Trailblazer
Veteran Member
So what is that objective evidence?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we change our mind about what we believe?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
You miss the most important point: it's not whether or not you have new information that can cause you to change your mind, it's whether you will give that new information the same weight as whatever it is that you believe is contradictory. And that's an area where humans are remarkably able to dismiss or given insufficient weight.
Thus, there is a problem with this word "evidence" itself:
Evaluating the quality of evidence in support of a proposition is crucial in discerning fact from fiction, and requires a systematic approach. Here are some general principles and steps to consider:
1. Source of Evidence
a. Credibility: The source of the evidence should ideally be credible, reliable, and unbiased. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, for instance, are often considered more credible than personal anecdotes or unverified internet sources.
b. Expertise: The expertise of the individual or institution presenting the evidence is also essential. Someone who is a trained expert in a field is more likely to provide accurate information than a layperson.
2. Nature of Evidencea. Empirical vs. Anecdotal: Empirical evidence, which is based on observation and experimentation, is typically given more weight than anecdotal evidence, which is based on personal experiences that often can't be generalized.
b. Reproducibility: In science, evidence that can be replicated by different researchers in different settings is more valuable than findings that can't be replicated.
c. Controlled Conditions: Evidence gathered under controlled conditions, where variables are carefully managed, is often more reliable than evidence from uncontrolled conditions.
3. Relevance to the PropositionEvidence must be directly relevant to the proposition. It's crucial to ensure that the evidence being presented directly pertains to the claim being made.
For instance, say that a mother claims that Satan had been ordering her to kill her child for months, which led her to finally commit the act. While her "testimony" could be seen as evidence in a broad sense, it's crucial to determine what it's evidence of. The mother's statement, without any other corroborative evidence, is more likely to suggest a mental health issue than the existence of a supernatural being. This distinction is vital when drawing conclusions.
4. Volume vs. Quality of EvidenceMultiple pieces of weak evidence don't necessarily equate to strong evidence. It's important to consider the quality of each piece of evidence rather than just the quantity.
5. Correlation vs. CausationJust because two things occur together doesn't mean one caused the other. It's vital to distinguish between correlation (things happening at the same time) and causation (one thing causing another).
6. Consensus While consensus isn't a guarantee of truth, if a large portion of a community accepts a particular piece of evidence or theory based on repeated observations and experiments, it's typically a good indication of its validity.
7. Bias and Conflicts of InterestAlways check if there's any potential bias or conflict of interest related to the evidence. For example, a claim by a pastor or priest that God will be displeased if the church doesn't raise such-and-such a sum of many just might be biased.
8. Logical ConsistencyThe evidence and resulting conclusions should be logically consistent and not contradict other established knowledge without a very good reason.
In sum, the evaluation of evidence requires a multi-faceted approach that looks at both the quality and the relevance of the information. It's essential to approach evidence critically and skeptically, demanding high standards, especially when making significant conclusions or decisions based on that evidence.Do you think many of us actually do all that, when we're presented with some new idea? I would be very, very skeptical of such a claim.
Of what? We never defined what "certain belief" we are discussing.
Let's do an easy one...flat earth belief.
- The visibility of distant objects on Earth's surface
- Lunar eclipses
- Appearance of the moon
- Observation of the sky from altitude
- Observation of certain fixed stars from different locations
- Observing the Sun
- Surface navigation
- Grid distortion on a spherical surface
- Weather systems
Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth - Wikipedia
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not think that most people take that multi-faceted approach, but I don't think it is necessary unless they are drawing significant conclusions or making important decisions based on the evidence.
You mean significant conclusions like same-sex couples who love each other should not be married but jailed or even killed? Important decisions like whether to alter 8-day old boys' genitals, or whether a life-saving blood transfusion should be administered to your child?
I won't beat you to death with a long list -- you know yourself that it could get very long indeed. But I will tell you, I don't think people take a reasoned approach to a very, very significant number of important decisions on that list. And I think that they should. For the good of our very species.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, I would consider those important and significant decisions.
I fully agree.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
How are these scenarios related to the 8-point list you provided earlier? How, for example, do the volume vs quality of evidence (#4) or correlation vs causation (#5) factors apply to these questions? Are you suggesting that it will take society years of exhaustive study and research and scientific inquiry to inform the question of whether or not same-sex couples who love each other should either be able to marry, or be thrown in jail or beaten?
