Belief without evidence argument

fergalr

I've no training in philosophy or theology so go easy on me

Was listening to a Richard Dawkins recording there recently, and he points out that a big reason for not believing in the existence of a 'God' is the same reason we don't believe in things like the tooth fairy: A lack of evidence.

His argument seems to be that we don't believe things unless we have evidence, that there is no evidence for God, therefore we should not believe in God.
This seems to be quite a common line of argument among atheists, and seems on the face of it, to be pretty reasonable.
It also seems to be a primary line of reasoning attached to the more Strong forms of atheism that ridicule belief in the existence of a higher power.

I have a query with it though - and I can't be the first to raise this query.
My issue centers on this premise: We don't believe things unless we have evidence.

Surely, this is not true? If not for all of us, than for most of us, including most atheists.

We believe, for example, in the existence of an objective external reality, even though all we have are perceptions that are consistent with an external reality. (Perhaps it's all a computer simulation etc - you can certainly make arguments about the likelihood of this, but you can't really disprove it - and before anyone accuses me of shifting the burden of proof, I'm not, I'm pointing out that most atheists would believe in external reality, without proof, when it is only one of many possible hypothesis).

We also believe in the power of reason - for example, that there are certain rules of logic that make sense to follow - belief in the power of inductive reasoning, belief in logic etc.

As far as I am aware, there are no cast iron arguments for either of those two things - they tend to be taken by most of us as axioms or starting points or whatever.


Now, I'm not saying that every atheist belives in those two things without evidence, but I would say many (most?) do.
Is it reasonable for those atheists to attack a religious person for their belief in a higher power, on the basis that the religious person believes it without evidence, while the atheist simultaneously maintains a set of beliefs that they have no evidence for?

(So I'm not talking about attacking creationism, or a specific religions doctrine, I'm talking about attacking the general belief a believer might hold in a sense of a higher power, that they can't objectively prove exists).



How is this line of argument usually dealt with?
Would it be argued that there is sufficient evidence of the beliefs I mention? I've read some philosophical writing on this before, and never found anything completely convincing - it all boiled down to, 'you've got to start somewhere' - so why not include belief in a higher power in your axioms?

Not saying I personally do, but I'm asking what is logically wrong with doing so, that allows the more 'aggressive' atheists attack it as being false/wrong/incorrect.



I'd love if someone could provide me with well reasoned holes in my argument, or a link to such, or argument/link to other people saying the same thing, or if this line of argument tends to have a name.

If anyone has a rock solid proof of the existence of objective reality, or the axioms of rational thought then that'd be great to hear too

Oh, and just to be 100% clear - I'm not arguing against atheism, I'm examining an argument some atheists use to object to, or even deride/ridicule, those who claim to believe in a higher power out of some 'sense' they have of god.

ShooterSF

Maybe Im just missing the point here having read this a few times. But what exactly do you say people believe in without proof?

I believe in reality as it seems to have more proof of it that against as opposed to some computer simulation.
I believe in logic in the same way that I believe 2+2 = 4

fergalr

Maybe Im just missing the point here having read this a few times. But what exactly do you say people believe in without proof?

I believe in reality as it seems to have more proof of it that against as opposed to some computer simulation.

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding the objective reality - as far as I know, it's very difficult to prove it really exists in the form we perceive it.
Like, you don't really have any more proof that it's 'real', as opposed to a computer simulation, as all your inputs come from whats external to you, which would either be a reality of a simulation of reality in the first place. You can't bootstrap out of what you perceive. You can make arguments about platonic reality and stuff like that, but again, there's no proof that they are true independent of what we perceive - or at least none that I've seen and found convincing. Perhaps it's not even relevant to our day to day lives whether we are in some big simulation (eg brain in a tank) or actually walking around the earth, and we chose to believe we walk around the earth as that's the most convenient, but that does not, in itself, prove we are walking around the earth.

I believe in logic in the same way that I believe 2+2 = 4

Yes, and that's precisely the problem; that 2+2=4 is somewhat an article of faith.
Sure, we can take 2 objects and 2 other objects, put them in a box, and count the objects in a box. We could do that experiment 100000 times (might involve crowdsourcing ) and each time we would get 4 objects - but would this mean we will always get 4 objects?
Now, I believe we will, but I cannot prove it, certainly not without standing on some other axioms further down, axioms that at the end of the day, I can't prove. And the same argument applies, as far as I'm aware, to our general worldview and the way we imply inductive logic to the world around us. So, you've got to start somewhere.

Now, you can turn around here, and say 'Hah, I can't believe some guy on the internet is arguing about whether 2+2=4' - I'm not, I'm arguing about whether it can be proven; and would ask you to bear in mind that the existence of a higher power to a religious person may have just as strong an intellectual, or mental, or whatever, appeal to them as elementary logic has to you.

pH

fergalr wrote: »

We believe, for example, in the existence of an objective external reality, even though all we have are perceptions that are consistent with an external reality. (Perhaps it's all a computer simulation etc - you can certainly make arguments about the likelihood of this, but you can't really disprove it - and before anyone accuses me of shifting the burden of proof, I'm not, I'm pointing out that most atheists would believe in external reality, without proof, when it is only one of many possible hypothesis).

