Do We Need Faith?

[Dao Hao Now]

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

From that link:

I believe that Messengers if God are evidence for God's existence and that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the greatest proof of God's existence.

Again stating that there is “proof for God’s existence”.

The following is excerpts from your post on that link.
The text in red is what I highlighted to exemplify that it’s biased and therefore subjective nature.
The sections separated with ++++++ above and below are for the benefit of anyone who may be reading along who may not be familiar with the authors and the books linked, which I added for reference to demonstrate the bias and therefore subjectivity.

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

“All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:”

“Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world –.”

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His Words (His writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other he hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by Baha’u’llah
++++++++++++++++++++++++++==++++++++++

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[This link leads to tablets written by Baha’u’llah ]

LAWH-I-AQDAS
(The Most Holy Tablet)
The Hour which We had concealed from the knowledge of the peoples of the earth and of the favored angels hath come to pass. Say, verily, He hath testified of Me, and I do testify of Him. Indeed, He hath purposed no one other than Me. Unto this beareth witness every fair-minded and understanding soul.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
[Written by Shoghi Effendi]
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which
cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892. [Written by Baha’u’llah]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shoghí Effendi (/ˈʃoʊɡiːɛˈfɛndi/; 1 March 1897 – 4 November 1957) was the grandson and successor of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, appointed to the role of Guardian of the Baháʼí Faith from 1921 until his death in 1957. He created a series of teaching plans that oversaw the expansion of the faith to many new countries, and also translated many of the writings of the Baháʼí central figures.
Shoghi Effendi - Wikipedia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The words He hath revealed is what he wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William Bernard Sears (March 28, 1911 – March 25, 1992) was a writer and a popular television and radio personality in various shows culminating in the 1950s with In the Park but left television popularity to promote the Baháʼí Faith in Africa and embarked on a lifelong service to the religion, for some 35 years as Hand of the Cause, the highest institution of the religion he could be appointed to.

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Subtitled A Case for the Baha’i Revelation]
Gary Matthews is a second-generation Bahá’í with a lifelong passion for interfaith dialogue and discourse.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


So, essentially you have Baha’u’llah who made some claims and wrote them down…..
which is definitionally subjective.

You Have his grandson Shoghi Effendi, who took over as the leader of the Baha’i Faith, who said/wrote some stuff based on his grandfather Baha’u’llah claims that he had said/wrote, while actively trying (apparently somewhat successfully) to grow the religion…….
which is obviously biased and therefore subjective.

You have writings of devout adherents and apologists who were actively engaged with growing the faith and wrote about what Baha’u’llah claimed…….
which is obviously biased and therefore subjective.

You gave links to the official Baha’i Faith website….
Again, obviously biased and subjective.

You have included various links to writings in Baha’i International Community Baha’i Reference Library pointing out writings by:

Baha’u’llah: (The guy that made the claims)

‘Abdu’l-Baha: (The guy who made the claims son,
who took over as leader of Baha’i
when his dad died.)

Shoghi Effendi: (The guy who made the claims
grandson, who took over as
leader of Baha’i when his
dad died.)

And JE Esslemont:
John Ebenezer EsslemontM.B., Ch.B. (1874 – 1925), from Scotland, was a prominent Britishadherent of the Baháʼí Faith. Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baháʼí Faith, posthumously named Esslemont a Hand of the Cause of God, one of the Disciples of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá (Effendi's predecessor), and one of the United Kingdom's three luminaries of the Baháʼí Faith.
John Esslemont - Wikipedia
Again, obviously biased and subjective.

Any rational person can easily see that all the sources you provided are heavily biased and therefore not objective.

Remember, concerning subjective evidence you said:

In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ...

Don’t forget, what somebody says includes what they wrote.

You have chosen to accept it.
You have every prerogative to do so.
That’s up to you for any reason you choose, but please at least be intellectually honest about it.

Many people (probably most) make decisions based on subjective evidence for many things and often.
It is often difficult to determine things objectively, and there are many things which, at present, are not possible to objectively determine, which leaves any determination to be made only possible with subjective evidence.
In my opinion, that is the situation here.

