves.

The Atheist, Thomas Nagel, acknowledged his own bias, his "divine authority" problem: "“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
13-08-2015, 05:46 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 05:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

Something that is always lost, is that acceptance of something being true, or accurate, by any individual person involves a great deal of subjectivity. And even more so when it comes to the question of God, which is often weighted by one's own negative or even positive experience among the religious, etc... Questions of truth, particularally ones that can have serious implications on one's life, can not be processed objectively, and to ignore our own subjective weights and imagine the they don't exist, is to deceive ourselves.

The Atheist, Thomas Nagel, acknowledged his own bias, his "divine authority" problem: "“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. "

I am personally viscerally opposed to the idea you posit in your first paragraph. What hold has much importance in your life, how you conceive the universe and the world in which we live needs to be has objective has possible. Of course it’s impossible to reach a state of perfect objectivity, but that's what we must strive to achieve when we are studying the cosmos and what's in it. You should willfully ignore your feelings because feelings are the least reliable method to determine the veracity of what surrounds you. For God to exist and be worthy of any form of worship, obedience or even simple acceptance, he must be more real than our social construct like democracy, marriage or friendship which exist only due to our will and wishes. God must exist without us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
13-08-2015, 05:55 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

A lot of the evidence claims that theists make are ex post facto in nature.

The universe exists, therefore god.
Morality exists, therefore god.
My cancer went into remission, therefore god.

So I guess such stuff falls under the categories you already mention.
I think any truth claim would have to be of the kind that there would be no plausible explanation for a given natural phenomenon that we observe.

I don't know what that would be. No

Even if a god arrived and parted the Red Sea in front of all of the world's news cameras, I think a lot of us would be thinking an alien simply is demonstrating gravity control technology and that isn't god.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: