Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence

[Storm]

I put words in your mouth? Where?

Here.

Isn't that what you're doing now?

Because you didn't say that. You said I was wrong, repeatedly. Only now you're rowing back all the way to the boat house and saying "you're both right". Hell, even then you're still claiming that your understanding is more correct than my own.

I said your insistence that you and you alone know what the word means is wrong, which it is. I said specific points of argument were false, which they were. I also said (three times by my count) that your understanding was VALID. Just not exclusively so.

I fail to see how using the actual definition of a word makes me "ridiculously absolutist" or "exclusive". Could your knee jerk a little less in future?

WHAT "actual definition?" You mean the ones I've pasted showing you wrong?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From the Wiki for anecdotal evidence: The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes.

Anecdote:
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Nothing in there about groups. Stop making things up.

I removed that part. Also, here's the bit you missed:

"It is considered evidence, although often dubious if accepted often because it is the only evidence we have. However it may itself be true and verifiable."

Look, it's that word I keep using and you keep forgetting. It's only evidence if it can be verified.

While I'm at it, the firs t line of the Wiki on "evidence" is: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Key word: Demonstrate.

Translation: anything persuasive may be fairly described as "evidence."

Deal with it.

Are we going to keep going around in circles because you refuse to read the word "demonstrate"?

 

[Storm]

No, we're not. You're obviously not capable of admitting error, and I'm much too irritable to enjoy baiting you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I said your insistence that you and you alone know what the word means is wrong, which it is.

That's just a plain lie. Here is what you have said so far:

OK, let's try this again. You said evidence was "BY DEFINITION objectively verifiable." I provided the definition, which lacks that stipulation. IOW, you were wrong, and Christine was perfectly justified in applying the word 'evidence' to personal experiences which persuaded her.

Wrong. It only needs to persuade the person in question.


Wrong again, for the same reason.


Strike three, you're out. Data is raw information. I would provide the definition, but you'd just ignore that one, too.

You called my definitions "wrong" repeatedly, without any mention of "my insistance that my definition alone is correct".

I said specific points of argument were false, which they were.

Wrong, as I demonstrated.

I also said (three times by my count) that your understanding was VALID. Just not exclusively so.

Only once you started rowing back to the boat house. Saying my definitions were "wrong" is a complete contradiction of the claim that my understanding is "just as valid". If the definitions were "wrong", how could they be valid? And if they were valid, what basis do you have of calling them "wrong"? Or, for that matter, if they were valid why did you feel the need to copy and paste the definitions? You seem to be completely contradicting yourself.

WHAT "actual definition?" You mean the ones I've pasted showing you wrong?

You mean, the ones which I explained fit my definition perfectly? As I explained? Did you completely ignore my points?

No, we're not. You're obviously not capable of admitting error, and I'm much too irritable to enjoy baiting you.

I'm happy to admit that my assertion that anecdotal evidence was based on multiple anecdotes was wrong, that's why I changed the post. And you've made multiple errors and self-contradictions yourself that you have either ignored or denied without any logical argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

I find this a bit frustrating sometimes. Faith seems to be a very slippery eel: you say you have evidence, but I can't count how many times I've heard theists respond to the question of why I haven't seen any of this convincing evidence with something about how evidence would "deny faith".

It almost seems to me that the question of whether faith is "belief without evidence" depends on the goal of the faithful person I'm talking to: when they're after respect for religious beliefs, it's based in evidence. When they're asked to actually provide ir describe the evidence, it's not.

 

[Storm]

I find this a bit frustrating sometimes. Faith seems to be a very slippery eel: you say you have evidence, but I can't count how many times I've heard theists respond to the question of why I haven't seen any of this convincing evidence with something about how evidence would "deny faith".

Well, that's a cop out.

My answer is that different people have different experiences, simple as that.

 

[ChristineES]

Maybe I can use some strange example: I have developed an allergy to certain tree nuts- mostly cashews. There is no way I can prove to anyone, not even my doctor, that I have developed this allergy but by own experience, and she can't test for a food allergy. I have experiences that I do indeed have this allergy, but there is no way I could prove to anyone else at all- but I have felt the effects after I have eaten them. I have faith that if I eat cashews again, I will have a reaction to them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe I can use some strange example: I have developed an allergy to certain tree nuts- mostly cashews. There is no way I can prove to anyone, not even my doctor, that I have developed this allergy but by own experience, and she can't test for a food allergy. I have experiences that I do indeed have this allergy, but there is no way I could prove to anyone else at all- but I have felt the effects after I have eaten them. I have faith that if I eat cashews again, I will have a reaction to them.

How do you know you have an allergy if it's not been diagnosed? Allergies, as with all illnesses and physical conditions, are defined by demonstrable symptoms. How could you fail to demonstrate an allergy to anyone? Or, is this a hypoethical?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I can use some strange example: I have developed an allergy to certain tree nuts- mostly cashews. There is no way I can prove to anyone, not even my doctor, that I have developed this allergy but by own experience, and she can't test for a food allergy. I have experiences that I do indeed have this allergy, but there is no way I could prove to anyone else at all- but I have felt the effects after I have eaten them. I have faith that if I eat cashews again, I will have a reaction to them.