You have Chosen to accept subjective evidence which you subjectively find compelling
and as result believe in God and a messenger of God…..great!

I on the other hand, having found no objective evidence, and not finding any of the subjective evidence to be compelling, withhold my belief.

Which as we’ve both agreed, leaves us back where we started……
Disagreeing on what each of us finds to be compelling evidence.

I appreciate your frank discussion.
You impress me as a kind and caring person,
and I’ve enjoyed our dialogue.
I’ve also learned a lot about the Baha’i Faith,
thank you.

 

[samtonga43]

“Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as ‘compelling evidence.”

Exactly. See #402

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, your own words betray you;
if this evidence were objective, it would indicate it to anyone, not just you,….but them as well.
Not just those that share your faith.

It is objective evidence according to the following definitions.

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves so in that sense it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions and share my beliefs since everyone comes to their own conclusions about the evidence. In other words, the assessment of the evidence is subjective. There is no way around that since different people will have different opinions about the evidence.

How about the opening paragraph defining
objective evidence, did you miss that?
“Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as ‘compelling evidence.”

No, I did not miss that. That is a different definition of objective evidence, also valid. There are facts about Baha’u’llah that can be evaluated and examined, but it can never be proven that Baha’u’llah actually received messages from God. I am sure I already said this is another post.

Faith is necessarily subjective.

That us absolutely true, but so what? That not only applies to faith in a religion. All opinions that cannot be proven to be true are subjective opinions.

So, “subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate OBJECTIVELY”, would be correct.
It is generally considered as evidence filtered through the perspective of an individual’s experience which often includes bias, that hasn’t or cannot be corroborated by an independent unbiased source.

That’s true, but again, so what? Evidence for any religion is filtered through the perspective of an individual’s experience which often includes bias. No evidence for any religion can be corroborated by an independent unbiased source.

We are all responsible for looking at the evidence and coming to our own conclusions. We cannot depend upon anyone else and what they conclude and say to God, following their lead, I did not believe, because we are all accountable to God for our own choices on judgment day.

“…….. every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

You do understand that “what somebody says” includes what somebody writes, yes?
The act of writing it down doesn’t magically change something from subjective to objective.

If you are referring to what is written in scriptures that is not either subjective or objective. Everyone who reads it will interpret it subjectively, and they will have their own personal opinion as to whether they believe a Messenger of God wrote it.

Of course, since I can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists.
Nonetheless, you do assert that God exists.

I never asserted that God exists, I only ever said that I believe that God exists. I never assert what I cannot prove since that would constitute a bald assertion.

 

[Trailblazer]

From that link:
Again stating that there is “proof for God’s existence”.

The following is excerpts from your post on that link.
The text in red is what I highlighted to exemplify that it’s biased and therefore subjective nature.
The sections separated with ++++++ above and below are for the benefit of anyone who may be reading along who may not be familiar with the authors and the books linked, which I added for reference to demonstrate the bias and therefore subjectivity.

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

“All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:”

“Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world –.”

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His Words (His writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other he hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by Baha’u’llah
++++++++++++++++++++++++++==++++++++++

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[This link leads to tablets written by Baha’u’llah ]

LAWH-I-AQDAS
(The Most Holy Tablet)
The Hour which We had concealed from the knowledge of the peoples of the earth and of the favored angels hath come to pass. Say, verily, He hath testified of Me, and I do testify of Him. Indeed, He hath purposed no one other than Me. Unto this beareth witness every fair-minded and understanding soul.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
[Written by Shoghi Effendi]
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which
cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892. [Written by Baha’u’llah]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shoghí Effendi (/ˈʃoʊɡiːɛˈfɛndi/; 1 March 1897 – 4 November 1957) was the grandson and successor of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, appointed to the role of Guardian of the Baháʼí Faith from 1921 until his death in 1957. He created a series of teaching plans that oversaw the expansion of the faith to many new countries, and also translated many of the writings of the Baháʼí central figures.
Shoghi Effendi - Wikipedia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The words He hath revealed is what he wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William Bernard Sears (March 28, 1911 – March 25, 1992) was a writer and a popular television and radio personality in various shows culminating in the 1950s with In the Park but left television popularity to promote the Baháʼí Faith in Africa and embarked on a lifelong service to the religion, for some 35 years as Hand of the Cause, the highest institution of the religion he could be appointed to.

