Demanding Evidence

[Thales]

…Long story short, it is beneficial to challenge religious beliefs, and there is evidence for the reasoning why, therefore anyone is justified in challenging other peoples’ beliefs.

Sorry this is a little off the OP, but in response to Hubriss’ final statement, I would have to agree. Not only is it generally beneficial to challenge beliefs in an effort to find truth, God seems to be right in allowing it. Our imperfect inteligence including our knowledge of God would stay very primative and maybe misguided if it weren’t for opposition of opinion. Personally, I would not have done the research I have or the inclination to investigate, were it not for the many athiests and their objections to religious thought.

 

[Betterave]

It’s only when things get crazy in terms of supernatural attachments to the story that reasonable folk look askance. Born of a virgin seems highly implausible, any way you look at it, as does resurrection after three days being dead and decomposing. “Summary dismissal” seems quite a reasonable response to those parts of the story, at least barring some battery of compelling evidences that make that narrative more likely (or even close) than the idea that this is legend, fantasy and/or imagination. That is, until such time as this kind of evidence becomes available, summary dismissal appears to be the only reasonably response available.

I also note that atheist who do adopt the view that Jesus was wholly fictional – not a real person who had fabulous stories and miraculous accounts attributed to him – typically are at pains to show why that is their conclusion. Why? Because the idea of a Jew named Yeshua being executed as a political victim of the Roman Empire is manifestly plausible, and given what we know, we’d actually require some argumentation for why even that should be disbelieved.

The case for a historical, perfectly natural and non-miraculous/non-supernatural Jesus seems plenty plausible to me, but for example, Richard Carrier goes to great lengths to articulate a rather convoluted case for the wholly fictional status of Jesus, that Jesus never existed even as a normal man.

In any case, that’s a very long route to such a conclusion, not a summary dismissal.

Hi Leela,

TS denies that his position amounts to scientism but I think that’s because he doesn’t know what scientism is. At any rate, his oh-so-typically-brash comments here could serve as an interesting basis upon which you could clarify for us what you mean to say. What would you want to say about TS’s comments here, within the framework you’ve proposed?

I would just want to say that TS obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He thinks that his scientistic mindset constitutes the benchmark of rationality/ reasonableness (he apparently has a strong intuition about this which he is in love with, even though he claims to eschew intuition). He doesn’t understand that all rationality is based in “forms of life,” many of which he freely comments on without having any knowledge of how they work, while all the while he wildly wields his parochial scientistic convictions as if they were the Platonic form of the Good, the Idea of all ideas (not that I think he understands such concepts - that’s just how he proceeds).

 

[Thales]

When does the intellectual responsibility of having evidence to support our beliefs arise? …The demand for evidence and the duty to supply it should only come up surrounding some common project in which two parties with differring beliefs have agreed to participate…

It would seem an honest person should desire reasonable evidence for their own beliefs as well. The same types of evidence used with any endeavor to convince others. The mind has the ability to question itself, and man has a desire not only to use evidence to convince others, but to convince himself that his ideas accord with truth. Most people do not go around believing just any old ideas they encounter or imagine up. Evidence and inquiry inform and form the ideas into held beliefs, long before the person tries to convince others. We don’t use evidence as just a tool to convice other people, but as conviction; a hook to hang our ideas on to the truth. In any project the truth or reality is a third party to which all other parties in conflict appeal to.

The more important theme of the OP, rather than questioning the need for evidence, is the attempt to justify the idea that beliefs are formed to fulfill desires and not to make sense of truth. By stating “beleifs are habits of action” your entire argument begins with the assumption that beliefs are not the result of inquiry and evidence gathered in response to the beckoning of truth, but to the fulfillment of desires. I think you are assuming this statement and then using that assumption in an argument about the requirement for evidence, to then substantiate the initial assumption. I don’t see how you come to the assumption that desires forms belief and thus beliefs are habits of action; when it seems to me ideas informed by evidence, reason, revelation, etc. in search of validating the “out there” (truth), to which we are drawn, is what forms belief.

 

[Leela]

My position is that I ought to be able explain why I believe what I do. Since, in the Catholic context, at least as Pope Benedict sees it, belief is the response to a proposal (1). The evidence for the validity of this proposal is available for display and explanation. If I cannot justify my belief, than I am a pretty poor disciple of Jesus, and even poorer at the command to “teach all nations”.