Firstly you seem to have jumped from 'evidence' to 'proof' in your post, secondly you use the word 'proof' and then pick out things you believe we have no proof for, so my question to you is:

What do you think exists that there is a solid proof for? If the answer is nothing the the word 'proof' is meaningless, nothing is proven, so the whole concept of proof is meaningless so why even talk about it, otherwise you have a list of proven things, how about some examples?

Dades

fergalr wrote: »

We believe, for example, in the existence of an objective external reality, even though all we have are perceptions that are consistent with an external reality.

Is that not enough? The fact that all our perceptions point to an objective external reality are fair grounds to believe that to be the case. You don't need proof to have a belief.

On the other hand, the only 'perception' of a god* I have encountered are from other people who tell me he exists. In fact, when I observe the world around me, my perception is that such a god does not exist, as our world appears to me to be singularly lacking such an entity.


* Just to clarify, when I talk of "god" here, I talk of any interventionist type god, or any such deity as characterised by religion. Any definition of god outside of these parameters renders the debate futile, imo, as we are then arguing about belief in the existence of something completely undefined.

fergalr

pH wrote: »

Firstly you seem to have jumped from 'evidence' to 'proof' in your post, secondly you use the word 'proof' and then pick out things you believe we have no proof for, so my question to you is:

I did use the two almost interchangeably - sorry if this causes confusion, not overly focused on rigour. Looking back on it, I don't think the argument suffers much from it - maybe substitute in evidence where you see proof.

What do you think exists that there is a solid proof for? If the answer is nothing the the word 'proof' is meaningless, nothing is proven, so the whole concept of proof is meaningless so why even talk about it, otherwise you have a list of proven things, how about some examples?

I guess I don't think that anything exists that there is a completely convincing proof for, without assuming certain givens/axioms.
I think a lot of things exist that are proven, given certain axioms, so the concept of proof is useful.

Again, my question is how can we attack theists on the basis they believe without evidence, when many(most?) atheists (including many of those who do the attacking) also believe things without evidence.

ShooterSF

fergalr wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, and that's precisely the problem; that 2+2=4 is somewhat an article of faith.
Sure, we can take 2 objects and 2 other objects, put them in a box, and count the objects in a box. We could do that experiment 100000 times (might involve crowdsourcing ) and each time we would get 4 objects - but would this mean we will always get 4 objects?
Now, I believe we will, but I cannot prove it, certainly not without standing on some other axioms further down, axioms that at the end of the day, I can't prove. And the same argument applies, as far as I'm aware, to our general worldview and the way we imply inductive logic to the world around us. So, you've got to start somewhere.

Now, you can turn around here, and say 'Hah, I can't believe some guy on the internet is arguing about whether 2+2=4' - I'm not, I'm arguing about whether it can be proven; and would ask you to bear in mind that the existence of a higher power to a religious person may have just as strong an intellectual, or mental, or whatever, appeal to them as elementary logic has to you.

Ok. We are using proof is a scientific meaning i.e nothing can be proven.

Well you see to use the example again if you told me (lets assume I never heard this before) 2+2=4 I would firstly be intrigued and yet skeptical. I would then be compelled to test this, count two objects and add another two, get four and go O.K that seems to make sense.

On the other hand if you tell me a higher power exists I would be intrigued and yet skeptical. I would be compelled to test this. Find I cant as there's no evidence of said being, shrug my shoulders and think your mad.

As for your matrix-esque ideas about reality I'd put it in the same category as God. Nothing to suggest its real. The reality as I see it does have things that suggest its real.

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

I did use the two almost interchangeably - sorry if this causes confusion, not overly focused on rigour. Looking back on it, I don't think the argument suffers much from it - maybe substitute in evidence where you see proof.


I guess I don't think that anything exists that there is a completely convincing proof for, without assuming certain givens/axioms.
I think a lot of things exist that are proven, given certain axioms, so the concept of proof is useful.

Again, my question is how can we attack theists on the basis they believe without evidence, when many(most?) atheists (including many of those who do the attacking) also believe things without evidence.

Ok, so we can drop the talk of proof at this point, because the whole of your argument was based on evidence anyway, which I think (proof) isn't really going to go anywhere and has little to do with your core argument. We are all very aware that the idea of proof only exists in mathematics, where we fail to find this type of proof in reality, we rely on evidence which is consistent and reliable.

Could you provide an example of something a skeptic would believe in that has no (reliable) evidence? Just one please.

fergalr

Dades wrote: »

Is that not enough? The fact that all our perceptions point to an objective external reality are fair grounds to believe that to be the case. You don't need proof to have a belief.
[/QUOTE
Ok, so if you say you don't need proof to have a belief, then you wouldn't object to a theist who believes in a god without proof?
That's what I'm getting at, some people do make that objection.