Are you intending that as an analogy for religious faith?

I understand how your experience with your allergies would be personal to you to an extent - the fact that you have cashew allergies would be something best informed by your experiences, but only in an environment where the existence of cashew allergies in general has been established by evidence open to everyone.

But I think that religious belief is another animal altogether. I can't see why it would be reasonable to expect that the evidence for the creator and lord of the universe - i.e. arguably the most universal thing in existence - would only be subjective personal experience.

 

[templetest]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

When it comes to religions, everything is in the eye of the beholder. While I personally think claiming something as evidence "to me" is BS, it is what it is to whom it is. Just don't expect other to share your rather convenient style of evidence. Or definition that's made up on the fly to justify yourself.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you intending that as an analogy for religious faith?

I understand how your experience with your allergies would be personal to you to an extent - the fact that you have cashew allergies would be something best informed by your experiences, but only in an environment where the existence of cashew allergies in general has been established by evidence open to everyone.

Why should I care if it has been established by anyone other then me? If I get sick every time I eat cashews it's been established enough that I'm going to avoid them.

But I think that religious belief is another animal altogether. I can't see why it would be reasonable to expect that the evidence for the creator and lord of the universe - i.e. arguably the most universal thing in existence - would only be subjective personal experience.

There are many people who have had/reported having a religious/spiritual experience. So not everyone has... Not everyone has eaten cashews either.

So why should a person who doesn't have an allergy to cashews or a least has done scientific research on numerous cases of cashew allergy accept the claim?

 

[Thief]

That I'm afraid is simply a believers' argument. 'Reasonable people' also hold that God exists only in the minds of those who want him to exist. There is no demonstrable evidence (if you're applying the term correctly) that the world was created and is maintained by a religious deity, and 'chance' is nothing more than an illogical red herring.

So you would insist on being right there beside Him....
when snaps His fingers and says....
'Let there be light'.

 

[Nakosis]

So you would insist on being right there beside Him....
when snaps His fingers and says....
'Let there be light'.

I suspect people just want you to show them God.
People want to see for themselves. Not take some person, whom they have no good reason to trust, word for it.

 

[HerDotness]

Maybe I can use some strange example: I have developed an allergy to certain tree nuts- mostly cashews. There is no way I can prove to anyone, not even my doctor, that I have developed this allergy but by own experience, and she can't test for a food allergy. I have experiences that I do indeed have this allergy, but there is no way I could prove to anyone else at all- but I have felt the effects after I have eaten them. I have faith that if I eat cashews again, I will have a reaction to them.

Christine, I don't understand how this relates to anything but what is commonly termed a UPG--unverifiable personal gnosis.

You experience uncomfortable symptoms when you eat cashews. Food sensitivities or allergies often cannot be detected by allergy tests, I know from my own research. However, your situation is one that doesn't correlate in any way I can see to religious faith other than that it's something a person feels but can't demonstrate nor does it indicate that there is an actual basis for people's religious beliefs other than their desire for what they believe to be true.

Please explain how you think your analogy of a cashew intolerance/allergy demonstrates that there is any basis for religious belief.

 

[Nakosis]

Christine, I don't understand how this relates to anything but what is commonly termed a UPG--unverifiable personal gnosis.

You experience uncomfortable symptoms when you eat cashews. Food sensitivities or allergies often cannot be detected by allergy tests, I know from my own research. However, your situation is one that doesn't correlate in any way I can see to religious faith other than that it's something a person feels but can't demonstrate nor does it indicate that there is an actual basis for people's religious beliefs other than their desire for what they believe to be true.

Please explain how you think your analogy of a cashew intolerance/allergy demonstrates that there is any basis for religious belief.

Here's the basis, for Christianity and I suspect other beliefs. People believe they actually spoke to saw God and God actually told them these things.

Religious truth aren't created to explain the unknown. People believe God told them these truths which they reported. It doesn't matter if anything is explained.

Like the ten commandments. There's more in the Bible really, but Christianity focuses on these for some reason.

There is no necessary explanation for them. A Prophet experienced God telling him these things. That the reality. It doesn't matter if the statement makes any sense at all. The prophet experienced God directly saying, whatever where upon the prophet reports what he was told by God.

That's the basis of Christianity. Religious folks accept the claim made by these prophets. It is not necessary that what the prophet reports God saying explains anything, known or unknown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should I care if it has been established by anyone other then me? If I get sick every time I eat cashews it's been established enough that I'm going to avoid them.

You should care if it matters to you whether your beliefs are correct.

To use a surveying analogy, it's like the difference between an open traverse and a closed traverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_(surveying)

In an open traverse, you start at a known point and establish new points in a line heading away from it. If your instruments and methods are good, you might be very precise... but you have no way of knowing how precise (or imprecise) you are.