I may be missing something major here. I admit that. Asking for clarification.
No, in fact if you take a reasoned stance based on quite a small bit of science and an overall respect for other humans, the answer is quite simple.
First, that small bit of science is to simply observe, throughout nature and throughtout humanity, whether sexuality really is on a spectrum, and that this is natural. Look at the data -- it is. And if it is, and if I respect and value other humans, and find some of them who are attracted to one another, I have zero difficulty saying, "okay, hope you have a happy life!"
On the other hand, somebody who says "God hates homosexuals," and claims that's definitive in the Bible, then I would ask them to demonstrate how they really know what God thinks, and how they go on to explain how -- since homosexuality is now known to be natural -- they can believe that God, the author of what is "natural," can be so conflicted. And I would hope that they would see that there is a fundamental contradiction, and contradiction in general when reasoning means that somewhere in your chain of logic you got something wrong.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Thank you for clarifying. I still don't see what science has to do with the question at all. The question seems 100% morally oriented. I'd say that "an overall respect for other humans" is all that is needed to consider to produce an answer.
Likewise, I think the "vs god" dichotomy is a false dichotomy and a distraction from your first point of consideration. What God desires or commands or condemns or delights in has nothing to do with the question of what is right, as pertaining to how marriages of consenting adults may be composed, in a society in which no one is compelled to believe in God. There can only be one just answer—government can't regulate it.
So again, unless I'm missing something, it seems that the questions for which the 8-factor considerations are relevant...are not the kinds of questions you brought up after introducing the list.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Their mind was not changed for them. They changed their mind because they got new information that caused them to change their mind.
You speak for the believers and call them self-righteous and biased and comfortable and dependent upon their beliefs, as if you know that is the reason they continue to believe what they believe. You don't know why believers continue to believe what they believe, so it is presumptuous and arrogant for you to assume you know why other people do what they do.
You only know what you can and cannot do. You have no idea what other people can and cannot do.
You do not know that other people can change their understanding of their belief and choose to doubt it and thereby recognize other viable cognitive possibilities.
No, a religious belief is not similar to a drug addiction.
A religious believer does not believe they must have their belief to live and their belief is not killing them.
A religious belief is not a bias, because it is not prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. One can hold a religious belief while at the same time be fair to others, and keep an open mind and heart toward their experience of the world and accept that there is a great deal we simply do not know.
I think that most atheists are agnostic atheists who accept that God might exist. Only a few hard atheists insist that God absolutely does not exist.
Now you are accusing atheists of lying and being self-righteous, being irrational and dishonest, just as you accuse believers of being.
You are extremely judgmental and I find this very offensive, but what is most offensive is that you speak for other people as if you know what they are thinking and doing.
Firstly, there is no reason why a person should change their truth, not unless they want to.
Secondly, a religious belief is not destroying anyone's mind or body.
Thirdly, you do not know what "we" can do, you only know what "you" can do.
I can’t disbelieve in God because I see evidence for God. Conversely, atheists can't believe in God because they see no evidence for God.
I have no bias because a bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
You could humble yourself at any time, and let go of your bias against believers and your assertion that you know what other people can and cannot do.
I do accept that I do not know much about God and I do not pretend to know what I cannot know.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
People lie.
A common reason to lie is monetary incentive. Look at YEC, those who earn money with it like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. The ToE has been explained hundreds of times to them, yet, they still argue against a straw man version of it. Do they really believe that biologists believe in the straw man version? No, but it is easier to argue against.
Or imagine a priest or pastor who has lost their faith. (You don't have to imagine if you look at the The Clergy Project.) Admitting it would take them instantly out of work with few alternatives if theology was the only thing they ever have learned up to then.
PureX
Veteran Member
As humans, we all share a great deal in terms of thought experience and motivation. We really aren't all that unique. And anyway, if your thought process and experiences were really all that 'special' you should share them so as to enlighten the rest of us.
But I suspect you already know that your 'special knowledge' is logically unfounded. Just as it is for the rest of us. Because your a limited human, too, just like the rest of us.
We humans don't possess the abilities required to claim certainty. So every time we do so, we are lying to ourselves and to each other. And that's essentially what "belief" is. It's our presuming certainty about things that we can't possibly be certain of. And we do it because we LIKE to feel certain. It gives us a false sense of control, and even though it's false, we like the idea of being in control so much that we accept it, anyway.