I'd be careful if I said our perceptions point to an external reality - they could equally point to a computer simulation - you might employ heuristics like ockams razor to argue for the validity of one over the other, but they wouldn't prove anything, or provide evidence.

On the other hand, the only 'perception' of a god* I have encountered are from other people who tell me he exists. In fact, when I observe the world around me, my perception is that such a god does not exist, as our world appears to me to be singularly lacking such an entity.

Some people claim to have a very strong 'sense' that a higher power is present, or with them, at some point in their lives. I'm not saying that we should believe in god as a result of their claims - I'm saying that it's difficult to attack their belief on the basis they have no evidence for it.

* Just to clarify, when I talk of "god" here, I talk of any interventionist type god, or any such deity as characterised by religion. Any definition of god outside of these parameters renders the debate futile, imo, as we are then arguing about belief in the existence of something completely undefined.

I'm not talking about an interventionist type god - lets say I'm talking about a god that takes care of our (invisible, immeasurable) souls after we die or something like that, but doesn't intervene directly here.

pH

fergalr wrote: »

Again, my question is how can we attack theists on the basis they believe without evidence, when many(most?) atheists (including many of those who do the attacking) also believe things without evidence.

No, I think you're wrong here, even though they make a big deal about faith at the heart of it theists think the evidence is also with them. Have a look through various threads here and in the Christianity forum and many theists want to cling to verified miracles, biblical 'evidence', Jesus as a historical figure, the power of prayer etc.

Even those that don't, merely tell them you are in fact God returned to earth and they should worship and donate to you and most will quickly look for some 'evidence'

At the heart of this (if you're going down the philosophical route of there is no such thing as proof), you'll just find that theists are those who find what 'evidence' exists for God (a personal intervening one) compelling, and atheists those who don't. I don't think it needs to be much more complicated than that.

leaba

Evidence does not mean proof?

Proving that reality really is as we percieve it is a different kettle of fish to saying that the evidence points to reality being as we perceive it.

fergalr

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok. We are using proof is a scientific meaning i.e nothing can be proven.

Well you see to use the example again if you told me (lets assume I never heard this before) 2+2=4 I would firstly be intrigued and yet skeptical. I would then be compelled to test this, count two objects and add another two, get four and go O.K that seems to make sense.

Yes, but this is based on the belief of the value of testing a hypothesis, and on certain types of reasoning, which, when you get down to it, we have no evidence for.

On the other hand if you tell me a higher power exists I would be intrigued and yet skeptical. I would be compelled to test this. Find I cant as there's no evidence of said being, shrug my shoulders and think your mad.

As for your matrix-esque ideas about reality I'd put it in the same category as God. Nothing to suggest its real. The reality as I see it does have things that suggest its real.

The thing about the 'matrix-esque' ideas about reality isn't that I'd suggest it is the case.
It's that there does not seem to be any more evidence that we walk around on a planet in a space than that we are in a glass tank, but most of us believe we are walking around on a planet; hence we have a belief we hold without evidence, so can we really rubbish others who also believe things that they don't have evidence for?

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

Yes, but this is based on the belief of the value of testing a hypothesis, and on certain types of reasoning, which, when you get down to it, we have no evidence for.

Get down to it, please. I'm intrigued. And please dont start interchanging between proof and evidence simply to fit your point of view, there is a difference between believing in something you can prove and something you have evidence for.

CerebralCortex

fergalr wrote: »

....so can we really rubbish others who also believe things that they don't have evidence for?

Yes because we don't make claims about the nature of the existence of the universe and then promote them as solid fact while simultaneously preventing disenfranchised people from obtaining protection from aids.

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, so we can drop the talk of proof at this point, because the whole of your argument was based on evidence anyway, which I think (proof) isn't really going to go anywhere and has little to do with your core argument. We are all very aware that the idea of proof only exists in mathematics, where we fail to find this type of proof in reality, we rely on evidence which is consistent and reliable.

Could you provide an example of something a skeptic would believe in that has no (reliable) evidence? Just one please.

I'm not sure I understand the question here - when you say skeptic do you mean in the sense of philosophical skepticism? If so, I'm confused, because a skeptic might be defined as someone who doesn't believe in things that have no (reliable) evidence, so my answer must be 'mu' or basically that I don't understand your question.

I'm not talking about skeptics, I'm talking about atheists who attack theists on the basis that theists believe things without evidence, while the atheists also believe things without evidence.
If I've misinterpreted the question, please re-ask it in a way I understand and I'll do my best to answer, and hopefully learn what your saying.

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question here - when you say skeptic do you mean in the sense of philosophical skepticism? If so, I'm confused, because a skeptic might be defined as someone who doesn't believe in things that have no (reliable) evidence, so my answer must be 'mu' or basically that I don't understand your question.

I'm not talking about skeptics, I'm talking about atheists who attack theists on the basis that theists believe things without evidence, while the atheists also believe things without evidence.
If I've misinterpreted the question, please re-ask it in a way I understand and I'll do my best to answer, and hopefully learn what your saying.

