Freethinking

[Fluffy]

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

 

[Revasser]

I think his position is one that is based on an empirical idealism that really has very little, if any, practical usefulness.

The fact is that oftentimes a person will simply not have sufficient evidence to form a conclusion on a purely empirical basis. Some might even say that this is always the case. In these situations, the gaps must be filled with faith, intuition, a hunch, call it what you will, so that the person can make a choice and take an action (or withold action, or whatever) based upon their conclusions.

I tend to think that if everyone refused to come to conclusions, form beliefs and make decisions until they had "sufficient evidence", then nothing would ever get done.

 

[Mike182]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

what i deem as evidence could be deemed by someone else as tripe, so evidence itself is also subject to the categories you posted, in my oppinion.

 

[Fluffy]

what i deem as evidence could be deemed by someone else as tripe, so evidence itself is also subject to the categories you posted, in my oppinion.

If you are referring to a personal religious experience then depending on the nature of that experience, it could very well be that the person who considered it tripe is just plain wrong.

I don't think that the status of the experience as evidence changes according to the person, it just becomes more or less useful. As long as you are aware of the limitations and possible flaws in your evidence then there is nothing wrong with you using it to further a conclusion. Science should not criticise a person for coming to the conclusion that God exists if he believes he has had a series of encounters with God as long as that person is aware of the possibility that he might be wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

Someone once said that almost every major decision in life must be made on insufficient evidence. By the time sufficient evidence becomes available the opportunity for acting (or not acting) has passed. Although they were speaking largely of mundane decisions, I think their point holds true for decisions about supernatural things too. And if we were to follow Clifford, we would make no decisions at all, which in itself would be a sort of decision.

I agree with Fluffy here that decisions based on hunches and so forth are legitimate so long as they are rational and don't contradict reason.

 

[bigvindaloo]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

I think Clifford makes a great point yet he is describing a utopia. Faith will remain a feature of belief while we collect sufficient evidence. In fact faith is what drives us to enquire in the first place. Whether he is right to label correct belief as confirmed by evidence is hardly controversial. I agree with this.

 

[Arben]

Science should not criticise a person for coming to the conclusion that God exists if he believes he has had a series of encounters with God as long as that person is aware of the possibility that he might be wrong.

It is foolish to be critical of something just because you don't understand it. It sounds to me as if Clifford did not understand faith at all. I know God exists. I could say that I know God exists because He has revealed Himself to me in different ways, and that proves it for me, as it has for many others down through the centuries, but that does not prove it to the satisfaction of everyone.

I could assert that the Bible says God exists so that is proof. Again, that proves it to me, as it has to many others, but that does not prove it to everyone.

But, no matter what any of us say, whether we be fools or sages, we must admit (if we are honest with ourselves) that one's idea of proof is sometimes subjective. It generally boils down to one thing. At some point we make a decision to believe or disbelieve something based on our 'faith' in the evidence. So it still comes down to faith.

God bless.

 

[!Fluffy!]

A non believer will believe the OP quote, as he well should; it would be the only thing that makes sense.

However the scriptures, even the concept of God is and always will be foolish to those to whom those truths have not been revealed.

The highest absurdity to an unbeliever will the the Cross, this is discussed by Paul in I Cor. 1: 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

 

[Æsahættr]

But, no matter what any of us say, whether we be fools or sages, we must admit (if we are honest with ourselves) that one's idea of proof is sometimes subjective. It generally boils down to one thing. At some point we make a decision to believe or disbelieve something based on our 'faith' in the evidence. So it still comes down to faith.

Proof is not subjective. If a "proof" is not falsifiable then it is useless. When considering evidence for something, one should consider whether a different explanation could have given the same answer, and how likely that other explanation is. In the case of the Bible, you must admit that the explanation that it is just another religious book written by people, as presumably you believe all the other texts from different religions are, is at least as viable an explanation as the one that it was inspired by God. Hence why that is objectivelly not a proof.

 

[michel]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

No, I disagree. It depends on what we are being asked to believe.

Do I believe my wife to be innocent of infidelity ? - Yes, poor loyal being that she is.