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Subtitled A Case for the Baha’i Revelation]
Gary Matthews is a second-generation Bahá’í with a lifelong passion for interfaith dialogue and discourse.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, essentially you have Baha’u’llah who made some claims and wrote them down…..
which is definitionally subjective..

The text in red that you highlighted from the Writings of Baha’u’llah is not subjective. Baha’u’llah’s Writings contain certain claims. Claims are just claims. What people conclude about those claims is subjective.

The other text you highlighted in red is just information about the Baha’i Faith from other sources. What people conclude about this information is subjective.

You have Chosen to accept subjective evidence which you subjectively find compelling
and as result believe in God and a messenger of God…..great!

No, I have chosen to accept what I consider evidence for the claims of Baha'u'lalh which I subjectively find compelling..

I on the other hand, having found no objective evidence, and not finding any of the subjective evidence to be compelling, withhold my belief.

I have found objective evidence according to the definitions I posted in the previous post.
There is no subjective evidence, there are only subjective opinions about the facts surrounding the Baha'i Faith.

Which as we’ve both agreed, leaves us back where we started……
Disagreeing on what each of us finds to be compelling evidence.

Yes, we are back where we started. What this is really all about is not subjective vs. objective evidence. It is about compelling evidence. I have found compelling evidence (evidence that compels me to believe) and you have found no such evidence.

I appreciate your frank discussion.
You impress me as a kind and caring person,
and I’ve enjoyed our dialogue.
I’ve also learned a lot about the Baha’i Faith,

thank you.

I also appreciate your replies and have enjoyed our dialogue, so thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The topic was "Do we need faith?" and the Bahais made Bahaollah the topic. Wish people could have stuck to the OP.
Faith without evidence is common in all religions (except Buddhism and my brand of non-dual Hinduism). We don't need faith.

 

[samtonga43]

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers.

Not necessarily.

Baha’u’llah’s Writings contain certain claims. Claims are just claims. What people conclude about those claims is subjective.

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

I have found objective evidence according to the definitions I posted in the previous post.

Objective evidence is evidence that is based on facts which can be proved. You have found no such evidence

There is no subjective evidence, there are only subjective opinions about the facts surrounding the Baha'i Faith.

Correct. Your subjective opinion is based on subjective evidence.

What this is really all about is not subjective vs. objective evidence. It is about compelling evidence. I have found compelling evidence (evidence that compels me to believe) and you have found no such evidence.

You have found compelling (to you) evidence. The fact that you find it compelling does not change the fact that it is subjective evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

There is less subjectivity, I assert in accepting Baha'u'llah's claim that Christs's claim. How objective even is what Christ's words were? How objective are the things reported that He did?

 

[gnostic]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

I still have problems with this OP.

One of them is the imaginary conflicts between religions and sciences, and how you argue that people want to rid of religions.

But you actually started off, with about false religions (the whole “Babylon the Great”), before your next line on atheism, not about science:

“Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.”​

This was followed by the following paragraphs, where you are linking atheism and atheists with sciences:

“My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.”​

You have been here long enough at RF, to learn that “atheism” only deal with the question of the existence of deity or deities (if you were a polytheist), that atheist’s don’t believe in any “god” -nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism don’t have anything to do with sciences, because being an “atheist” isn’t a job or career where you would get education and qualifications to do his or her job.

Likewise, being a “theist” isn’t a qualification or a job.

Anyone can be theist or atheist, and all just a matter of “believing” or “not believing” - respectively - in the existence of god.

You may consider this a religious position or philosophical position. Neither positions have anything to do with science.

Sciences today, are knowledges that are needed to do certain works, and the only ways to do this.

You don’t need to be scientists to do your jobs, but there may be areas that require some education or training that involved science.

