Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[PixyMisa]

And many beliefs we all possess have no evidential support at all.

Name one.

 

[yrreg]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

I ascertain that you've delineated your position for us.

 

[RandFan]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

You are not even responding in any meaningful way.

 

[six7s]

And many beliefs we all possess have no evidential support at all.

Name one.

​

Hands up who has 'evidential support' for that belief

 

[Radrook]

It all boils down to what we choose and don't choose, or refuse to classify as evidence doesn't it? This might involve inconsistency of policy making it a flagrant disregard of cogent reasoning. But hey! Who cares as long as it denies.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Irony rating: 8.15

Not bad, but remember we've been wooed by the best, so consider that a good grade.

 

[paximperium]

It all boils down to what we choose and don't choose, or refuse to classify as evidence doesn't it?

This might involve inconsistency of policy making it a flagrant disregard of cogent reasoning.

But hey! Who cares as long as it denies.

Most people find it odd that you'd insult yourself.

I guess you're coming to the conclusion that your denial of evolution, science and reality is nothing more than a "flagrant disregard of cogent reasoning."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For background of the present thread please go to here.


Atheists love to demand evidence for God's existence; but when they are asked to give some ideas of what they understand by God, they will insist they don't have to give any ideas of God because they deny His existence.

Just love beating up on those straw opponents, don't you?

What is God?​

Yrreg

If we look critically at the evidence, gods are mythical beings created by human imagination.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

[tangent/mini derail]

When I logged on and saw the Rule 12 Breach, I figured it was for me (hadn't received such a notice before).
I was worried that D was pulling the plug on my irony ratings until I realized it was for eg.

Whew! I suppose I'm still in business...at least for now.

 

[cj.23]

The trouble with this argument is that it then supposes that all evidence is equal, or even that all beliefs are equal, which is clearly not the case. In addition, what you might consider evidence for a belief, may be evidence of something completely different.

Unless you can show that a certain piece of evidence supports a theist's belief and nothing else...

Yeah: my point is broader though. The statement "atheists have no beliefs" I find false, because clearly atheists like anyone else, have beliefs. "atheists do not hold theistic beliefs" - that is fine: it goes without saying.

I have been thinking about this for a while since reading a 1991 piece by the parapsychologist Richard Broughton, in which he says he does not have a belief in psi - because a belief is something that is held without evidence. I just don't think that the possession or otherwise of evidence makes the slightest difference: he holds a belief in psi, just as atheist almost by definition hold a belief in "no God".

So let's answer as clearly as I can.

1. Any statement "Atheists are..." is probably false unless it is "Atheists do not believe in God." (Not quite though "Atheists are human: Atheists breathe or breathed air: Atheists have parents" all true as well.) Atheism is defined by a single negative belief - the lack of a belief in Gods.

2. Therefore the claim "Atheists possess beliefs based upon evidence" is clearly rot. I know atheists who regularly commune with the dead, being Spiritualists, and atheists who believe in the Bermuda Triangle. There beliefs are evidentially based I guess, but not compelling to me, or most people. There exist atheists who are atheist because they feel no god, but have never examioned their claims. Almost any kind of person with almost any belief structure can adopt atheism. So as point 1 suggests, we can not assign any given statement to atheists as normatve beyond the defining "non-belief in deities", and thoise shared by the greater set humans.

3. All human beings possess millions of beliefs. My beliefs about the Cleveland Indains may or may not be accurate, but I possess them. I also possess beliefs about norovirii, millwall fans, my fathers appearance, my cats diet, Abba's discography, 19th century religion, Soapy Sam's wit, and a million and one other things. Many of those beliefs will actually be false: this is a human thing, and i find it hard to understand how people would deny it to be true. After all, our brains evolved for adaptive advantage, NOT necessarily the pursuit of objective truth about ultimate reality. So useful beliefs can survive evenb if false, and this applies on an individual level even more than on a cultural one i suspect.

4. As Hokulele has pointed out, beliefs stand independent of the evidence which can be mustered to support them. If I ask a friend if they believe in Evolution, they will say yes. Whereas I can provide considerable evidential support for my belief in adaption by natural selection and biological evolution, they believe it because they were taught it at school, but they can't recall the details or make an evidential case for that belief. So what? Objective truth is independent of the ability of any given individual to make a case for that belief. Because my friend would fail completely to answer Behe in a debate about ID, that in no way means Behe's ID is correct and my friend vague suspicion there is something wrong incorrect. So therefore we do not apply the evidential standard to most of our reasoning at a personal level: we buy in to a hegemonic construction of reality, at a societal/cultural level. Some people adopt a set of say Roman Catholic beliefs: others Socialist beliefs; others Scientific beliefs - but generally we do not critique all our beliefs from the ground up. The willingness to do so is a great thing, but most people in pursuit of survival accept a large body of unverified beliefs. This applies to all of us.