But it is a lie. Believing that we know does not make it so. And the more adamantly we believe that it does, the more delusional we become.
All of them. To "believe" is to forfeit that ability. It's exactly why they don't believe they HAVE that ability.
You seem to be under the false impression that to jettison belief automatically means we must change our minds. Or that we must seek some other conclusion. It doesn't. It simply means that we stop pretending that we know things that we can't know to be so. In the case of theism, it simply means that we trust in our hope in God, instead of pretending to 'know' God.
It doesn't matter. I know they are lying to themselves and to me if they claim to know God. I know this because they are humans, and so cannt possibly know what they are claiming to know.
Faith requires no "work". Though it would be wise to think carefully about what hope one is choosing to place their faith, in. And it would be wise to observe the results of acting on that hope. So as to adjust it, accordingly.
You have to remember that all of this is rooted in something called "human nature." David Hume, the great Scottish philospher, wrote on the subject, as the really great biologist and anthropologist Edward O. Wilson, both have written books called "On Human Nature," along with Wilson's "The Social Conquest of the Earth." That latter is, in my view, a truly great book.
Human nature, as in all other animals, in fact, is rooted in our evolution. We are, as Wilson puts it, a eusocial species. But we have something that the other eusocial species (ants, bees, termites, wasps, a few others) do not -- and that is our ability to default. The worker bee could no more run away from her duty to defend the queen than she can shirk her duties as nurse, later nectar and pollen gatherer. But the human, urged by nature to social cooperation for our own good, can default. Rather than share out rations equally, we are quite capable of secretly hoarding extra for ourselves and our own offspring. The termite is incapable of that sort of selfishness.
Even vampire bats are sometimes social, but there's an interesting twist. this bat has a very high metabolism, and needs a blood meal every night. Sometimes, they fail to find a beast to feed on, and come back to the nest cave on empty. Such bats will beg others to regurgitate part of their evening feast, and mostly this is granted. However, if a bat has been noticed by others to have refused to do so for an earlier suppliant, that bat is more likely to be refused by other bats when he is hungry.
All of this is within the realm of science. It is my belief that the better we understand the underpinnings of our own human nature, they more easily we can determine what is right and the more ready we might be to do it.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Yes, some have. As for me, I first believed in Baha'i in the summer of of 1970. I admit that I was too hasty at that time in coming to that conclusion. I read the introductory part to the Seven Valleys of Baha'u'llah, before the Valley of Search, and detected the Voice of God. However, I should have investigated more deeply than that. I could have been mistaken that this was the Voice of God. I had read some other literature, but not that deeply into it. Interestingly I had read the Hidden words before that and thought they were nice sayings, but there was nothing special about the Hidden Words. After my “awakening” I thought the Hidden Words were special. However I made the mistake of not investigating the history of the Baha'i Faith and I had a Christian friend in college who had read Baha'i history literature that was written that I now know was off the mark. I don't know where he got what he read, but he told me flat out that Baha'u'llah was a killer. He thought the way to properly investigate the Baha'i Faith was to look only at sources outside of what Baha'is wrote. I know this because he said so at a fireside I had attended before this. I was just as naive when he said this as when I had decided the Baha'i faith was true. I believed what he said at first without reservation. But then I thought, what about the “spiritual” evidence that I felt?
From this initial beginning I decided to look at both sides, not just one side. Over the years I went out of my way sometimes to question what the Baha'i Faith said. I didn't for years though read much in the way of reading alternative accounts of the history of the Baha'i faith I admit. I did do more later reading hoping that would help in a discussion with a skeptic about the history of the Baha'i Faith. Some scholarly people have waxed skeptical about Baha'i history and I had paid attention to those.
Other than history I had more problems reconciling some things with scholars, or with history and science. There were times when I have been on the ropes in believing. I am strong at the moment, and I'm not expecting that to change. I have been through the mill over more than 50 years, and there is so much evidence in favor of the Baha'i Revelation in my estimation that things that are left that are a problem don't really bother me, and those do exist. I have been in forums for over 20 years, and have encountered attitudes and arguments against the Baha'i Revelation that at times have been a problem for my belief, but in the end I bless those encounters, because I learn from encounters. I don't enjoy hostile encounters though, and I can get hostile back at times, which is not a good thing. Sometimes I say nothing back because I'm afraid of my own tendency sometimes of not having a good attitude.