For instance, in the mid-80s, I was doing a civil engineering courses, where I need to pick up some subjects that involved some sciences, such as understanding some geology because during construction work, excavation and laying foundation for buildings or bridges, or laying down pipelines on sites, I would have to considered what rocks they may encounter during construction, and include any information in my designs. There are also a lot of physics involved, whether it be Newtonian mechanics, on hydrology, understanding the materials I have to design for, eg wood, steel, concrete, etc, understanding structural strength, integrity and stresses (eg loads, tensile stress, compression stress, sheer force).

Despite my knowledge that I have to acquire to gain my qualifications and worked in the fields, I’ve only considered myself as engineer, not a scientist, not a physicist, not a geologist.

Yes, I do have some knowledge in physics and geology and other scientific disciplines that I haven’t included above, but everything (relating to sciences) I did learn was only limited to what I might encounter as a civil engineer. There are many areas in Newtonian physics, material science, hydrology, geology, soil science, etc, that weren’t covered in my course.

The pointing my example is that sciences are being taught because they are required to my job, just as they are for everyone else, whether you be a doctor, pathology, automobile mechanic, electrician, etc.

You don’t to be physicist, chemist or biologist to learn some sciences to do your work.

Being a theist or an atheist or agnostic don’t require such education and don’t require training to do your job. And there are no science for theism, atheism or agnosticism.

Theism and atheism are only positions of whether to believe in the existence of god or to not believe in the existence of god. That’s all to theism and atheism...no science are required.

My point to you, is to bloody stop linking science with atheism.

You have been here long enough to learn that science and atheism have nothing to do with each other.

To continue in this path of ignorance, is to show that you are either incapable of learning from your mistakes (and incapable of being educated), or you are being dishonest with us and to yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

What flawed thinking? Atheiem promotes one thought, there is no evidence for god so why believe... Nothing more, nothing less. Anything rlse is down to the individual and guess what, even religion has individuals




I note that when people say that they say it using various aspects of science to do so. Which i think shows much hypocrisy



Of course you don't "need" science, you could always live in a cave, the furthest you could communicate depending on how loud you can shout and die before you are 30.

Personally I don't think we need religion but many people like it, so keep it for them, as long as it doesn't impose itself where its not wanted.

And im atheiest so maybe you argument doesn't apply to all (or many) atheists




Well you posted this thread.




And it's also done much bad.



Oh i seriously doubt that. One scientist is accredited with saving over a billion lives, when religion can match that I'll consider your statement.


So do we need faith. I don't think need is valid. More like do some people like to have their faith... Yes, but need, no

Let me ask you a question: I'm here in the United States and there are national holidays, including those of remembering soldiers who fought for their country. Now naturally there is no medicine to save such persons, right? They in some cases (not all) willingly fought and killed and were killed. Medicine can be a good thing, yes, it can save lives. But all those men and women who died, killed, and were killed in war -- how do you feel about that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. I haven't acted on "faith."

You haven't? Now I wonder what your faith tells you about actions.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

When you say

That’s true, but again, so what? Evidence for any religion is filtered through the perspective of an individual’s experience which often includes bias. No evidence for any religion can be corroborated by an independent unbiased source.

Yet, still insist that your evidence is “objective” confirms my suspicion of your self-deception on this matter.

It is objective evidence according to the following definitions.

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Here again you pick the portion of the links that you provide yourself, without acknowledging the complete definition and instead cling to the portion that uses the wording you prefer, in order to not shatter your self-deception.

You’ll notice among the description of what might be included in evidence is:
What you “are told”…..you recall this is necessarily subjective.
From the link you provided.Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
“Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.”

[This is defining evidence. Now you must include the definition of objective in order distinguish “objective evidence” from “subjective evidence” to have defined objective evidence.]

“Objective information is based on facts.”
+
“Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.”
[Here; “anything that you see, experience, read, or are told” is equivalent to “information”.]
=
“Objective evidence is information that is based on facts”

Now when we add the definition of “subjective”
(again from the Collins English Dictionary that you linked.)