5. Randfan from a practical applied system of pramatism which I respect has suggested that the volition or choice behind a belief is irelevant - beliefs are beliefs, regardless of whether we choose to possess them, or the beliefs were adopted by us unconsciously. I think this is a critical point -- because most of our beliefs are NOT to my mind chosen at all, but the result of exposure to ideas and data. I don't think many people choose to be atheists or theists or whatever - I think most people adopt a set of beliefs consistent with how they see ultimate reality. SO beliefs change with exposure to other beliefs as much as evidence...

6. My final point for now: it strike sme this whole argument revolves around theistic beliefs. I find theistic beliefs no different from any other set of beliefs, whether the belief there is a God, or the belief there is not a God. However i would argue the position that any group of people stand independent of possessing beliefs is clearly false, quite obviously so -- and ca be made only by placing theistic beliefs in a totally different category to all other beliefs.

Hope this has clarified. Any response?

cj x

 

[PixyMisa]

Hands up who has 'evidential support' for that belief

Oh, there are plenty of beliefs held by some without (or contrary to) evidence.

But cj.23 said

And many beliefs we all possess have no evidential support at all.

(My emphasis.)

Which is twaddle.

 

[cj.23]

Oh, there are plenty of beliefs held by some without (or contrary to) evidence.

But cj.23 said
(My emphasis.)

Which is twaddle.

Yes, ok. It is twaddle, because what I should have written is "we all possess many beliefs which have no evidence at all."


cj x

 

[PixyMisa]

I have been thinking about this for a while since reading a 1991 piece by the parapsychologist Richard Broughton, in which he says he does not have a belief in psi - because a belief is something that is held without evidence. I just don't think that the possession or otherwise of evidence makes the slightest difference: he holds a belief in psi, just as atheist almost by definition hold a belief in "no God".

No. An atheist need merely hold no belief in God.

So let's answer as clearly as I can.

1. Any statement "Atheists are..." is probably false unless it is "Atheists do not believe in God." (Not quite though "Atheists are human: Atheists breathe or breathed air: Atheists have parents" all true as well.) Atheism is defined by a single negative belief - the lack of a belief in Gods.

That's not a negative belief. It's a lack of positive belief. Not equivalent.

2. Therefore the claim "Atheists possess beliefs based upon evidence" is clearly rot. I know atheists who regularly commune with the dead, being Spiritualists, and atheists who believe in the Bermuda Triangle. There beliefs are evidentially based I guess, but not compelling to me, or most people. There exist atheists who are atheist because they feel no god, but have never examioned their claims. Almost any kind of person with almost any belief structure can adopt atheism. So as point 1 suggests, we can not assign any given statement to atheists as normatve beyond the defining "non-belief in deities", and thoise shared by the greater set humans.

You seem intent here on smearing out the definition of "belief" in one direction and that of "evidence" in the other.

Is it a belief that I do not expect to suddenly fly straight up through my ceiling into the sky? When I do not normall even give the matter any consideration at all?

3. All human beings possess millions of beliefs. My beliefs about the Cleveland Indains may or may not be accurate, but I possess them. I also possess beliefs about norovirii, millwall fans, my fathers appearance, my cats diet, Abba's discography, 19th century religion, Soapy Sam's wit, and a million and one other things. Many of those beliefs will actually be false: this is a human thing, and i find it hard to understand how people would deny it to be true. After all, our brains evolved for adaptive advantage, NOT necessarily the pursuit of objective truth about ultimate reality. So useful beliefs can survive evenb if false, and this applies on an individual level even more than on a cultural one i suspect.

False beliefs are still, however, false.

4. As Hokulele has pointed out, beliefs stand independent of the evidence which can be mustered to support them. If I ask a friend if they believe in Evolution, they will say yes.

I wouldn't.

I do not believe in Evolution, or, for that matter, gravity.

I conditionally accept that they are reasonably accurate descriptions of how the respective parts of the Universe behave.

Whereas I can provide considerable evidential support for my belief in adaption by natural selection and biological evolution, they believe it because they were taught it at school, but they can't recall the details or make an evidential case for that belief. So what? Objective truth is independent of the ability of any given individual to make a case for that belief.

So?

Because my friend would fail completely to answer Behe in a debate about ID, that in no way means Behe's ID is correct and my friend vague suspicion there is something wrong incorrect. So therefore we do not apply the evidential standard to most of our reasoning at a personal level: we buy in to a hegemonic construction of reality, at a societal/cultural level.