(1) This one the main premises in his book, Introduction to Christianity.

If you ave the desire to convince others to believe as you do, then I agree that you then have a duty to provide evidence for your beliefs since you are not merely believing as part of private projects but hoping also have a public project of trying to get others to agree.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

The teaching of Jesus, regardless of its historical context, is sufficient evidence of the authenticity of His claims but you obviously dismiss it as unreasonable because everything naturally seems crazy for some one who rejects the reality of truth, good, evil, freedom, justice and love…

This is a very interesting comment for the purposes of the OP which is to distinguish what sorts of beliefs must submit to demands for evidence and what should count as evidence. In the OP I pointed out that, as James put it, “beliefs are only there for behavior’s sake.” Beliefs exist to satisfy desires. We only believe what we believe because we have the desires we have.

The comment above suggests that you, toneyrey, may be holding your religious beliefs to satisy different needs than TS has in holding his beliefs about religion, which may explain why you feel like your evidence is being dismissed without due consideration. TS is unlikely to see “the teaching of Jesus” as evidence relating to the historical-scientific truth of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. I assume that for TS, the authenticity of “the teaching of Jesus” is a separate question from the question of historical-scientific authenticity ofthe Gospel accounts. What ever moral truth we can gleen from, say, the story of the Good Samaritan is irrelevent in TS’s mind (and mine) to scinece and history. But if you have other aims in mind other that scientific and historical accuracy for your belief in the authenticity of the Gospels, that would explain why what is evidence to you is not evidence to him.

Does that make sense?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

If he can provide evidence for or reach a consensus with an individual on all of this, would he be justified in challenging any religious belief of the other person, even if that person is not using his belief as a reason to act specifically on any public project?

In short, I am saying that if no demand has been mad for me to believe what you believe, then I do not necessarily have the right to demand evidence for your belief. But if your belief contains a demand that I believe as you do (and I’ve argued that historical and scientific claims always include such a demand), then I have the right to demand evidence and you have the duty to submit to demands for evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[Touchstone]

The comment above suggests that you, toneyrey, may be holding your religious beliefs to satisy different needs than TS has in holding his beliefs about religion, which may explain why you feel like your evidence is being dismissed without due consideration. TS is unlikely to see “the teaching of Jesus” as evidence relating to the historical-scientific truth of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.

Indeed. I believe Jesus was a historical, real person, but even if he was made up, just like the story of the Good Samaritan, there is (potentially) a lot of pedagogical value there, a lot of ‘teaching truth’ to be considered and even maybe adopted, and none of that is troubled by the idea that Jesus, or maybe just the Good Samaritan are fictional accounts. This should not be controversial, as this is the stuff of all good literature – interacting in stories with the nature, conflicts, aspirations and fate of mankind.

I assume that for TS, the authenticity of “the teaching of Jesus” is a separate question from the question of historical-scientific authenticity ofthe Gospel accounts.

Yep, and as above, we can accept what is good and human and benevolent in his teachings (and there is much of this) without having to buy into the “whole package” – historical claims of the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc. as well as the teachings of Jesus (and there is much of this) that are anti-human and malignant.

What ever moral truth we can gleen from, say, the story of the Good Samaritan is irrelevent in TS’s mind (and mine) to scinece and history. But if you have other aims in mind other that scientific and historical accuracy for your belief in the authenticity of the Gospels, that would explain why what is evidence to you is not evidence to him.

Does that make sense?

Best,
Leela

You have a solid understanding of the discourse to this point. Kudos. You are explaining things so that even I understand them better than I did.

In short, I am saying that if no demand has been mad for me to believe what you believe, then I do not necessarily have the right to demand evidence for your belief. But if your belief contains a demand that I believe as you do (and I’ve argued that historical and scientific claims always include such a demand), then I have the right to demand evidence and you have the duty to submit to demands for evidence.

Best,
Leela

This is worth quoting and “tipping my hat” to. Well and concisely put.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

The teaching of Jesus, regardless of its historical context, is sufficient evidence of the authenticity of His claims but you obviously dismiss it as unreasonable because everything naturally seems crazy for some one who rejects the reality of truth, good, evil, freedom, justice and love…

If beliefs exist solely to satisfy desires we are all guilty of wishful thinking! Desires are notoriously fickle and untrustworthy as far as reality is concerned. Not only that. According to the hypothesis of blind evolution we have no control over our desires: we are their slaves rather than their masters. We are the products of our selfish genes which are not concerned about what is true - or even about our needs as individuals and social beings.