“Something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts.”
subjective
(səbˈdʒɛktɪvaffected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings or temperament of the subject, or person thinking; not objective; personal
a subjective judgment
2.
determined by and emphasizing the ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc. of the artist or writer, not just rigidly transcribing or reflecting reality
3. Grammar
nominative
4. Philosophy
of or having to do with the perception or conception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind
5. Medicine
designating or of a symptom or condition perceptible only to the patient
6. Psychology
a.
existing or originating within the observer's mind or sense organs and, hence, incapable of being checked externally or verified by other persons
b.
introspective”
Subjective definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
+
evidence
(ɛvɪdəns )
1. UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
=
“Subjective evidence is information determined by and emphasizing the ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc. of the artist or writer, not just rigidly transcribing or reflecting reality“
Or
“Subjective evidence is information having to do with the perception or conception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind.”
Or
“Subjective evidence is information existing or originating within the observer's mind or sense organs and, hence, incapable of being checked externally or verified by other persons“

Take your pick. All apply here.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

I already pointed out where you cherry picked to only acknowledge the portion of the information presented at the link (again which you provided), in order to serve your now quite apparent self-deception.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning

It is objective evidence according to the following definitions.

In other words you have deceived yourself into only accepting (erroneously) a limited portion of a definition in order to justify your claim while rejecting the whole actual understanding and definitions such that you don't face the cognitive dissonance it would apparently cause you.
I’m sorry to hear it.

Since I’m aware of the “backfire effect”, I’ll not be bothered in an attempt to educate you on the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity any further, it’s proving to be pointless.
Belief perseverance - Wikipedia

I never asserted that God exists, I only ever said that I believe that God exists. I never assert what I cannot prove since that would constitute a bald assertion.

I fear going down the road of semantics would be just as fruitless.


DEFINITION FOR ASSERT (1 OF 1)
verb (used with object)

1. to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm; aver: He asserted his innocence of the crime.
2. to maintain or defend (claims, rights, etc.).
3. to state as having existence; affirm; postulate: to assert a first cause as necessary.
   SYNONYMS | verb insist, declare, maintain
   affirm
   aver
   allege
   avouch
   argue
   avow
   cite
   justify
   claim
   predicate
   contend
   press
   defend
   pronounce
   proclaim
   protest
   profess
   state
   say
   swear
   stress
   warrant
   uphold
   put forward
   advance
   stand up for
   asseverate
   ANTONYMS
   deny
   refute
   disavow
   repudiate
   disclaim
   negate
   
   

 

[SalixIncendium]

You haven't? Now I wonder what your faith tells you about actions.

Faith tells me nothing. My actions have nothing to do with faith.

 

[nPeace]

Hmm...well, there are two ways you could define science. In it's simplest form, the oldest record of scientific process being followed that I'm aware of is Ancient Egypt. There are records of a medical science in a very simple form being followed. Examination, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. However, I was more talking about modern science, and the modern scientific process, which is more like the 1600's (with the evolution of scientific method largely taking the entire century). People commonly seem to be referring to modern science, rather than a much looser definition, when talking about it, and it was in that sense that I suggested science as 'unnecessary' in the truest sense. You can pick the older definition if you like, it remains true that humans were able to live (if not prosper) without science. Not to say it is preferable.

People? So there were no people before 1600?
Are you therefore taking a bias to what people commonly think, regardless of factors of ignorance, etc.?

So if someone countered your side of the coin, by showing the other side - namely, that people have not been able to live without science, for centuries, as claimed by some, what would your response be?

As for religion...there are different ways that can be interpreted too. Many societies are increasingly secular, and successful. Many of the inhabitants in those societies are not the least bit religious (let's use Denmark as an example). Others, including posters here, are non-religious inhabitants of more religious societies, and again, they can survive just fine without religion.

So you are talking about surviving, as in living on bread and water.
Of course we don't need clothes, a roof over our head, a phone or television to live.

That's what you meant by unnecessary?
I must say, then that includes everything, really... including family, love, etc.

That's existing, imo. Living? That depends on on one's perspective of what living involves.
We can say for certain, the person is alive. They have life.
I guess you are not thinking about the quality of life, here.

The question is though... how long would man have existed?

But at a societal level, it could be argued that religion was necessary as a developmental stage, given how ubiquitous it is. My meaning was more that there are plenty of ancient civilizations who existed fine with a combination of superstition/myth and oral traditions to carry culture, but no organised religion as such. Many forms of animism and ancestor worship would fall into that category historically.