In short, provide one example of something an atheist believes in that does not have reliable and consistent evidence.

fergalr

pH wrote: »

No, I think you're wrong here, even though they make a big deal about faith at the heart of it theists think the evidence is also with them. Have a look through various threads here and in the Christianity forum and many theists want to cling to verified miracles, biblical 'evidence', Jesus as a historical figure, the power of prayer etc.

Let me limit my discussion then to theists who do not claim there is evidence for a higher power. Lets say I'm talking about theists who claim to believe without evidence, based on 'faith', based on someone internal and immeasurable to them.
I'm talking about whether it's reasonable to attack that sort of believe.

Even those that don't, merely tell them you are in fact God returned to earth and they should worship and donate to you and most will quickly look for some 'evidence'

At the heart of this (if you're going down the philosophical route of there is no such thing as proof), you'll just find that theists are those who find what 'evidence' exists for God (a personal intervening one) compelling, and atheists those who don't. I don't think it needs to be much more complicated than that.

I'm afraid I don't see that simplicity. I have definitely met theists who told me they did not require evidence for God, that they were happy to believe it without evidence.

jim o doom

By the gods this whole argument is TOTALLY pointless; you are basically saying we can't tell theists god is not existant because ultimately we have no real constant. The people you argue against - the Theists - believe we live in a constant universe, that this is the mortal coil & that god created us.Those self same theists would NOT use your argument, because then it could invalidate their own regarding the existance of god, which they believe in. I mean you could argue against literally anything with this pointless line of reasoning (which a 15 year old confronted me with when I was still in school many years). "Well how do you know chewbacca doesn't exist really? nothing REALLY exists, we are all in a dream!". It's a major waste of time.

ShooterSF

fergalr wrote: »

Yes, but this is based on the belief of the value of testing a hypothesis, and on certain types of reasoning, which, when you get down to it, we have no evidence for.




The thing about the 'matrix-esque' ideas about reality isn't that I'd suggest it is the case.
It's that there does not seem to be any more evidence that we walk around on a planet in a space than that we are in a glass tank, but most of us believe we are walking around on a planet; hence we have a belief we hold without evidence, so can we really rubbish others who also believe things that they don't have evidence for?

Ok evidence that we walk around on a plent in space:
The ground below me I can touch.
Space Missions that have sent back photos of Earth in space.
High powered telescopes that have been used to map out large parts of our galaxy.

Evidence that we are in a glass tank:
People cant prove that we definitely arent.

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

Let me limit my discussion then to theists who do not claim there is evidence for a higher power. Lets say I'm talking about theists who claim to believe without evidence, based on 'faith', based on someone internal and immeasurable to them.
I'm talking about whether it's reasonable to attack that sort of believe

Is it testable?

Is it reliable?

Is it consistent?

If not, then I would not consider it to be evidence.

For example, I have faith in a five-arsed pink space-monkey that flies through the universe dictating all events. Its something internal and immeasurable. Therefore its unreasonable to attack that belief? Right...

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

Evidence does not mean proof?

Yes, I again apologise for mixing terms. This was unintentional, but I would say the two are closely related, and I'm trying to avoid getting too bogged down.

Proving that reality really is as we percieve it is a different kettle of fish to saying that the evidence points to reality being as we perceive it.

Yes, of course.

I don't know of evidence that points to reality being as we perceive it, however.
I don't know of evidence that says we are more likely to be walking around on a planet, than in a computer simulation. I'd be very interested to hear as such, as it would certainly challenge one of the examples I gave in my first post - and would also be very interesting personally.

pH

fergalr wrote: »

Let me limit my discussion then to theists who do not claim there is evidence for a higher power. Lets say I'm talking about theists who claim to believe without evidence, based on 'faith', based on someone internal and immeasurable to them.
I'm talking about whether it's reasonable to attack that sort of believe.

Well then you'd have to ask the question are they also trying to control schools, prevent Gay rights, telling people whether or not they can use contraception etc.

I'm afraid I don't see that simplicity. I have definitely met theists who told me they did not require evidence for God, that they were happy to believe it without evidence.

Oh ... "Definitely" ... Have you and evidence that they weren't lying, or indeed whether these theists were in fact 'real' and not a figment of your imagination or a computer simulation?

See how easy it is?

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't see that simplicity. I have definitely met theists who told me they did not require evidence for God, that they were happy to believe it without evidence.

Should they be attacked if their beliefs dictate to them that they should get other people to believe what they do? Are you limiting your question to belief in God or all unsubstanciated beliefs?

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

Yes, I again apologise for mixing terms. This was unintentional, but I would say the two are closely related, and I'm trying to avoid getting too bogged down.


Yes, of course.

I don't know of evidence that points to reality being as we perceive it, however.
I don't know of evidence that says we are more likely to be walking around on a planet, than in a computer simulation. I'd be very interested to hear as such, as it would certainly challenge one of the examples I gave in my first post - and would also be very interesting personally.