Boy, have you come to the wrong place.

Some people adopt a set of say Roman Catholic beliefs: others Socialist beliefs; others Scientific beliefs

Bzzzt!

What are these "Scientific beliefs"?

but generally we do not critique all our beliefs from the ground up.

Again, you might not, but be careful with that we you're spraying around.

The willingness to do so is a great thing, but most people in pursuit of survival accept a large body of unverified beliefs. This applies to all of us.

There's a difference between verification and evidence. I cannot tell that I won't fly up through the ceiling until it doesn't happen. But I have no reason to think that it will happen, because it never does.

Many aspects of our personal working models of reality are unverifiable in this way, just as no scientific theory can ever be proven true. That does not mean that they are without evidence.

5. Randfan from a practical applied system of pramatism which I respect has suggested that the volition or choice behind a belief is irelevant - beliefs are beliefs, regardless of whether we choose to possess them, or the beliefs were adopted by us unconsciously. I think this is a critical point -- because most of our beliefs are NOT to my mind chosen at all, but the result of exposure to ideas and data.

I agree with you here. The act of chosing belief seems to me to be the act of deliberate self-delusion.

I don't think many people choose to be atheists or theists or whatever - I think most people adopt a set of beliefs consistent with how they see ultimate reality. SO beliefs change with exposure to other beliefs as much as evidence...

Except when they don't.

6. My final point for now: it strike sme this whole argument revolves around theistic beliefs. I find theistic beliefs no different from any other set of beliefs, whether the belief there is a God, or the belief there is not a God.

And many of us possess neither belief.

However i would argue the position that any group of people stand independent of possessing beliefs is clearly false, quite obviously so -- and ca be made only by placing theistic beliefs in a totally different category to all other beliefs.

I don't see why this is unreasonable at all.

If I believed that turtles were huge ferocious arboreal hunting beasts and that tigers were small and blue and fed only on jellybeans, a quick trip to the zoo would sort me out.

This approach is simply not available to theistic beliefs, which are essentially defined so as to be immune to evidence. They are an entirely different class of concepts, more akin to paranoid conspiracy theories than to the testable, discardable assumptions of everyday life.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, ok. It is twaddle, because what I should have written is "we all possess many beliefs which have no evidence at all."


cj x

Evidence?

 

[cj.23]

No. An atheist need merely hold no belief in God.

Then they are an agnostic. An atheist must not believe in Gods, which is a positive belief.

That's not a negative belief. It's a lack of positive belief. Not equivalent.

Agreed, the belief that Gods do not exist is a positive claim.

You seem intent here on smearing out the definition of "belief" in one direction and that of "evidence" in the other. Is it a belief that I do not expect to suddenly fly straight up through my ceiling into the sky? When I do not normall even give the matter any consideration at all?

Yes. Beliefs do not have to be active to be beliefs. It is still a belief.

False beliefs are still, however, false.

Yes.

I wouldn't.
I do not believe in Evolution, or, for that matter, gravity.
I conditionally accept that they are reasonably accurate descriptions of how the respective parts of the Universe behave.

Yes: you believe them. That belief is provisional, based upon evidence, but it still a belief! You appear to hold a definition of belief at contrary to that employed by a) popular usage b) psychology and c) philosophy??? The category belief to you appears to be entirely restricted to unevidenced claims - it;s a rather idiosyncratic usage, which bears no relation to how belief is common employed. Maybe put it in quote marks?

So?

With reference to my statement "Objective truth is independent of the ability of any given individual to make a case for that belief."? No idea, what is your issue with the claim? My point was to clarify that an appeal to evidential based reasoning does not in fact constitute correctness: it's a major problem with say debates for example. My wider point was the epistemological limitations derived from our developmental evolutionary psych based brains in assessing truth. I'm not really sure how to reply to "so?"

Boy, have you come to the wrong place.

How so? The url appears correct, and I generally find this to be the right place. Can you explain. I am afraid you appear a little confused -- I was looking for the JREF forum, is that not where i am?

Bzzzt
What are these "Scientific beliefs"?

Those parts of the Scientific discourse which are hegemonic in our society of course - the actual content will vary widely, but there is in the uK for example a broad based acceptance of evolution, most people know a little physcis and biology from school, and there is a cultural perception that there was a Big Bang and stars are a long way away.

but generally we do not critique all our beliefs from the ground up

Again, you might not, but be careful with that we you're spraying around.