OTOH, with a closed traverse, you start at a known point and finish at either another known point or your starting point. This lets you test how good you were, since all your measurements/inferences have given you a prediction that you can measure against some established standard.

Effectively, saying "why should I care if it's been established by anyone other than me?" is like saying "I don't care about finding out how accurate my beliefs really are."

There are many people who have had/reported having a religious/spiritual experience. So not everyone has... Not everyone has eaten cashews either.

So why should a person who doesn't have an allergy to cashews or a least has done scientific research on numerous cases of cashew allergy accept the claim?

As I was trying to explain earlier, I don't think the cashew allergy analogy is a good one for God... or at least not for a god that actually exists.

An allergy is something inherently personal. If we're going to use the analogy of a malady (not to say that God is a disease, but just because we've already started with that theme), then I think it would be more accurate to think of God as some sort of infection: yes, the individual may experience symptoms themselves, but there are things external to the patient, like pathogens and vectors of disease, that can be tested and measured.

If a religious experience is evidence of God, then it implies an external cause for the religious experience, which in turn implies the potential for something that could be tested by anyone.

 

[Nakosis]

You should care if it matters to you whether your beliefs are correct.

To use a surveying analogy, it's like the difference between an open traverse and a closed traverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_(surveying)

In an open traverse, you start at a known point and establish new points in a line heading away from it. If your instruments and methods are good, you might be very precise... but you have no way of knowing how precise (or imprecise) you are.

OTOH, with a closed traverse, you start at a known point and finish at either another known point or your starting point. This lets you test how good you were, since all your measurements/inferences have given you a prediction that you can measure against some established standard.

Effectively, saying "why should I care if it's been established by anyone other than me?" is like saying "I don't care about finding out how accurate my beliefs really are."

What I'm actually saying is that regardless of how accurate your survey is. it could be sloppy or extremely accurate. You record that somewhere for reference. I may know about that reference or I may not. If I have to go from point a to point b. The accuracy of your survey doesn't alter the traverse. I might want to take your reference into account, I might not. After I've crossed it a dozen times or so, the actual accuracy of your reference doesn't affect my ability to get across.

As I was trying to explain earlier, I don't think the cashew allergy analogy is a good one for God... or at least not for a god that actually exists.

An allergy is something inherently personal. If we're going to use the analogy of a malady (not to say that God is a disease, but just because we've already started with that theme), then I think it would be more accurate to think of God as some sort of infection: yes, the individual may experience symptoms themselves, but there are things external to the patient, like pathogens and vectors of disease, that can be tested and measured.

If a religious experience is evidence of God, then it implies an external cause for the religious experience, which in turn implies the potential for something that could be tested by anyone.

There are elements which can be tested. Measuring brain activity etc...

I suspect science/scientists are largely embarrassed by proposing religious experiences as a valid area of research. Here an interesting paper I've come across.

http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~philrnm/publications/article_pdfs/JCC%20Intro%206-25-04.pdf

Which might mean the lack of contemporary evidence being cause by a lack of motivation.

The tools may still need to be developed to enable the accurate measurement the traverse. That doesn't mean the traverse is not there nor that it's not being crossed by people.

So we have testimony of individuals who claim they've crossed this traverse. We end up relying on their descriptions, which is not so reliable. We've no means to measure this traverse so we can't determine objectively the accuracy of their testimony. They still have the experience of crossing. That's what they have to rely on until, if science develops a method to measure, model and test exactly what that experience is.

People got sick even before science developed the means to test for pathogens and vectors of disease. Would you expect these people to have accepted their sickness was all in their mind because the science was lacking?

 

[ChristineES]

How do you know you have an allergy if it's not been diagnosed? Allergies, as with all illnesses and physical conditions, are defined by demonstrable symptoms. How could you fail to demonstrate an allergy to anyone? Or, is this a hypothetical?

Of course it was supposed to be hypothetical, although not a good analogy (I couldn't think of anything else) I was saying that since I am never going to eat cashews again, I couldn't prove to you or to anyone else that I am allergic to them. My doctor told me that doctors are unable to test for food allergies, so there is no way to know for sure. But I do know because my throat swelled up (not very much)- but my doctor did say that it would get worse each time I eat them. But enough about my food allergy.

Let me just say this: Personal evidence is good enough for me. Since it is faith and not an established fact, I can't prove it to you, even if I shared in detail my personal proof. If you doubt what I say, that has nothing to do with me and my faith.

 

[HerDotness]

UPG=Unverifiable Personal Gnosis works for a lot of people.

However, it doesn't and obviously can't do anything to demonstrate that religious beliefs have a basis other than the traditions, history, theology, etc. that have accumulated with that body of beliefs over time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mark Twain was a smart guy.....smarter than we are anyway. I'll go with his view.
"'Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
I deduce that if it "ain't so", then it lacks evidence for being "so".
Moreover, if something had evidence, faith wouldn't be needed.