Do I believe my son to be honest? - It depends on how you qualify honesty, does a white lie count?

Besides which, in his case I have only seen his behaviour around us. For all I know, when he is away, he may have comitted crimes by lying.

The onus is on proof (as it seems) from William Kingdon Clifford's statement; the answer you be in anything relating to emotion, humanities "no". To anything pertaining to physics, or maths, obviously "yes".

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

OK, I will bite. I agree with him. If there is insufficient evidence in favor of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, then I, as an intelligent and rational person should come to the conclusion that there is no Loch Ness Monster. So, yes, with insufficient evidence in favor of a given proposition, then you should probably not believe it.

However, if I had personally seen or touched a Loch Ness Monster, then I personally would tend to believe that this creature existed. I guess my problem is, that in spite of decades of dredging the lake of religion (<---metaphor here) I have yet to find the Monster. And just like the scientists who have studies the real life body of water known as Loch Ness, I have found, much to my personal chagrin, that there is no reason, at all, to believe that there is such a creature.

There isn't enough fish in Loch Ness to support a breeding population of any Nessie type creatures, and there is no reason to beleive that the current world religions are any more likely to be divinely inspired than were the thousands of defunct religions of the ancients (when's the last time you heard of a church for the Cult of Mythros, or how often do you pray to Appollo or Zeuss? for example).

B.

 

[Fluffy]

OK, I will bite. I agree with him. If there is insufficient evidence in favor of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, then I, as an intelligent and rational person should come to the conclusion that there is no Loch Ness Monster. So, yes, with insufficient evidence in favor of a given proposition, then you should probably not believe it.

Does your conclusion that the Loch Ness Monster does not existence prevent acknowledgement of the possibility that new evidence might come to light in the future?

If this is prevented, does it mean that if new evidence were to come to light you would be unfairly sceptical of it (since you had written off such a possibility you would be more sceptical than a person who had not decided either way)? Does it mean that if the Loch Ness monster were later shown to exist, you would have held an incorrect belief?

If this is not prevented, then do you really believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist since you are accepting the possibility that it might?

I realise this is more of a semantic challenge but I am curious as to whether in your mind, there is no possibility that the Loch Ness monster exists or whether you accept such a possibility (as vast and distant but nevertheless a possibility) yet still hold that your conclusion is that the Loch Ness monster does not existed.

My reason for my curiosity is I do not understand how such a possibility can be accepted (and indeed it seems as if it must be accepted due to the very nature of sceptical argument) and yet such a conclusion still be found. The two appear contradictory to me.

I speculate that what you are actually saying is that since the possibility is so distant, you may as well live your life with the assumption that the Loch Ness monster does not exist since, if it did, you cannot detect it and so it makes no difference to you.

Please note that this is not in fact what Clifford is saying in this quote (although he may very well have agreed with you). He is not saying that, given a lack of evidence, it is okay to assume the opposite. He is saying that, given a lack of evidence, belief in that thing is immoral. The other alternative would be to refrain from making a conclusion. I am not familiar enough with the man and his beliefs to say which of these he is advocating as the "moral" choice.

 

[PureX]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

I think that a common flaw in a discussion of this sort is to assume that we can hold only one of these positions at a time. This is typical western linear thinking, and is an instance where such thinking is not reasonable or accurate.

It is quite possible, and even logical, to choose to believe in the existence of God by faith (because there is some positive result of such a belief), while simultaneously remaining skeptical of this belief because of the lack of empirical evidence, and while remaining willing to change the chosen belief should such contrary evidence emerge.

Faith does not have to be blind. We can have faith while remaining skeptical, and aligned with the evidence of the moment.

 

[doppelganger]

If there is insufficient evidence in favor of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, then I, as an intelligent and rational person should come to the conclusion that there is no Loch Ness Monster. So, yes, with insufficient evidence in favor of a given proposition, then you should probably not believe it.