Yes, existed. Got it.

I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

Some scientists seem to think so.
Both drawing and hunting requires hand-eye coordination, which Neanderthals lacked - a fact that scientists say may have led to their extinction.

Then there is the domino effect.
Extinction of Indigenous languages leads to loss of exclusive knowledge about medicinal plants

Neanderthal extinction linked to human diseases
In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, Greenbaum and his colleagues propose that complex disease transmission patterns can explain not only how modern humans were able to wipe out Neanderthals in Europe and Asia in just a few thousand years but also, perhaps more puzzling, why the end didn't come sooner.

"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.

For another, its evident certain moral laws were vital to survival.

 

[nPeace]

I still have problems with this OP.

One of them is the imaginary conflicts between religions and sciences, and how you argue that people want to rid of religions.

But you actually started off, with about false religions (the whole “Babylon the Great”), before your next line on atheism, not about science:

“Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.”​

This was followed by the following paragraphs, where you are linking atheism and atheists with sciences:

“My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.”​

You have been here long enough at RF, to learn that “atheism” only deal with the question of the existence of deity or deities (if you were a polytheist), that atheist’s don’t believe in any “god” -nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism don’t have anything to do with sciences, because being an “atheist” isn’t a job or career where you would get education and qualifications to do his or her job.

Likewise, being a “theist” isn’t a qualification or a job.

Anyone can be theist or atheist, and all just a matter of “believing” or “not believing” - respectively - in the existence of god.

You may consider this a religious position or philosophical position. Neither positions have anything to do with science.

Sciences today, are knowledges that are needed to do certain works, and the only ways to do this.

You don’t need to be scientists to do your jobs, but there may be areas that require some education or training that involved science.

For instance, in the mid-80s, I was doing a civil engineering courses, where I need to pick up some subjects that involved some sciences, such as understanding some geology because during construction work, excavation and laying foundation for buildings or bridges, or laying down pipelines on sites, I would have to considered what rocks they may encounter during construction, and include any information in my designs. There are also a lot of physics involved, whether it be Newtonian mechanics, on hydrology, understanding the materials I have to design for, eg wood, steel, concrete, etc, understanding structural strength, integrity and stresses (eg loads, tensile stress, compression stress, sheer force).

Despite my knowledge that I have to acquire to gain my qualifications and worked in the fields, I’ve only considered myself as engineer, not a scientist, not a physicist, not a geologist.

Yes, I do have some knowledge in physics and geology and other scientific disciplines that I haven’t included above, but everything (relating to sciences) I did learn was only limited to what I might encounter as a civil engineer. There are many areas in Newtonian physics, material science, hydrology, geology, soil science, etc, that weren’t covered in my course.

The pointing my example is that sciences are being taught because they are required to my job, just as they are for everyone else, whether you be a doctor, pathology, automobile mechanic, electrician, etc.

You don’t to be physicist, chemist or biologist to learn some sciences to do your work.

Being a theist or an atheist or agnostic don’t require such education and don’t require training to do your job. And there are no science for theism, atheism or agnosticism.

Theism and atheism are only positions of whether to believe in the existence of god or to not believe in the existence of god. That’s all to theism and atheism...no science are required.

My point to you, is to bloody stop linking science with atheism.

You have been here long enough to learn that science and atheism have nothing to do with each other.

To continue in this path of ignorance, is to show that you are either incapable of learning from your mistakes (and incapable of being educated), or you are being dishonest with us and to yourself.

I'm only going by what most atheists argue... even if they do not state it directly.
They often pit science against religion.
There is a Science and Religion forum on RF, for a reason.
The video that inspired this OP was centered around the question of science against religion.
Most atheist present that argument.

If you don't, that's fine, just chill. No need to get hot for no reason.
Or maybe you just had a load to get off your shoulders?
Okay. You said your bit then. That's it? Okay.

 

[nPeace]

It's a little outdated, but I kind of mean it in the way Pavlov's hierarchy would mean it. In case that's unfamiliar, a quick list...