The comment above suggests that you, tonyrey, may be holding your religious beliefs to satisfy different needs than TS has in holding his beliefs about religion, which may explain why you feel like your evidence is being dismissed without due consideration. TS is unlikely to see “the teaching of Jesus” as evidence relating to the historical-scientific truth of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. I assume that for TS, the authenticity of “the teaching of Jesus” is a separate question from the question of historical-scientific authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

The teaching of Jesus can hardly be a separate question from the question of historical-scientific authenticity because it contains claims about His historical mission and destiny. It is absurd to regard the nobility of His moral teaching as the result of fraud, deception and/or superstition. The truth shines by its own light…

Whatever moral truth we can glean from, say, the story of the Good Samaritan is irrelevant in TS’s mind (and mine) to science and history. But if you have other aims in mind other that scientific and historical accuracy for your belief in the authenticity of the Gospels, that would explain why what is evidence to you is not evidence to him. Does that make sense?

It does indeed! Scientific and historical accuracy are important but more important is the truth about the compassion demonstrated by the Good Samaritan. It is not just moral truth but also spiritual truth. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not human conventions but necessary conditions of our co-existence as members of a universal family. As Jesus said, we do not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In other words all the science in the world cannot bring us genuine fulfilment and happiness. It can, does and should improve our material welfare but what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and nothing more? Love alone is the reason we exist - love for ourselves, for others, for the beautiful world and, above all, for the One who gave us everything we are and possess… In the end this is the only evidence that really matters…

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not the one who has religious beliefs.

That’s odd. All this time I was under the impression that you believe that God does not exist. :coffeeread:

 

[Leela]

That’s odd. All this time I was under the impression that you believe that God does not exist. :coffeeread:

Does not believing in God makes me religious in your way of thinking? That is an odd take, but to each his own.

Do you have any thoughts relative to this thread? Do you find that what you present as evidence to nonbelievers gets dismissed? Can you give any examples?

Do you feel that there are certain aspects of your faith that do not need to be justified to other people?

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

Does not believing in God makes me religious in your way of thinking? That is an odd take, but to each his own.

It’s not an odd take. If you had no religious beliefs you wouldn’t be here.

You’re attempting to redefine what an atheist is by verbal engineering.

It’s dishonest.

 

[Leela]

It would seem an honest person should desire reasonable evidence for their own beliefs as well. The same types of evidence used with any endeavor to convince others. The mind has the ability to question itself, and man has a desire not only to use evidence to convince others, but to convince himself that his ideas accord with truth.

I wonder if there are sorts of beliefs where you would not find it at all important to have reasonable evidence that would convince anyone else. For example, do you feel the need to justify your belief that you love your wife, children, or other loved ones? If your belief is not aimed at satisfying a desire to predict and control such others, and does not include an implicit demand that others need to recognize the truth of your belief, then it seems to me that there is no need to collect evidence to convince anyone including yourself that you really do love your loved ones.

The more important theme of the OP, rather than questioning the need for evidence, is the attempt to justify the idea that beliefs are formed to fulfill desires and not to make sense of truth. By stating “beleifs are habits of action” your entire argument begins with the assumption that beliefs are not the result of inquiry and evidence gathered in response to the beckoning of truth, but to the fulfillment of desires. I think you are assuming this statement and then using that assumption in an argument about the requirement for evidence, to then substantiate the initial assumption. I don’t see how you come to the assumption that desires forms belief and thus beliefs are habits of action; when it seems to me ideas informed by evidence, reason, revelation, etc. in search of validating the “out there” (truth), to which we are drawn, is what forms belief.

I have taken for granted the pragmatic take on belief as a habit of action. My concern in this thread is not to defend that notion as what beliefs really are but just to see where that idea leads us. The question of whether desires underlie all beliefs, on the other hand, seems important to consider here. You propose that beliefs are a response to “the beckoning of truth”–that we are naturally drawn to search for the truth. I don’t think that your proposal is completely at odds with James’s assertion that beliefs are only there for the sake of satisfying desires. To reconcile your view with James’s all we need to do is ask whether the “the beckoning of truth” floats free of human concerns or if knowing the truth is just one more human concern among many.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

It’s not an odd take. If you had no religious beliefs you wouldn’t be here.