Surely when you walk around the planet there's plenty of evidence that you are walking around a planet. I don't know of any evidence of a computer simulation.

ShooterSF

OK Im going to take this from a different angle for you as we cant really PROVE reality exists.

So lets use THAT to compare to faith. Lets say someone has faith that the reality we live in IS actually a computer simulation and no reasoning will make them believe otherwise. Now lets say that they dedicate their life to acting how they should in such a reality. Hmm I dunno, lets say the eat mushrooms thinking itll make them grow twice their size or collect rings in the hope of jumping through a giant ring at the end of "this level" that only appears if there are enough rings to cellect a magic emerald.
Would you respect this persons belief the same as belief in god?

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

And please dont start interchanging between proof and evidence simply to fit your point of view, there is a difference between believing in something you can prove and something you have evidence for.

Ok, look, regarding using evidence and proof interchangably, which I'm getting a lot of flack for, the first result from dictionary.com (which may be wrong) for evidence is:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

I think we're already running into semantic issues, as to whether we mean a piece of evidence that might indicate something, or enough evidence to proof something, or other meanings - cut me a little slack here, I'm not too familiar with philosophical technical meanings of words.

Yes, but this is based on the belief of the value of testing a hypothesis, and on certain types of reasoning, which, when you get down to it, we have no evidence for.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Get down to it, please. I'm intrigued.

Well, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that all the logic and reason we use is accurate or correct or valid, particularly if your skeptical about external reality.

Lets say you form a hypothesis, make a prediction, and test the hypothesis, does that really validate the hypothesis? If so, why? Where is the evidence that this is the case? You can't really use that it's worked before without begging the question.
Do you see where I'm getting at?

fergalr

....so can we really rubbish others who also believe things that they don't have evidence for?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes because we don't make claims about the nature of the existence of the universe and then promote them as solid fact while simultaneously preventing disenfranchised people from obtaining protection from aids.

CerebralCortex, while I do think that preventing disenfranchised people from obtaining protection from aids is a very bad thing, and definitely merits a lot of discussion, I'm afraid it's not really relevant here.
I'm not arguing in favour of a particular set of theistic beliefs, not am I arguing against atheism, I'm merely examining a specific argument thats used against belief in higher powers in general.

If I was making a general argument in favour of theism, then perhaps you could use the bad consequences of certain theistic faiths as an point against, but while worth considering, its just not what I'm talking about here - thanks.

Dades

Sorry - got caught up in 'work'. :pac:

fergalr wrote: »

Ok, so if you say you don't need proof to have a belief, then you wouldn't object to a theist who believes in a god without proof?
That's what I'm getting at, some people do make that objection.

People object to theists who believe in a god without evidence. BIG difference.

fergalr wrote: »

I'd be careful if I said our perceptions point to an external reality - they could equally point to a computer simulation - you might employ heuristics like ockams razor to argue for the validity of one over the other, but they wouldn't prove anything, or provide evidence.

Why do you suggest "they could equally point to a computer simulation"? I would not say the evidence for both both is equal. All our perceptions point to an external reality, whereas the idea of a computer simulation is just a concept.

fergalr wrote: »

Some people claim to have a very strong 'sense' that a higher power is present, or with them, at some point in their lives. I'm not saying that we should believe in god as a result of their claims - I'm saying that it's difficult to attack their belief on the basis they have no evidence for it.

If someone wants to bask in the glow of a higher power, that's all well and good. But if they come on here claiming all sorts of stuff about that higher power they're fair game for "evidence analysis"!

fergalr wrote: »

I'm not talking about an interventionist type god - lets say I'm talking about a god that takes care of our (invisible, immeasurable) souls after we die or something like that, but doesn't intervene directly here.

He's a new one to me. I shall call him Mindor, the Librarian of our Souls . :pac:

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

Ok, look, regarding using evidence and proof interchangably, which I'm getting a lot of flack for, the first result from dictionary.com (which may be wrong) for evidence is:

I think we're already running into semantic issues, as to whether we mean a piece of evidence that might indicate something, or enough evidence to proof something, or other meanings - cut me a little slack here, I'm not too familiar with philosophical technical meanings of words.





Well, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that all the logic and reason we use is accurate or correct or valid, particularly if your skeptical about external reality.

Lets say you form a hypothesis, make a prediction, and test the hypothesis, does that really validate the hypothesis? If so, why? Where is the evidence that this is the case? You can't really use that it's worked before without begging the question.
Do you see where I'm getting at?

Well, going back to the 2+2=4 argument. Of course, there remains the possibility that after an infinite such events we may end up with 2+2=3, but we need to ask ourselves, how many observations do we require to say that we have reasonably proved something? Should we keep testing forever, just to show that the hypothesis is not 100% accurate? Also, in order to test your convictions, if someone told you that a life-saving cure was invented for an ailment you had, and was tested to 99% hypothesis levels, would you consider this to not be reasonable evidence and reject the treatment? Or even better, if the above applied but a few 'believers' came into the room and said the treatment wouldn't work because their god/s told them so (based on someone internal and immeasurable to them.). Would you hold both points of view to be equally valid. Would this be a quandary for you?

