Evidence -- making it useful

[Ella S.]

Further to this thought:

We insist on proof of your children's vaccination before they go to school, and your pets' having had their shots before the can go to pet-care. But to hack off a bit of your son's willy, that just needs a Bible verse to make it mandatory!

We want ID proof of age before letting you have a beer, but for some, the only evidence that females shouldn't receive an education is something somebody says they were told by an angel (and then had to get somebody else to write down because the hearer was illiterate).

Many want proof absolute that vaccines won't make them magnetic (instead of protecting their lives), but think nothing of stories written in "reformed Egyptian" on golden plates that could only be read using "seer stones" peering into a hat that say Jesus visited America.

I don't know for sure, not being religious, but for these and so many other reasons, I can't help but think religion does tend to make one extraordinarily gullible.

Relevant study:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12138

It turns out that being raised religious really does make one more gullible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

• How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

• Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?

• Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

As I answered on the other thread where this came from, evidence for a god, by which I mean a sentient universe creator, would be any apprehension that is better explained by that hypotheses than its alternatives. I'd say that the most that evidence could do is reveal the existence of a transhuman power and intelligence, as would be the case were evolutionary theory ever falsified, but a god as defined is still not the only or even best explanation for that, which, as @Ella S. noted, it is a violation of Occam's parsimony principle. A naturalistic explanation such as a race of extraterrestrials that arose by naturalistic processes (abiogenesis, biological evolution, psychological evolution, then cultural evolution). Is still preferred to any supernaturalistic answer, which is an incoherent concept to start with.

The faithful have access to no evidence that makes a deity more likely to exist than not by the standards of critical analysis. Their own standards will be more lax. The evidence adduced above is an excellent example - nothing there in those words or biography that requires superhuman ability. Maybe some believer can explain why there are three things listed, one called the revelation and one called the word. Those mean the same thing to me.

We tend to think of high intelligence only as a positive factor when examining evidence. But when the human mind wants to confirm a bias, someone gifted with high intelligence can do a much better job of arguing the evidence-based position even when he or she is completely wrong.

Yes, but if you'd probably agree that if everybody involved is a critical thinker, those biases can be revealed to their possessor and errors revealed and corrected. Not so much without that ability.

Many rookie detectives will walk onto a crime seen and either overlook some evidence, or misinterpret it. Evidence is only as good as the one interpreting it. Debates have raged throughout history between equal, scholarly opponents, examining the exact same evidence. It is the most perceptive that will draw the most accurate conclusion.

Where the analogy fails is yes, a better detective will see more, but he can convincingly demonstrate that to any competent critical thinker including the other detectives, a prosecuting attorney, and a jury.

That's the problem here, not the lack of evidence, but the lack of depth an insight by those who fail to see what should be self-evident to all.

You allude to the problem of deciding when one group of people claim to see something that another says is not there, is a group of somebodies seeing something not there or are a group of somebodies not seeing something that is. There's a simple way to distinguish between the two. People will be in agreement about what they see when they are seeing something real, but their reports will be all over the place otherwise. The faithful each see a different god with a different set of characteristics. This is why there are tens of thousands of religious denominations and gods, but just one periodic table of the elements.

Why start a discussion with an open mind, when a condescending attitude can set the tone so much better, eh?

How does a condescending attitude preclude an open mind? The OP is asking about the quality of evidence offered for a god belief, which so far, seems to be that whatever feels right is true. Carlin's style may have been glib, but the observation seemed apt, and it hasn't been successfully rebutted.

I can see that you have been poisoned against fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

He learned critical analysis. That immunizes one against indoctrination and accumulating beliefs not known to be correct. He's learned as have many other critical thinkers what is compelling evidence for prophecy being superhuman and that prophecy being something human beings could do without prescience. Those standards aren't negotiable.

The article specifically attacks Biblical prophecies and Christianity.

You didn't try to rebut any of those arguments you call attacks. If you believe that somebody is mistaken, and you want to convince a critical thinker, you'll need to provide compelling arguments that support your belief. Not liking what you read there but being unable to say what you find incorrect and why isn't meaningful to those whose standards for belief require you do that to be believed.