Then can you explain to me how you managed to critique the belief that there was a universe external to your mind, that is how you refuted radical solipsism and moved beyond "cogito ergo sum"? How you establised that mathematics in some way models reality? How you know you are you, rather than somone else dreaming? have you ever investigated critically the claim George Washington was first President of the USA (not te Continental Congress note?) have you established why the sky is blue, and the night sky black rather than as we migt expect white? Look face it, we all accept claims all the time without aving time to check them out. It's a survival sort cut. We would never function otherwise. To claim otherwise is ridicolous...

The willingness to do so is a great thing, but most people in pursuit of survival accept a large body of unverified beliefs. This applies to all of us.

There's a difference between verification and evidence. I cannot tell that I won't fly up through the ceiling until it doesn't happen. But I have no reason to think that it will happen, because it never does.

Yes, so you hold a belief because the evidence of your experience counts against it, fair enough. So you admit we hold all kind of unverified beliefs? My belief in the Big Bang is unverified by me - I have never grabbed the equipment to personally survey the CMBR, and it could all be photoshopped. I have never testedmy theories on the causes of inflation in the frist quarter of the 13th century in England. And so forth... Often, my scientific knowledge, whcih I think is reasonably fair, is derived from arguments from authority. I accept this -- I do not have time to verify every claim, to examine all the evidence. In the areas of religion and parapsychology I happen to have a couple of decades of academic research - so I speak with a little more conviction, but like you I accept my beliefs are provisional and subject to new evidence. Importantly, I also believe that on many issues based on the evidence currently available intelligent people who are fully familar with the data can draw conflicting opinions.


I'll finish replying shortly - just have to grab dinner from the oven.

cj x

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think we are, again stumbling on the word 'belief'. That word has more than one meaning.

When a theist says: "I believe in God", it means something quite differently from a person (possibly the same theist) saying something like: "I believe we'll have turkey for Xmas".

In the second instance, the meaning is :"I consider it very likely".

In the same way, when I say "I believe in evolution", the meaning is: "I hold it extremely probable that evolution is true".

In the same way, for an atheist to say: "I believe in no god", the meaning is (except maybe for the rare dogmatic atheist): "I lack positive belief in god".

All else is semantics.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then they are an agnostic. An atheist must not believe in Gods, which is a positive belief.

No. First of all, I suggest you refrain from telling other people what they believe (or don't believe), and if you are going to be dogmatic about -isms, then an agnostic is someone who believes that God is unknowable.

For the normal soft atheist or agnostic the difference is simply how much slack you give to the idea of a god.

Then can you explain to me how you managed to critique the belief that there was a universe external to your mind, that is how you refuted radical solipsism and moved beyond "cogito ergo sum"?

For all paractical purposes, the world acts as if it exists.

How you establised that mathematics in some way models reality? How you know you are you, rather than somone else dreaming? have you ever investigated critically the claim George Washington was first President of the USA (not te Continental Congress note?) have you established why the sky is blue, and the night sky black rather than as we migt expect white? Look face it, we all accept claims all the time without aving time to check them out.

I agree that we probably all take something at face value sometimes, but "checking out" a fact needs not entail doing all the research personally. For that purpose we have various levels of authorities and various systems of peer review. Or, as some put it: "Normally reliable sources".

Hans

 

[cj.23]

No. First of all, I suggest you refrain from telling other people what they believe (or don't believe), and if you are going to be dogmatic about -isms, then an agnostic is someone who believes that God is unknowable.

Ditto, unless you are sure of your facts.

Either is acceptable in popular usage - from Merriam-Webster

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

So by using it in the broad sense i am hardly imputing any quality to other parties the common usage of the term will not support. I fail to understand the objection? You appear to be limiting agnostic to a very limited sense which defies both the origins and common usage of the word?

And anyway an agnostic is not someone who believe God was unknowable: an agnostic is someone who denies special revelation. Evidence? Huxley, in his 1889 Agnosticism. Of course here I commit the genetic fallacy - assuming a word means that what its originator intended - but in Huxley's use, agnosticism was compatible with deism, and fideism, and theism which excluded claims of special revelation. His actual religious thinking is fascinating: anyway, when I use the term agnostic I do so in the general sense, but Huxley did NOT believe that the existence or otherwise fo God was unknowable, as it happens. I'll dust off Agnosticism and review his thinking if you want?

Actually I'll go dig it out. It's interesting... I'll reply to the rest in a moment --

cj x

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually I'll go dig it out. It's interesting... I'll reply to the rest in a moment --

cj x

No, that was my point: It is not interesting. However, your entire line of argument relies on some specific interpretation of words like "atheist" and "belief". This may be an interesting discussion, if we are discussing semantics, but AFAIK, we are discussing religion.

The fact is that, regardless of what you decide to call it, the position of most non-theists is lack of a positive beleif in any god.

Hans