The point you are making we could say that no evidence is useful for anything. How do we know if we are in a computer simulation? How do we know if we aren't the dreams of an invisible dragon? How do we know anything, based on your strict criteria? Whats the point in even having this discussion if no form of evidence is valid, according to your terms. It's just a waste of time.

Fanny Cradock

I quite sure that mathematics is the only discipline where the term 'proof' can be applied. It is incorrect to use it when discussing metaphysical matters.

As for evidence, there is evidence for a God, it just that people place different worth on these. Some find this evidence compelling, whereas others dismiss it.

Handsome Bob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Could you provide an example of something a skeptic would believe in that has no (reliable) evidence? Just one please.

Skeptics are human, and human have prejudices. For instance, if I could refer you to the "Would you date a religious person?" thread, I get the feeling from some posters that they would blank someone if some how in the conversation the person said he was <insert religion here> because of a preconception that person was a bible basher.

I'm not supporting the OP's claims, just wanted to give you an answer.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

He's a new one to me. I shall call him Mindor, the Librarian of our Souls . :pac:

No fair. You cant call dibs on naming a new deity. It has to be put to a poll. Its in the charter... I think

fergalr

jim o doom wrote: »

By the gods this whole argument is TOTALLY pointless; you are basically saying we can't tell theists god is not existant because ultimately we have no real constant.

Well, I'm saying that we can't tell them god is non-existent, on the basis that they have no evidence for it, if we simultaneously believe things we have no evidence for.
There may be other reasons to argue for or against a belief in god (that it fulfills you, or gives purpose to your life, or oppositely that it stunts personal growth, stops you living your one life as you otherwise would etc). So I'm not speaking generally about belief in god and whether its a good thing.

The people you argue against - the Theists - believe we live in a constant universe, that this is the mortal coil & that god created us.Those self same theists would NOT use your argument, because then it could invalidate their own regarding the existance of god, which they believe in.

Some might do that, and some might not - theists is a pretty broad group, (as is atheists, which is why I've tried to be careful to say 'some atheists' at least some of the time).
Whether they would or wouldn't use the argument doesn't really matter a whole lot to it's validity or invalidity, I believe.

I mean you could argue against literally anything with this pointless line of reasoning (which a 15 year old confronted me with when I was still in school many years). "Well how do you know chewbacca doesn't exist really? nothing REALLY exists, we are all in a dream!". It's a major waste of time.

Well, chewbacca could indeed have existed, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, and george lucas could just have made a very improbable guess. It's not likely, but I wouldn't say it's possible.
I would argue though, that as it was a long time ago, chewbacca would be dead by now, and thus no longer exist.
But I don't want to go further into the 'what was a wookie doing on endor' defense, that's not how I'm trying to win this case.


I don't believe this line of reasoning actually allows you to argue 'literally anything'. I could chose to believe that the guy I pass on the street is chewbacca, but I would have to not believe a lot of other useful things (like that I perceive the world, and that I believe my basic reasoning abilities) in order to do that.
My point is that it's reasonable to believe in a higher power without surrendering those other beliefs, in a way that it isn't possible to believe I'm standing beside chewbacca (as I'd see him, or smell him).

fergalr

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok evidence that we walk around on a plent in space:
The ground below me I can touch.
Space Missions that have sent back photos of Earth in space.
High powered telescopes that have been used to map out large parts of our galaxy.

Evidence that we are in a glass tank:
People cant prove that we definitely arent.

No, I'm afraid you don't see what I'm trying to say.
Look, you mentioned the Matrix earlier, so you've seen that movie. Think about Neo in the matrix at the start of the movie. He could make the exact same argument you just did. Would that really have been evidence that he wasn't in the matrix?

Flamed Diving

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Skeptics are human, and human have prejudices. For instance, if I could refer you to the "Would you date a religious person?" thread, I get the feeling from some posters that they would blank someone if some how in the conversation the person said he was <insert religion here> because of a preconception that person was a bible basher.

I'm not supporting the OP's claims, just wanted to give you an answer.

Thats not really an example. If the skeptic decided that they don't like BB's, then the optimal strategy would be to avoid religious types, even if the ratio of BB's in the population was less than one. It would depend on how strongly the person wished to avoid them, whatever their reasoning. If you think that the reasoning is without evidence, you need to clarify more on that.

jimbling

have to agree with jim o doom on this one. Completely ridiculous thread...

by your argument you can't argue against anything. Flying teacups...lions in attics.... and all the rest of the examples. Ludicrous.

This reminds me of a guy I met in college who was trying to convince me that water was a hallucinogenic and kept human kind from seeing the reality of the world. i.e. the hallucinations of people deprived of water was actually the real world breaking through :rolleyes:

ShooterSF

fergalr wrote: »

No, I'm afraid you don't see what I'm trying to say.
Look, you mentioned the Matrix earlier, so you've seen that movie. Think about Neo in the matrix at the start of the movie. He could make the exact same argument you just did. Would that really have been evidence that he wasn't in the matrix?