We have seen that one of these prophecies, the Tyre prophecy, was fulfilled accurately.

Go back to your list of what makes a prophecy high enough quality to consider superhuman prescience likely. Accuracy isn't enough. Here's my very human prophecy - it will get dark tonight. I'll bet it's accurate.

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

I always find it pretty amazing that evidence for God's existence is dismissed because of Occam's Razor

Gods aren't needed to account for the offered evidence for gods, be it living cells, the words or lives of prophets and messengers including prophecies, or medieval arguments called proofs of God. The scientific narrative is always the simplest one that accounts for all relevant observations. When a new observation is made not accounted for by the existing narrative, it is modified to include the new evidence, but with no more than is necessary. So, when a gravitational effect was detected not explained by the contemporary narrative, it was complicated by the addition of what was called dark matter. No more attributes are assigned to that other than that it be capable of attracting visible matter without electromagnetic emitting radiation. And that won't get more complicated until new discoveries are uncovered. Yes, we could insert a god and a few angels into it, but that explains nothing. One RF poster has already done that with both dark matter and dark energy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's a simple way to distinguish between the two. People will be in agreement about what they see when they are seeing something real, but their reports will be all over the place otherwise..

That's not true. People often see what they WANT to see.
There are many climate-deniers, despite there being good evidence that humans are responsible.

It is often the same when it comes to the evidence from history of civilisations with respect to religion .. people will deny things, because they want to remain "as they are".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can agree that something that happened a long time ago is not evidence for you.

No we are not able to agree on that. You do not know how I see this subject.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is blatantly false.
Please give us an example of something proved to be wrong, in the Qur'an.

You

That is blatantly false.
Please give us an example of something proved to be wrong, in the Qur'an.

It appears that the Quran supports the creation myth of the Bible. That is something that can be shown to be wrong. Perhaps you could tell us your version of the creation myth.

The Quran is written in rather poetic language which unfortunately in my view makes it "wrong" since multiple interpretations almost always result from that sort of language. If one claims that one has to be poetic is Arabic, and I would doubt that claim, it would make one wonder why God would choose such an incompetent messenger. It is a self defeating argument to go that route.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, but if you'd probably agree that if everybody involved is a critical thinker, those biases can be revealed to their possessor and errors revealed and corrected. Not so much without that ability.

Yes, I do agree, but I think that logic is a weak factor in conquering bias over all because evidence is so often a matter of perception. For example, a recent thread posted in this forum argued rather intelligently that the Bible does not condone slavery. The evidence consisted of passages from the Bible which the author interpreted to support her conclusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It appears that the Quran supports the creation myth of the Bible. That is something that can be shown to be wrong..

You'd have to be more specific.
If you are referring to Adam being made from "clay", then that is not a reference to HOW he was created i.e. poofs into being
It is merely contrasting with angels being made of light and what have you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd have to be more specific.
If you are referring to Adam being made from "clay", then that is not a reference to HOW he was created i.e. poofs into being
It is merely contrasting with angels being made of light and what have you.

Sorry, but that is a loss either way. Too bad that you do not understand this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is why there are tens of thousands of religious denominations and gods, but just one periodic table of the elements.

That sentence merits special attention! An excellent observation, and hats off for making it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An excellent observation, and hats off for making it.

What .. that there's loads of denominations because truth cannot be distinguished from falsehood?

That's not the reason. It says nothing about the nature of God, and everything about the nature of mankind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What .. that there's loads of denominations because truth cannot be distinguished from falsehood?

That's not the reason. It says nothing about the nature of God, and everything about the nature of mankind.

It does tell us that any God out there is incompetent if he wants people to worship him or come to a correct belief. Are you claiming that your God is incompetent. Probably evil as well. Remember in your myth God created humans. If humans are imperfect whose fault would that be?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What .. that there's loads of denominations because truth cannot be distinguished from falsehood?

That's not the reason. It says nothing about the nature of God, and everything about the nature of mankind.

You are quite incorrect, because, you see, the "nature of God" IS the creation of human nature.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It does tell us that any God out there is incompetent..

It doesn't tell me that..
It tells me that mankind claim to be "insert your creed here" for a variety of reasons.

