Evidence should determine belief. But in so much of humanity, beliefs determine evidence.
The former is honest, the latter is dishonest. Choose wisely.
Discussion
But the former is impossible. Our presuppositions condition our interpretations of all evidence -- i.e., there is no such thing as neutrality. Especially in questions of metaphysics...
Roy A. Clouser, [The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories](https://amzn.to/3Ug8rdo)
There is evidence that is credible and objective and can be interpreted reliably. It’s rare, but relevant beliefs can be strongly anchored in such precious information.
And this adds to an implicit point I’m making here - admitting one doesn’t know in many instances is the only honest way. Instead of being certain in beliefs that are objectively unknowable as there isn’t (and will never be) any credible evidence to support the erroneous belief.
How do you know that some things are unknowable? How do you know that there will "never be" credible evidence to support certain beliefs? Those sound suspiciously like...beliefs... (I mean no disrespect here, just engaging, if you don't mind).
Life is meaningless without secrets, for it's the quest of discovery that gives one purpose.
I agree. There are so many untold secrets of the universe.
Given the size and complexity of the universe with our basic (and exceptionally incomplete) current understanding do you think humans can ever possibly uncover all there is to know? Base reality gets too small and too large. The numbers are too big. Can you guess a specific private key? It’s “possible”, but it’s actually not possible. The numbers for “knowing all” are bigger. Way bigger. It’s well past what’s possible.
I find it very telling the religious people take exception to the statement “evidence should determine belief” as it digs into the heart of why religion is an erroneous belief system.
What evidence for the existence of God would you find persuasive?
It makes sense to me there is a “god” or a creator or some unfathomable force behind the universe. But I have the humility to admit I could be completely wrong and that I have no idea what that means in any real way.
The likelihood I am VERY wrong in my conception of base-reality is quite high. I accept my fate as an uncertain, ignorant and minimally-knowing being. It’s the only honest tack.
Religions are man-made fictions. Just words in books that have been forked and changed hundreds of times, typically malevolently so, largely done with the intent to subjugate and control. A malicious telephone game across millennium - nothing more. Unreliable and unfounded.
Could it be that your skepticism is what is unwarranted? It's certainly a modern bias to be skeptical, which postmodernism takes to dogmatic extremes.
Belief is harder than skepticism because it means submitting yourself to an external authority, rather than holding yourself aloof and independent. It's interesting the extent to which secular humanism and empiricism have turned classical thinking around.
Being skeptical ≠ not knowing
I know there is a lot I don’t know and can’t know. That’s honest and objectively true.
Ardent belief in a particular religion is a state where one conflates belief with certainty. It is a fallacious state of being. And it isn’t hard. It’s much easier to say “yes I have faith. Faith that the belief of my family / society / culture / religion is the RIGHT one. That there is eternal bliss beyond the difficult and scary and painful existence of a mortal human. And a belief the other religions and ways of life are the WRONG ones”. These ideas have been around in most human cultures (pre-Christianity) because they provide an easily-accessible way to cope with universal human difficulties. But it is fallacious and dishonest to conflate a belief with certainty.
in fact, people who are certain in their belief regularly kill/die fighting other people who are also certain of THEIR belief, all of them quite possibly sincere, and yet…
… are they all correct???
c.s. lewis has an interesting take on this in The Last Battle btw
(apologies for jumping in here with a non-sequitur)
That's sort of my point — everyone has epistemological anchors that they work from. Starting from a position of skepticism doesn't exempt you from the very fallacy you're pointing out. The agnostic's claim of "God has not spoken" is no different than the believer's claim that he has. And an epistemology based on a concrete event like the life of Jesus is far more reliable than one based on an admission of ignorance. Agnosticism has the appearance of wisdom, but never reaches the truth. The question is, what if God spoke in a way you understood? Is there anything that could defeat your skepticism?
You can find accounts from millions of people throughout history who genuinely believe they have talked to god. Many different gods with many different and often conflicting things to “say”. You’re singling out one person from the heap to “anchor” to. It’s completely arbitrary and dependent on the conditions you were born into.
Many schizophrenics are absolutely certain they talk to god, why don’t you “anchor” to them?
Millions of people believe they’ve seen ghosts, should I anchor my reality to one of their stories too?
This is the ultimate “trust me bro” nonsense argument. Makes feel sorry for the state of your mind seeing the depths of your mental gymnastics and how far you’ll go to protect your delusions.
The solution to uncertainty is not to deny the existence of truth. There are resources at our disposal to evaluate the claims of schizophrenics and prophets. It's disingenuous to equivocate insanity and faith.
I’ve never denied the existence of truth. You have no way to verify Jesus wasn’t a schizophrenic. He was an Arabic man alive 2000+ years ago. The records of what he said and did around today are dubious at best. Telephone game on steroids.
You’re picking what evidence you accept and don’t accept with your biases, which goes back to the exact point I made - you are letting your beliefs determine what evidence you accept as credible. Doing so exactly what the original post was highlighting. The irony isn’t lost on me.