As I said, not impossible. (Cant believe im discussing a fictional movie here) Neo howerver didnt go around claiming he was in a computer. Can you answer my question below so...

ShooterSF wrote: »

OK Im going to take this from a different angle for you as we cant really PROVE reality exists.

So lets use THAT to compare to faith. Lets say someone has faith that the reality we live in IS actually a computer simulation and no reasoning will make them believe otherwise. Now lets say that they dedicate their life to acting how they should in such a reality. Hmm I dunno, lets say the eat mushrooms thinking itll make them grow twice their size or collect rings in the hope of jumping through a giant ring at the end of "this level" that only appears if there are enough rings to cellect a magic emerald.
Would you respect this persons belief the same as belief in god?

Dave!

Thanks for the OP! It's great to have a bit of INTELLIGENT criticism every now and then, unlike a certain someone (the departed) who shall remain nameless :eek:

I shall post my own thoughts later

pH

Without being too smart there's another couple of things to keep in mind here.

Firstly these "there's no proof of anything, even in logic you have to take things (axioms) on faith" arguments are fairly self defeating, as to actually have an argument and make these points you have to "take the axioms" on faith so whatever argument you're bringing to bear about "belief in with no evidence" can be turned around and aimed directly at the argument itself.

Not only do they undermine the atheist's "correctness" to be snooty about "theists' lack of evidence" they also undermine your "correctness" in being snooty about atheists being snooty about theists.

Secondly we can consider ducks.



I a very *real* sense if you cannot conceive of any test that can differentiate 2 things then they really are the same thing. If you want to take 2 identical things and call them different things, with absolutely no way of telling them apart, then you're really just playing word games.

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is it testable?

Is it reliable?

Is it consistent?

If not, then I would not consider it to be evidence.

For example, I have faith in a five-arsed pink space-monkey that flies through the universe dictating all events. Its something internal and immeasurable. Therefore its unreasonable to attack that belief? Right...

I see no good way of attacking that belief, on the basis of a lack of evidence.
I could definitely attack it on grounds of utility, creativity, or maybe even common decency :-P but not on the basis of a lack of evidence.

How could I attack something internal and immeasurable on the basis of a lack of evidence? Thats like me saying that I have no evidence you are upset, therefore I can attack your belief that you are. (Note, not saying that I can attack what you tell me about your internal state, instead saying I can attack what you believe about your internal state).

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is it testable?

Neither is a belief we are not in a computer simulation. (or, to avoid burden of proof fallacy, a belief we are on an actual planet that we perceive).

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is it reliable?
Is it consistent?

If not, then I would not consider it to be evidence.

Again, got any evidence that this world you perceive is real?
Any that meets your criteria?
If not, do you believe this world is real? Or do you have doubts?

Handsome Bob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thats not really an example. If the skeptic decided that they don't like BB's, then the optimal strategy would be to avoid religious types, even if the ratio of BB's in the population was less than one. It would depend on how strongly the person wished to avoid them, whatever their reasoning. If you think that the reasoning is without evidence, you need to clarify more on that.

But how do you avoid religious types? Even if someone did have the optimal strategy of avoiding religious people, there is still the off chance that you could get talking to a religious person in instances out of your control, such as in a club. You get on well with them and feel a rapport growing between you and them. However if some how the topic of religion popped up and that person casually mentioned they are religious, they would be blanked (by some, I would direct you to the thread that I mentioned). Without even being given a chance to say "well really for me it's just a personal thing between me and God, I don't let it affect my life or how I get on with people."

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

Well, I'm saying that we can't tell them god is non-existent, on the basis that they have no evidence for it, if we simultaneously believe things we have no evidence for.

Please state again what we believe that we do not have evidence for.

Also please explain how when you walk around the planet, there is no evidence of walking around a planet.

if there is evidence of walking around a planet when walking around the planet, please explain how there is evidence of a computer simulation.

AtomicHorror

fergalr wrote: »

We believe, for example, in the existence of an objective external reality, even though all we have are perceptions that are consistent with an external reality.

There's no observable difference between perceptions entirely consistent with an objective external reality and the actuality of it. Since our observations and thus the rules and models we build upon those will be the same irrespective we can either make the positive assumption that the universe exists objectively or discard the idea as irrelevant and carry on regardless. It makes no difference whatsoever.

fergalr wrote: »

We also believe in the power of reason - for example, that there are certain rules of logic that make sense to follow - belief in the power of inductive reasoning, belief in logic etc.

Again, I would question the difference between a phenomenon that merely appears to be 100% consistent and one that hypothetically is in some objective sense. We can assume induction to be applicable or not with the same outcome; it will continue to appear to be.

Neither objective reality nor the validity of induction are testable in themselves but their veracity is not relevant.

fergalr

I'm talking about whether it's reasonable to attack that sort of believe.

pH wrote: »

Well then you'd have to ask the question are they also trying to control schools, prevent Gay rights, telling people whether or not they can use contraception etc.