It doesn't teach me much about the nature of God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are quite incorrect, because, you see, the "nature of God" IS the creation of human nature.

Certainly not.
Almighty God is Holy, whilst we are far from that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't tell me that..
It tells me that mankind claim to be "insert your creed here" for a variety of reasons.

It doesn't teach me much about the nature of God.

That indicates that even to you God does not exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Certainly not.
Almighty God is Holy, whilst we are far from that.

Well, since we're in a thread about showing evidence for what you believe, please explain what "almighty" means when describing a God who can't seem to do anything. I remember an old TV show (Maude) in which the title character frequently says, "God will get you for that!." Interesting that whatever God does must be done sometime in an unidentified future, but never here and now, where and when it would count!

There was a movie once called "Ghost," in which Patrick Swayze, as a dead ghost, manages to push a penny -- just a penny -- a little way up a door, to convince his living wife that he really is there, in the room with them. God can't even manage that.

Now, I know that many Christians, Baha'is and Muslims will say, "God wants your belief and faith without evidence," but they never, ever, ever give a probable or likely reason why God would want any such thing. This is the same as saying to the bank, "I will only accept a loan from you if you will have faith enough to lend it to me without doing a credit check." Such a bank would be out of business before you knew it. And rightly so!

 

[idea]

What a load of twaddle.

Regards Tony

Let me guess, you believe *your* group is the *true* group led by god, and that somehow your group is completely different from all the othe other groups out there?

 

[Brian2]

He learned critical analysis. That immunizes one against indoctrination and accumulating beliefs not known to be correct. He's learned as have many other critical thinkers what is compelling evidence for prophecy being superhuman and that prophecy being something human beings could do without prescience. Those standards aren't negotiable.

I could see he had been poisoned against fulfilled Biblical prophecies. If it was with critical thinking then so be it.

You didn't try to rebut any of those arguments you call attacks. If you believe that somebody is mistaken, and you want to convince a critical thinker, you'll need to provide compelling arguments that support your belief. Not liking what you read there but being unable to say what you find incorrect and why isn't meaningful to those whose standards for belief require you do that to be believed.

I did end up rebutting the argument against the Tyre prophecy of Ezek 26. The result was as expected, no even worse than expected. It hurts to hit your head against a brick wall, so I stopped and was not about to start again with the other arguments.

Go back to your list of what makes a prophecy high enough quality to consider superhuman prescience likely. Accuracy isn't enough. Here's my very human prophecy - it will get dark tonight. I'll bet it's accurate.

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Skeptics end up denying what the Bible prophecy says and denying history in order to deny the accuracy of the Tyre prophecy of Ezek 26.
If you think that a human could prophesy Ezek 26 accurately, that is interesting.

Gods aren't needed to account for the offered evidence for gods, be it living cells, the words or lives of prophets and messengers including prophecies, or medieval arguments called proofs of God.

I was talking in a general sense but specifically about using Occam's Razor to say that Biblical Prophecy is not from God. I do find that amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could see he had been poisoned against fulfilled Biblical prophecies. If it was with critical thinking then so be it.




I did end up rebutting the argument against the Tyre prophecy of Ezek 26. The result was as expected, no even worse than expected. It hurts to hit your head against a brick wall, so I stopped and was not about to start again with the other arguments.




Skeptics end up denying what the Bible prophecy says and denying history in order to deny the accuracy of the Tyre prophecy of Ezek 26.
If you think that a human could prophesy Ezek 26 accurately, that is interesting.



I was talking in a general sense but specifically about using Occam's Razor to say that Biblical Prophecy is not from God. I do find that amazing.

What "fulfilled Biblical prophecies"? You already lost credibility with the Tyre Prophecy, what prophecies do you think came from God?

 

[F1fan]

That's not true. People often see what they WANT to see.

To undisciplined minds, you are correct. Skilled thinkers are better able to discern the real from imaginary.

There are many climate-deniers, despite there being good evidence that humans are responsible.

Yes, people who have adoted dogmatic assumptions that are not true and credible. This is similar to what theists do.

It is often the same when it comes to the evidence from history of civilisations with respect to religion .. people will deny things, because they want to remain "as they are".

Like how believers resist challenges to how they think and believe.