What makes your biases better than mine? How do you propose to access truth?
Admit you don’t know. That’s it.
Absolute epistemological certainty? No. But I am "convinced" of the God I've entrusted myself to, as Paul says. The thing is, if I'm wrong, I'm no worse than someone who can't commit themselves to anything.
The thing is, the only options I see are nihilism and theism. Nihilism is incoherent, theism requires transcendence to work, which really narrows down your options. Agnosticism is lazy and pointless.
Those are subjective takes and of course you’re entitled to think whatever you want.
To me, simply accepting the warped propaganda of your forefathers known as Christianity and assimilating into that narrow culture is the easy (or lazy) route - the clear path of least resistance.
Questioning the nature of reality and being open to all possibilities and accepting uncertainty with unflinching courage is stimulating, fulfilling and the far more difficult route.
To each their own. Though I will always question those who claim certainty on matters they can’t be certain about - and that’s where these conversations started. Thank you for admitting you’re not certain, I respect you for that.
Btw I never made the claim my biases were “better” than yours or that I have “access” to the truth. Fallacious straw man argumentation.
This answers my question at least. Your own position is that you have no argument against mine, it seems. You're just being stubborn by force of will, not reason.
WILLIAM
You missed the mark in claiming I rely on skepticism (as I addressed in my previous reply) but the claim that skepticism is a modern bias is laughable. The Socratic method is pure skepticism and it’s a 2500 year old tradition.
The kind of skepticism that comes from modern empiricism is very different from classical dialectic, which was at least directed at some Good. Postmodern skepticism isn't really skepticism in the classical sense, just a corrosive estrangement of the self from reality (c.f. Love and the Postmodern Predicament).
> Religions are man-made fictions.
Why not apply the same skepticism to that claim? What's it based on? A rigorous dialectic proving the non-existence of God, or a premise based on lack of evidence?
The point of divine revelation is that our starting point as humans absolutely is skepticism of the worst kind. But God breaks into that reality in a way we can understand — word, person, symbol, and sacrament. True faith has to be placed in something external to the self — it's an acceptance of God's spoken word and work, not a retreat from reality.
I grant that the truth is obscured by many competing ideas, narratives, distortions, etc. But the lack of clarity doesn't imply an absence of truth.
Anyhoooo
this is just simplistic and naive. read the traditionalists.
at the risk of broken recordism, start with The Crisis of the Modern World by Rene Guenon.
If you were born in Iran you’d be a devout Muslim, sure that allah was THE great god in the sky. Ready to reward your devotion to that narrow brand of fanaticism. You’re all the same, just with different idols and symbols to bow to. Same replies. Same fears. Sitting on the same false premises.
You are absolutly correct that evidence shold determine belief. And yet you are here insisting that the evidence is unknowable. Where you are unaware is that religion has little to do with faith. Men find out they can manipulate people with religion and Ah Ha! What a wonderful tool it is to them.
Faith is something else, and is only possible to understand through opening the mind to the word of God. What is knowable about God is manifest and percieved by the things made. One has to seek the evidence. Yes there is a creator, and yes, he has power beyond our understanding. He ensured that we would have access to everything we need in order to believe it, and yet concealed enough of it that we have to really seek it out.
Stop listening to the nonsense from men and seek the knowledge from the creator.
Credible evidence should determine belief. But everything can’t be known credibly - the scales are too big and too small and complexity unending. Therefore, certainty in belief can’t exist in every realm. That’s it. That’s the point.
Thank you for your input and we mostly agree here. I don’t agree with anthropomorphizing god as a “he” but most everything else, yes.
To the best of my ability my conception of god is that it is The Fundamental Force within everything (the fundamental building blocks of the universe) that make things work, interact and evolve - entropy. And so I see god everywhere and I’m in constant awe of the world and its unending complexity and beauty and entropy.
"Credible evidence should determine belief. But everything can’t be known credibly - the scales are too big and too small and complexity unending. Therefore, certainty in belief can’t exist in every realm. That’s it. That’s the point."
I agree with you, however, keep on seeking and you will find. There is such a thing as 'the more important things'. Those words are true, spoken to us by the Son of God. I was not there and yet I believe. The credible evidence is recorded for me in a book that miraculously has been preserved for thousands of years against strong efforts to have it removed and altered. I believe the book is preserved becuase I see the power of the one preserving it, and 'his' power is undeniable. ('he' created us male and female, so our understanding uses that construct: It is not simply language, in that the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ, and the head of the Christ is God) Men keep on twisting the things written, so we need to test what they say against what we know using all credible evidence we believe to be accurate. 😀
Mostly ppl just repeating things they learned as they perceive patterns they recognise. Can't explain things the willfully NPC
Hmm, contrary thought to my last comment: If free will is limited by social and intellectual substrate it exists within(community) and communities that dont face reality die in hard times, then the boundary conditions for delusional behaviour are insularity (North Korea) or dissolution (Soviet Union)
maybe?
