Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Evidentialism says that we should refrain from asserting as truth something for which there is not enough available evidence. Some evidentialists even go so far as to say that if we do not have enough evidence in a uncertain case, we should not make a decision on it. Either way, it is argued that we have no right to believe a religious claim in the absence of sufficient evidence, usually only recognized as such if it in some way measurable. But the absence of evidence is not evidence. Appealing to the lack of evidence as an excuse for disbelief or to illustrate reason for disbelief in an Ultimate Source of ideal-values is demagoguery, often making use of peoples naiveté, prejudices and uncertainties to instill doubt as to the validity of certain values. Evidentialism has little relevance in a religious endeavor, where sayings like the map is not the territory and the finger pointing is not the moon its pointing to are commonplace. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen is a clear indication that faith is concerned only with the grasp of ideal-values.
Human beings will always be in the position of being able to believe more than they can know, and if they cannot penetrate to true origins, they will invent them in order to have constancy of thought. For no matter how sound the reason, indeterminate answers (like chance, I dont know and just because) bear indeterminate fruits and a society can neither be built or maintained by such fruits. The values required to build and maintain a society do not grow out of disunited or undirectionalized wish fulfillment, emotional frustration or even reason.
A final explanation of phenomena and contingent beings can only rest in what itself requires no explanation. An ultimate explanation must, therefore, always be of a religious nature. God is a word symbol designating its personalization and signifying a wholehearted devotion to a reality-conception which the believer deems to be of supreme value to himself and for all mankind. Does this mean that everything in life is thereby clarified and explained? Does it mean we are justified in dismissing evidence that cherished beliefs are wrong? Of course not! But if changing our existing cognitive stance requires us to reject or doubt a vast number of our current beliefs, and if there is no evidentiary or positive reason to do so, it is more rational not to take the new cognitive stance than to take it.
Any thoughts?
Human beings will always be in the position of being able to believe more than they can know, and if they cannot penetrate to true origins, they will invent them in order to have constancy of thought. For no matter how sound the reason, indeterminate answers (like chance, I dont know and just because) bear indeterminate fruits and a society can neither be built or maintained by such fruits. The values required to build and maintain a society do not grow out of disunited or undirectionalized wish fulfillment, emotional frustration or even reason.
A final explanation of phenomena and contingent beings can only rest in what itself requires no explanation. An ultimate explanation must, therefore, always be of a religious nature. God is a word symbol designating its personalization and signifying a wholehearted devotion to a reality-conception which the believer deems to be of supreme value to himself and for all mankind. Does this mean that everything in life is thereby clarified and explained? Does it mean we are justified in dismissing evidence that cherished beliefs are wrong? Of course not! But if changing our existing cognitive stance requires us to reject or doubt a vast number of our current beliefs, and if there is no evidentiary or positive reason to do so, it is more rational not to take the new cognitive stance than to take it.
Any thoughts?