I have Physiological needs (shelter, food, sleep, etc).
I have Safety needs (health, personal security, financial security, etc)
I have Love and Social Belonging needs (friends, family, trust, etc)
I have Esteem needs (Self-respect, respect from others, independence, freedom, etc)
I have Cognitive needs (Creativity, Curiosity, Meaning)
I have Aesthetic needs (Beauty, both in self and others, as well as nature)
I have Self-Actualising needs (Drive to fill one's potential, to become the best version of oneself)
I have Transcendence needs (Behaving and relating as ends in their own right. Spirituality would fit here, altruism.)

The basic concept is that only when the more basic needs are fulfilled (eg. we have food, shelter, security and health) can we invest in our higher-order needs (creativity, or beauty...in some sense these are 'luxuries', but in another sense we need to find them somehow).

Religion can fit at multiple levels here. Social Belonging, Esteem, Cognitive...and of course Transcendence if there is a true belief (not all religious folks actually have that, of course). Science can similarly fill some of these, but ultimately they are not the needs themselves, but rather things we may use to meet needs. Transcendence is of course the one you might prefer to argue MUST be religious (Maslow himself was Jewish) but he was careful to point out that there wasn't a 'right' religion leading to transcendence. That's not the intent. And...similarly...a spiritual, non-religious belief can fill this. Many more recently would argue that there are other ways to meet the need for transcendence as well (myself included, for whatever that is worth).

I think we have seen what living without accurate knowledge, and correct understanding does to us.

Ignaz Semmelweis was the first doctor to discover the importance for medical professionals of hand washing. In the 19th century, it was common for women to die from an illness contracted during or after childbirth, known as childbed fever. While working at an obstetric department in Vienna, Austria, Semmelweis noticed that women delivered by physicians and medical students had a much higher mortality rate than women delivered by midwives. He concluded that the problem was that physicians were handling corpses during autopsies before attending to pregnant women, and determined that hand washing would prevent them from passing on illness.

After Semmelweis initiated a mandatory hand-washing policy, the mortality rate for women delivered by doctors fell from 18 per cent to 2 per cent – the same as it was for midwives. When he began washing medical instruments, it fell to just 1 per cent.

Just imagine that as a consistent feature of human life.
We wouldn't have to worry about food and water.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith tells me nothing. My actions have nothing to do with faith.

So you have no faith in anything? Actions generally require decisions. So you don't make decisions based on faith is what I see you saying. Right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

People? So there were no people before 1600?
Are you therefore taking a bias to what people commonly think, regardless of factors of ignorance, etc.?

Certainly not. If you want to define 'science' as meaning any form of trial and error process for determining knowledge, be my guest. That type of science has always been around. But the modern scientific process has been around since the 1600s.
I'm a massive history nerd, so I'm going to let the 'no people before 1600' crack pass by. If you want to talk about what passed for science in classical times with me, no problems. But I find it is somewhat useful to clarify when talking to people as to whether it's modern scientific process they are talking about. Humans prospered for many centuries without it, despite it being a much more efficient and effective means of building knowledge.

So if someone countered your side of the coin, by showing the other side - namely, that people have not been able to live without science, for centuries, as claimed by some, what would your response be?

I don't have a 'side of the coin', and have been consistently against binary thought-concepts like that. But I'd simply ask them to extrapolate out what they mean to a level of coherence I could respond to.

So you are talking about surviving, as in living on bread and water.
Of course we don't need clothes, a roof over our head, a phone or television to live.

That's what you meant by unnecessary?
I must say, then that includes everything, really... including family, love, etc.

I think you're getting the point a little tangled, to be honest. I'm not suggesting it's preferable or healthy to live without higher thought, or love, or family. I'm suggesting it's not in any way, shape or form POSSIBLE to have love, higher thought, family, etc, without basic survival requirements being met.

It doesn't matter how well adjusted and loved I am, nor how spiritually attuned I am, if I have no food, no shelter, or a neighbouring tribe deciding I'd look tasty in a cooking pot, and me without any security.

That's existing, imo. Living? That depends on on one's perspective of what living involves.
We can say for certain, the person is alive. They have life.
I guess you are not thinking about the quality of life, here.