Every comment you have made in this thread is a comment I relate to and could easily have said myself. All the replies make me think "what the hell?" I'm sorry you are here defending yourself and everyone is against you. I agree with you BTC_P2P.
I would go so far as to say that god is undefinable and therefore questions of his existence are meaningless.
If anybody dains to define god and claim that such a god exists, given any typical definition, I would believe it about as much as I believe that every dog turns itself inside out on a daily basis. Like, maybe they do. I've never watched a dog for 24 hours straight. But I have no reason to believe it. No evidence, no logical inferrence, nothing.
Belief in God is delusional. But it is a social delusion, and thus persistent. It is also deeply rooted, and not shakable via argumentation. So I don't bother to argue the position. I was raised as a Christian and gave it up as I matured, so I know what it is like to have a strongly held belief, and I don't think less of believers.
I have no issue talking to people about these things. I think it’s interesting and stimulating. The logical inconsistencies and fallacious arguments are obnoxious though, especially the pervasive straw man fallacies. They typically talk past what I actually wrote and warp statements into arguments they wish I’d made, that they can more easily attack. It’s a common tactic but dishonest.
Speaking for myself, it's not my intention to use strawman arguments, I've been on the receiving end of them as well; they're very annoying. These conversations always seem to end at an impasse, but let me try again by asking a question rather than making an argument.
I can understand why someone would be an agnostic. Epistemological certainty is hard/impossible. But what I don't understand is if you're consistent about it how can anything matter? If you don't believe in any kind of base reality how can you have a basis for ethics, or even a belief that you live in the real world?
Curious what you would say is an example of credible and objective evidence.
Credible evidence is a rare phenomenon vs total amount of information.
Things that can be demonstrated (and re-demonstrated) by math - chemistry and physics - can be credible.
Experiments that can be measured accurately and replicated (and have been).
Things like ice-cores and geological records. Proper fossil records.
DNA. Some forms of forensic analysis (basically physics).
Engineering schematics / plans that can be replicated.
Archeological records of many types.
Bitcoin actually lol
Not much out there that I personally feel is rock solid credible evidence.
I do believe there is a base reality but I do not know that it can be discerned by humans. Maybe, but seems unlikely to me. I’m open to the possibility but I also have a hunch that the human mind isn’t equipped to comprehend it per se. That base reality is so bizarre it’s effectively beyond human comprehension. But, I could be wrong. I don’t know.
I genuinely believe that everyone should work hard, provide value, be honest, do their absolute best to help other people / animals and be their best self. If everyone did that the world would be a radically better place.
Corruption and injustice piss me off. If I was a morally corrupt person, I’d hate myself.
I feel exceptionally lucky to be alive, to think and to act. I see beauty all over. And to me there is so much meaning in just observing this world and being able to appreciate it. Then add in things like building and creating, epiphanies, learning, love, helping people, freedom, triumph. My life has so much subjective meaning. I really view every single day I am free and healthy as an infinitely valuable gift. I’ve already won the lottery by being born, everyday is just an extension.
I don’t know what’ll happen when I die. I accept that. I think something amazing might happen, just no way I can conceive of it yet. Maybe nothing will happen. But either way I do my best to live with honor and integrity because that’s what makes sense to me. That’s something I can be proud of and that no one can take from me, ever. And when the time comes, I’m hoping to die with honor. That’s the most I can do I figure.
Sorry to get all sentimental. Just trying to give you an insight into my personal philosophy.
I respect all those values. And I guess there's a difference between having epistemological warrant for acting in a certain way, and using common sense to make your decisions. So it's possible to have values and beliefs, even if you can't fully justify them philosophically.
But having any values at all is still a result of implicitly trusting the intelligibility of the universe, which you don't necessarily affirm. If the universe isn't intelligible, none of your values really matter ultimately — but of course, you wouldn't be able to know. Maybe we're all crazy.
The reason I'm a Christian is because that problem bothers me. The universe seems intelligible; nothing would matter if it wasn't; therefore the only constructive belief possible is that it is intelligible. There are other rational beliefs, but they all boil down to theoretical, if not practical, nihilism.
So maybe I'm delusional, but there are other reasons to believe things than reason on its own. I am a fan of teleological arguments: "what is it for?" We need at least the illusion of purpose in order to function as moral agents. I prefer to believe that the purpose I have found for my life is also rational. If I'm wrong, nothing is lost because I live in an irrational, hostile universe. But if I'm right, I have the hope of being restored to the state of goodness I believe man was created in.
The assumed intelligibility of reality for me is evidence of God on its own. God is impossible to really define (as Mike said), but the Christian view is that he is the source of everything good — including order and intelligibility. The fact that order, or even the concept of order, even exists, is evidence of transcendent order. And once you're there, you're not far at all from a personal God.
i remember playing around with Second Life (back when developers and nerds hung out in there. e.g. before it got creepy) and looking at the physics engines being used, shaders, primitives…and realizing the likelihood of the universe self assembling at random was less likely that all of Second Life self assembling on the internet.