As for atheists, whatever their reason for not believing in God, I don't condemn them for that, and there are atheists with good morals and attitudes, and there are people that believe in religion with bad morals and attitudes. People that are atheists are not condemned to eternal hell in the Baha'i Faith, or even experiencing hell initially depending on their morals. I won't cite from the Writings why I think so. Hell or paradise is a condition that is not binary, with two opposite extremes in the Baha'i Faith. It is a graduated condition with a lot of gray between black and white. Also in the next world, no matter how much a person is in hell in the beginning, they can progress. A person is not fixed in the same condition forever, and there is only progress in the next world. God does whatever He wills and God can use mercy for some people more than others also in my opinion, and I don't see that as violating justice. Justice and mercy don't contradict each other in my mind. All people receive mercy from God in my view, some more than others.
Yes I know which believers have and haven't truthfully, searched because if they did they would see there is only one truth. They would not need to be challenging other believers because they would know the truth. They would no longer call themselves believers.
If you are honest and seek the truth you can and will find it. It is an undertaking that requires both work and patience which throughout human history is lacking. Humans have for the most part taken short cuts because life itself is challenging and extra work is not appealing. Here's the thing with both truth and belief they are not unprovable but only provable by yourself for yourself.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Thank you for the additional detail. That helps me understand better where you're coming from.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I believe I know the truth but I consider myself a believer since I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone except myself.
I believe there is only one truth and it comes to humanity in every age when a new religion is revealed by a Messenger of God.
“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.”
– Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.
Referring to the world's great religions as "mighty systems" Baha'u'llah wrote:
“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Although humans share a great deal in terms of thought experience and motivation, every human is unique. To assume that we all believe in God or a particular religion for the same reasons is illogical since it is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Since all humans are unique, my thought process and reason for believing what I believe is unlike any other human, even though my experiences and thought process is somewhat similar to that of other Baha'is, such as @Truthseeker. I responded to his post, and in that post I shared how I came to be a Baha'i and why I continue to believe in Baha'u'llah after over 50 years. #62
Special knowledge has nothing to do with logic. Special knowledge about God comes through the Messengers of God. Of course that is a belief, since it can never be proven as a fact. Any special knowledge I have comes from Baha'u'llah, it has nothing to do with "me."
I am not "claiming certainty", I am saying that I am certain. There is a big difference between those two. When you tell me I am lying to myself you are speaking for me and that is not only rude, it is arrogant, since you cannot know I am not certain.
You are wrong. A person can be certain that a belief is true. That does not mean they are claiming it is true.
Please to not use the words "we" and "us" and then go on to speak for everyone collectively, as if you know why everyone who feels certain feels certain, because you do not know why. I cannot speak for others but in my case it has nothing to do with being in control, quite the contrary because I do not believe I am in control of anything.
I never said that believing that I know makes it so. My belief can never be proven to be true so I am not claiming it is so.
"I believe" it is so is not a claim, it is an inner sense of certitude.
I asked: Do you know how many believers have not truthfully challenged their beliefs and sought truth elsewhere?
So, are you saying that no believers have truthfully challenged their beliefs and sought truth elsewhere?
Are you saying that no believers have that ability?
I do not pretend to 'know' God. One of the things that Baha'u'llah revealed is that nobody can ever know the essence of God, as God is a mystery.
All we can ever 'know' are some of God's attributes and God's will for any given age, which comes through the Messengers of God in every age.
I do not believe anyone can ever 'know God' the way some believers claim to know God.
For example, @Bird123 is not a religious believer but he believes that he 'knows God' because he has gotten visits from God. He also believes he knows God because of what he 'believes' are God's actions in this world. He says that nobody should believe because they can have knowledge of God.
Other believers believe that they know God because of some mystical experience. I do not believe it is possible to know God that way, but they believe they know God so they are not lying to themselves.
Others believers who are Christians believe they 'know God' through Jesus, and I agree they can have some knowledge of God through Jesus, but that does not mean they can ever know the essence of God, which will always remain a mystery.
If these people claim to know God they are not 'lying to themselves' since that is what they 'honestly' believe.
Faith might not require work, but what that faith is based upon requires work, or at least I think it should. Sustaining that faith also requires patience, perseverance, and a lot of other spiritual qualities.
Last edited: