Belief without evidence argument

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.

Flamed Diving

fergalr wrote: »

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)

Do you remember that the program in that movie had glitches in the system, like a duplicate event happening anytime 'they' changed something (the black cat scene). Would that not count as evidence that something is not quite right?

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

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)

I have seen the movie.

Is this the basis of the question? There was a movie where people believed the evidence and they were wrong, so maybe people that believe without evidence are right, so should we leave them alone?

fergalr

ShooterSF wrote: »

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

Great, thanks. Good to go different places, thats why I came here to talk to others

ShooterSF wrote: »

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?

Well, lets see here...
I would probably not admire this persons belief to quite the same as someone who believed in an untestable, immeasurable, but present, god. I but I might admire it on the same level as someone who believes in, for example, transubstantiation.

Assuming this person held on to some elementary beliefs about their perception of reality - and thus did not witness themselves growing bigger when they ate the mushroom - but maintained the the belief that the mushroom would instantly make them grow bigger - I would lose a lot of admiration for their beliefs, as they were now believing something that was clearly contradictory to they observed in the world. I get a bit worried when people persist in believing things contrary to what they observe (ie, what they communicate to me that they observe, not what I insist they observed) in the world. If I met a physical chemist who firmly believed in transubstantiation, and after analysing a substance they firmly believed to have transsubstantiated, and believed in physics and chemistry, but in testing the sustance found it had not transsubstantiated, but continued to believe in the transubstantiation, then they'd be in the same category.


In another scenario, assuming this 'video game believer' relaxed all those earlier beliefs they had about perception, so that they genuinely did convince themselves they grew bigger when they ate the mushroom, well this means that this persons experience of reality is now so divergent from mine that I'm going to find it hard to interact with them in a meaningful way. If this person had a set of beliefs that allowed them interact non dangerously with the rest of society, I'd be happy for them to go their own way, but would conclude their world view was pretty mad (not necessarily less valid, not necessarily having less objective evidence to support it, but definitely not compatible with mine). If they were going to hurt other people due to their beliefs about rings (say, that they thought bertie ahern was dr. robotnik, and needed his head jumped on), they'd probably need to be taken into some sort of protective custody.


If someone believes in a god then I probably wouldn't view it in hugely different terms, in terms of how much I respect it or not - and what I'd do about it would depend very much on what the consequences of their belief would be.

I'd say this is largely how a secular society treats religions anyway - believe what you want, as you as your not planning on infringing on the rights of others with your beliefs?

If I met someone who had a genuine belief in god, because they felt a genuine sense of a higher power, but they told me that it wasn't measurable, or acting in the external world in any way, I would not argue with them on the basis that they lacked evidence. Even if that god was a furry fox with two tails.
I might argue on the basis that it wasn't a useful belief to have, or on a range of other grounds, but not on the basis of a lack of evidence.
Does that make sense?

fergalr

Dades wrote: »

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

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

Lets pretend I used the world evidence then (probably should have), and go forward on those terms.

Dades wrote:

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.

I would like to see this developed further.
In what way is their more evidence that this reality we perceive is not a simulation than that it is?
Would our perceptions not be exactly the same if were in a computer simulation?
We have no frame of reference to compare against that would be outside the simulation, so how can we say one is more likely than the other?
So, in what way do our perceptions point more to an external reality than to a computer simulation?

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"!

Yes, of course they are.
As I said in my original post, I talking about when Dawkins rubbishes belief on the basis that there is no evidence for it. I'm not talking about people that come on to boards to make unsubstanated claims about what evidence of their god there is in the world - that's different, and irrelevant here, afaik.

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

Hey, if she's a new one to you, then I should get to name her!
I like Mindor.

But I've definitely heard of people that believe in a god that doesn't intervene - theres loads of people I've talked to that believe in some sort of higher power, even if they don't believe that power has caused people to be born, or intervened in the world, etc.


Anyway, the only point in that post that I can see relevant is the attack you make on my claim that a computer simulation is equally supported interpretation of what we perceive. What evidence were you talking about?

fergalr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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?

Hold on a moment here, my convictions are just fine, and they'd be just fine with taking that treatment, thanks very much. I believe that if things happen a of times in a certain way, they're likely to continue happening in that way. I believe that inductive reasoning is a very very powerful tool, and will almost always be right.

I just don't claim to have evidence for those believes, or to believe them based on evidence.
Just the same as some people don't claim of have evidence for beliefs they hold.
Thats the whole reason I introduced this example, it's exactly what I was getting at.

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?

From the point of view of believing something because there was evidence available, I would hold both points of view to be equally valid.
There might be other reasons to hold, or even act to enforce, one point of view over the other though.
But I strictly limited my initial discussion the discussion of holding a view or rejecting a view, based on evidence for it.

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.

The point of having this discussion is to establish whether it is reasonable to attack theists' beliefs on the basis of a lack of evidence for what they believe.
I have seen nothing so far to convince me that this is reasonable.

Based on what I'm saying, we only know things from a certain set of axioms. We can definitely have conversations with people, if, at some deep level, we have enough common axioms. But I'm arguing that these axioms are ones we adopt out of convenience.
And if a theist adopts belief in god as an axiom, then we can't argue against it, purely due to a lack of evidence, because we have no evidence for our axioms either.

We could definitely argue against it on other grounds, such as utility to the rest of us or whatever, but not on the lack of evidence grounds.

I may be wrong on this, but that's the best conclusion I have reached so far...
but there are more posts to read

fergalr

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I quite sure that mathematics is the only discipline where the term 'proof' can be applied.

Well, not according to the dictionary, where it has a common usage as well.

It is incorrect to use it when discussing metaphysical matters.

I am willing to take your word for this, as I know little of such things.

It was perhaps a poor choice of words, even if purely because of the amount of posts on it.

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.

I have not seen any of that evidence. But I don't wish to get into that here; what this is about is if there were no evidence, would it be reasonable to attack those who believed without it, purely on that grounds?

fergalr

jimbling wrote: »

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

Er, thanks
I honestly don't think so though, just trying to get at something.
It's pretty out there, but so is the subject matter.

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:

Yeah, by my argument at the start, you can't argue that anything is completely impossible/wrong without a set of givens.
By all means, if you've got a good line of reasoning that will place everything on a solid footing without any assumptions underlying it, then enlighten me.
I'm sorry to have to bring things to this level, obviously we can't live our day to day lives wondering if there's a lion in the attic, but when discussing the existence of god, and how reasonable it is to believe in such, (and this is the atheist forum so dont think its out of place) then perhaps discussing things at this level is unavoidable.

You can certainly say 'the whole line or argument is just ridiculous' and dismiss the whole thing out of hand - that's your prerogative, but might be a course of action more commonly associated with hard line theists.

fergalr

ShooterSF wrote: »

Can you answer my question below so...

Answered, working through the posts top to bottom, so there's a bit of latency

pH

I'm still unsure what exactly is the point you're making. Is it that (some) atheists are hypocritical to say that theists shouldn't believe in God without evidence? Is it that it's illogical to do so, or that they have no 'right' (whatever that may be) to do so? Perhaps you should restate the point/argument you're trying to make.

ShooterSF

fergalr wrote: »

Answered, working through the posts top to bottom, so there's a bit of latency

Appreciated. Ill get back to ya when I get the time for a proper reply (Hopefully later). Not sure this will ever go anywhere but atleast you can't be accused of not responding, as seen by your replies above, unlike others