Surely it's clear from context that I'm talking about belief without evidence? As I stated in another post, I'm not interested in looking at the wider effects of certain faiths, I'm not arguing in favour of certain faiths etc - this should really be pretty clear from my previous posts?

Oh ... "Definitely" ... Have you and evidence that they weren't lying, or indeed whether these theists were in fact 'real' and not a figment of your imagination or a computer simulation?
See how easy it is?

Hey, that's not an argument against what I'm saying
I'm not even claiming that strong of a position, I'm just saying that at a very basic level there's some things pretty much all of us accept as true, without evidence for, so why not god too? (from a lack of evidence perspective etc, might be other good reasons against it etc)

jim o doom

OK - here is the only way I see it; In both life & argument we need a constant, just like in a lab test. We take things like "reality" and "gravity" as given, which is unquesionable. If you are to take "reality" as something which is not a constant, i.e. "a simulation" - then argument is pointless. Why argue about anything whatsoever, when you are asking your opponent to prove reality itself. I don't "believe" in reality, I exist in it. It is a constant for me and for anyone I have an argument involving logic. And there's the word. Logic - if you say 2 + 2 might not actually be 4 - then all conventional logic cannot be applied to any argument. On that basis argument is therefore pointless as no part of any argument can be applied with out logic - or the constant - reality. So in other words, this is my final note in this thread; because you are simply unwilling to take "logic" & "reality" as constants - on that basis I have no common ground with which to argue with you as you don't accept these basic constants. And if someone else where to try use that argument against me, I would simply do what I am doing here, which is "believe what you want to believe with regards to reality, I am outta here - good luck."

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In short, provide one example of something an atheist believes in that does not have reliable and consistent evidence.

Not every atheist, but I'd say most believe that the external reality that we see around us is real, in a very objective sense. In other words, that we are not in a computer simulation of reality, a la the matrix. I would say they have no evidence for this, but believe it anyway.

Present your reliable and consistent evidence that this world around us is objectively real, and this part of my argument will be dealt with.

Dades

I fcuking hate philosophy.

But what if... *slap*

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

I see no good way of attacking that belief, on the basis of a lack of evidence.
I could definitely attack it on grounds of utility, creativity, or maybe even common decency :-P but not on the basis of a lack of evidence.

How could I attack something internal and immeasurable on the basis of a lack of evidence? Thats like me saying that I have no evidence you are upset, therefore I can attack your belief that you are. (Note, not saying that I can attack what you tell me about your internal state, instead saying I can attack what you believe about your internal state).



Neither is a belief we are not in a computer simulation. (or, to avoid burden of proof fallacy, a belief we are on an actual planet that we perceive).

Again, got any evidence that this world you perceive is real?
Any that meets your criteria?
If not, do you believe this world is real? Or do you have doubts?

Given the above, any argument is utterly pointless with you. So how about this, we all live up a ducks arse. Happy?

Answer this please:

Also, in order to test your convictions, if someone told you that a life-saving cure was invented for an ailment you had, and was tested to 99% hypothesis levels, would you consider this to not be reasonable evidence and reject the treatment? Or even better, if the above applied but a few 'believers' came into the room and said the treatment wouldn't work because their god/s told them so (based on someone internal and immeasurable to them.). Would you hold both points of view to be equally valid. Would this be a quandary for you?

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

Should they be attacked if their beliefs dictate to them that they should get other people to believe what they do? Are you limiting your question to belief in God or all unsubstanciated beliefs?

Lets say I'm limiting it to belief in god, for simplicity.

fergalr

leaba wrote: »

Surely when you walk around the planet there's plenty of evidence that you are walking around a planet. I don't know of any evidence of a computer simulation.

Have you seen the move 'the matrix'? Its a good pop culture exposition of this idea (great movie too, btw) - the people in the computer simulation don't see any evidence of the computer simulation (in general).
They see lots of evidence they are walking around on a planet.

I think this line of argument is on very solid ground. (hehe)

jim o doom

fergalr wrote: »

Hey, that's not an argument against what I'm saying
I'm not even claiming that strong of a position, I'm just saying that at a very basic level there's some things pretty much all of us accept as true, without evidence for, so why not god too? (from a lack of evidence perspective etc, might be other good reasons against it etc)

christ on a bike man. Why not god too? because what we accept as constants, i.e. REALITY have sensory inputs - which could be theorised to be something else - but like chewy existing in some faraway galaxy is highly unlikely. We have to accept these constants to exist - if we took gravity to possibly not exist, we might be clinging to the ground the whole time. If we REALLY REALLY belived it was all a simulation, we would believe our actions had no consequences in the real world, and would all do as we pleased. If we TRULY believed that 2 + 2 was ANYTHING OTHER than 4 then we would no longer use mathematics - the basis for many things in our modern world. The constants, the reality. We DO NOT have to accept GOD to exist, because it has NO effect on our actual lives.