The simple way of stating it is that to survive, we need food, shelter and security. To LIVE, we need food, shelter, security, companionship, self-actualising, etc.
The basic survival requirements are a pre-requisite ALWAYS. Other things can be done without for certain periods of our life, and we can survive, before returning to higher end thought when our basic needs are more easily satisfied.

The question is though... how long would man have existed?

Without modern science? Indefinitely. Man wasn't going anywhere. Life is better with modern science, but it's not required. And there are plenty of people and nations doing just fine without religion, although some might argue it was an important part of their formative years. That's pretty much the point I already made, but I have to admit, I'm not seeing much of a direct addressing of these. Perhaps we're simply talking past one another.

Yes, existed. Got it.

I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

Science <> knowledge. It is entirely possible to build knowledge without science. It's just less efficient. Humans did it for centuries.

Some scientists seem to think so.
Both drawing and hunting requires hand-eye coordination, which Neanderthals lacked - a fact that scientists say may have led to their extinction.

That's a comment about evolutionary skill-building, not Neanderthal science.

Then there is the domino effect.
Extinction of Indigenous languages leads to loss of exclusive knowledge about medicinal plants

And you think indigenous tribes developed their extensive knowledge about medicinal plants via scientific process? Then you have a much looser definition of 'science' than I would use. That's fine, but it's the reason I tried to define terms in my original post.

Neanderthal extinction linked to human diseases
In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, Greenbaum and his colleagues propose that complex disease transmission patterns can explain not only how modern humans were able to wipe out Neanderthals in Europe and Asia in just a few thousand years but also, perhaps more puzzling, why the end didn't come sooner.

"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.

I'm completely at a loss as to how that relates to the topic at hand, for all that I find it interesting.

For another, its evident certain moral laws were vital to survival.

So...you're going to need to explain that VERY carefully, I would suggest. Exactly which moral law do you think was broken, and how does that relate to ANY modern situation?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think we have seen what living without accurate knowledge, and correct understanding does to us.

Ignaz Semmelweis was the first doctor to discover the importance for medical professionals of hand washing. In the 19th century, it was common for women to die from an illness contracted during or after childbirth, known as childbed fever. While working at an obstetric department in Vienna, Austria, Semmelweis noticed that women delivered by physicians and medical students had a much higher mortality rate than women delivered by midwives. He concluded that the problem was that physicians were handling corpses during autopsies before attending to pregnant women, and determined that hand washing would prevent them from passing on illness.

After Semmelweis initiated a mandatory hand-washing policy, the mortality rate for women delivered by doctors fell from 18 per cent to 2 per cent – the same as it was for midwives. When he began washing medical instruments, it fell to just 1 per cent.

Just imagine that as a consistent feature of human life.
We wouldn't have to worry about food and water.

You're talking well and truly into the era of modern science. And prior to that discovery, the mortality rate drastically dropped.
It wasn't removed (so hypothetically there is room for improvement), and population growth was consistent year on year before that.

Is it better for less women to die during childbirth? And less children? Absolutely. Of course.
Is it 'neccessary'? No. Humans were expanding as a population anyway.

So...as I've been trying to explain...it comes down to what you mean by 'needed' or 'necessary'. For me, those words indicate a particular meaning, and I would argue they are NOT necessary. But your version of necessary seems to equate more to 'preferable', 'advantageous' or 'better'. I have no issue with that view.

 

[samtonga43]

There is less subjectivity, I assert in accepting Baha'u'llah's claim that Christs's claim. How objective even is what Christ's words were? How objective are the things reported that He did?

I repeat, since you do not appear to understand:
An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false.
I cannot prove that Christ's claims are true or false.
You cannot prove that Mr.B's claims are true or false.

(There is no such thing as 'more or less subjectivity'.
There is only objective or subjective.)

 

[Truthseeker]

I repeat, since you do not appear to understand:
An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false.
I cannot prove that Christ's claims are true or false.
You cannot prove that Mr.B's claims are true or false.

(There is no such thing as 'more or less subjectivity'.
There is only objective or subjective.)

Yes, there is, and you know it. You just don't want to admit that.