However, if I had personally seen or touched a Loch Ness Monster, then I personally would tend to believe that this creature existed. I guess my problem is, that in spite of decades of dredging the lake of religion (<---metaphor here) I have yet to find the Monster. And just like the scientists who have studies the real life body of water known as Loch Ness, I have found, much to my personal chagrin, that there is no reason, at all, to believe that there is such a creature.

The real problem is that we never take the time to determine what it is we are looking for. With a lake monster, that's a relatively simple proposition. We are looking for some large animal of a previously uncategorized species in the lake. Or we could take a narrow view and look specifically for a large animal that aligns with different peoples' descriptions of their personal experience of the thing. Or we could look for something other than a large animal that would also align with different peoples' descriptions of their personal experience of the thing.

When you go looking for whether "God" exists, what are you even looking for?

That is the threshhold question.

the doppleganger

 

[michel]

When you go looking for whether "God" exists, what are you even looking for?

That is the threshhold question.

the doppleganger

From a theist point of view, that is virtually impossible to explain, and will most likely be rebuffed by non-theists. For me, personally, I just 'Know' but I neither expect you to understand or 'approve' of that.

 

[doppelganger]

From a theist point of view, that is virtually impossible to explain, and will most likely be rebuffed by non-theists. For me, personally, I just 'Know' but I neither expect you to understand or 'approve' of that.

What do you experience as "just knowing." Can you describe the experience of "know" any why it is you associate that experience with "knowing 'God' exists"?

But even more fundamentally, what is the process by which you derive, apparently solely from this internal, subjective experience of "knowing" that your act of knowing is connected with an external thing you are choosing to call "God"? Or am I wrong about that and there's more than just this experience you call "knowing"?

And if you ask someone if they believe in "God" and you are referring to this subjective experience you call "knowing" (whatever it may be), then why would you expect anyone to understand what you are even asking?

the doppleganger

 

[doppelganger]

The reason I ask, michel, is the curiosity about whether I might have a similar experience to what who are having and referring to as "knowing 'God' exists," but not making the connection with that experience because I either refer to that experience by a different word(s), or haven't taken to using any words at all to reference that experience.

Maybe we are having a very similar experience to one another, but just aren't managing to communicate about it through the words we are using. Is that possible?

the doppleganger

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

I strongly disagree with him. Faith and hope are virtues and people practice them everyday for many different things other than religion. The athlete, the artist and soldier all push themselves to do what they would not otherwise be able to do on the basis of faith and hope in something. Life would be boring and dull if it were not for our hope and faith we place in all kinds of things.

Science and technology has been a wonderful blessing to our culture, but the ideology expressed by Clifford is an unfortunate side affect of the tremendous blossoming of science in our culture and in our way of thinking. The scientific method is very successful in the arena of science, but if we let the arena of science conquor every part of our lives we would lose our humanity.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

WOW!!! Great thread and points all around!!! I'm actually envious of the fact that I didn't get involved in this one earlier and make some of the points that have already been made.

One major mistake people who get into Christian Apologetics make, including myself at one time, is to assume that when one gives a logical proof for the existence of God, the reciever of this proof will just come to faith based on that. This very rarely, some might even argue never, happens. What this position does is take away many personal aspects of what faith entails. Christian Apologetics should first and formost always be a defense of the Christian faith (1 Pet.3:15) and not evangelistic. To do otherwise is to come against a never-ending brick wall. Besides that, the only statement I felt the need to comment on was this one:

Proof is not subjective. If a "proof" is not falsifiable then it is useless. When considering evidence for something, one should consider whether a different explanation could have given the same answer, and how likely that other explanation is.

The interesting thing about this statement which is based on a philosophical concept made famous by a British Atheist named Antony Flew, is that by it's own definition, it, itself, is not falsifiable. But if that is the case then by it's own conclusion, it must be rendered "useless". Basically, it contradicts itself or is directly unaffirmable. On top of that, I could make quite the list of things that could, by definition, be considered unfalsifiable and yet many won't argue whether or not these things exist or are true.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[doppelganger]

On top of that, I could make quite the list of things that could, by definition, be considered unfalsifiable and yet many won't argue whether or not these things exist or are true.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

SolioDeoGloria:

Could you give some examples, please?

the doppleganger