You’re attempting to redefine what an atheist is by verbal engineering.

It’s dishonest.

I really don’t care whether you think of me as a religious person or not, though I would warn you against continuing to pursue this line of conversation considerring the current ban on discussing atheism and the general ban on insisting on discussing matters irrelevent to the topic of a given thread.

Do you have any thoughts relative to this thread? Do you find that what you present as evidence to nonbelievers gets dismissed? Can you give any examples?

Do you feel that there are certain aspects of your faith that do not need to be justified to other people?

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I really don’t care whether you think of me as a religious person or not, though I would warn you against continuing to pursue this line of conversation considerring the current ban on discussing atheism and the general ban on insisting on discussing matters irrelevent to the topic of a given thread.

Do you have any thoughts relative to this thread? Do you find that what you present as evidence to nonbelievers gets dismissed? Can you give any examples?

Do you feel that there are certain aspects of your faith that do not need to be justified to other people?

Best,
Leela

I didn’t start or revive a thread about atheism. What I’ve called into question is absolutely relevant to the thread, you just don’t like your assertions being called into question.

It’s not a question of atheism, it’s a question of nominalism.

 

[Leela]

I didn’t start or revive a thread about atheism. What I’ve called into question is absolutely relevant to the thread, you just don’t like your assertions being called into question.

It’s not a question of atheism, it’s a question of nominalism.

Do you have any thoughts relative to this thread? Do you find that what you present as evidence to nonbelievers gets dismissed? Can you give any examples?

Do you feel that there are certain aspects of your faith that do not need to be justified to other people?

 

[1holycatholic]

Do you have any thoughts relative to this thread? Do you find that what you present as evidence to nonbelievers gets dismissed? Can you give any examples?

Do you feel that there are certain aspects of your faith that do not need to be justified to other people?

Arguments are summarily dismissed or distorted. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=417205

The true meaning of words are summarily dismissed or distorted. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420454

 

[Leela]

Arguments are summarily dismissed or distorted. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=417205

The true meaning of words are summarily dismissed or distorted. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420454

I don’t think that arguments are summarily dismissed in such conversations concerning the proofs for God’s existence given by Aquinas as linked to above. I’ve seen literally thousands of posts arguing both sides in similar threads.

I’m wonderring if evidence gets dismissed in other discussions because the person presenting the evidence and the person hearing the evidence are at cross purposes. In the “proofs of God” threads I think people tend to have the same sorts of purposes.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think that arguments are summarily dismissed in such conversations concerning the proofs for God’s existence given by Aquinas as linked to above. I’ve seen literally thousands of posts arguing both sides in similar threads.

I’m wonderring if evidence gets dismissed in other discussions because the person presenting the evidence and the person hearing the evidence are at cross purposes. In the “proofs of God” threads I think people tend to have the same sorts of purposes.

Best,
Leela

There aren’t two sides to Aquinas’ argument. There is his actual argument which cannot be refuted, and there is the pseudo argument which can be refuted. The actual argument is dismissed because it is irrefutable.

I’m asking that things be argued for what they actually are, not for what someone wants them to be.

 

[davidv]

I wonder if there are sorts of beliefs where you would not find it at all important to have reasonable evidence that would convince anyone else. For example, do you feel the need to justify your belief that you love your wife, children, or other loved ones?

Why do you think that “loving my wife” is a belief.

I know it is a fact.

If your belief is not aimed at satisfying a desire to predict and control such others, and does not include an implicit demand that others need to recognize the truth of your belief, then it seems to me that there is no need to collect evidence to convince anyone including yourself that you really do love your loved ones.

Since love for another is an act of the will, and not a belief, this does not follow from the premises.

I have taken for granted the pragmatic take on belief as a habit of action. My concern in this thread is not to defend that notion as what beliefs really are but just to see where that idea leads us. The question of whether desires underlie all beliefs, on the other hand, seems important to consider here. You propose that beliefs are a response to “the beckoning of truth”–that we are naturally drawn to search for the truth. I don’t think that your proposal is completely at odds with James’s assertion that beliefs are only there for the sake of satisfying desires. To reconcile your view with James’s all we need to do is ask whether the “the beckoning of truth” floats free of human concerns or if knowing the truth is just one more human concern among many.

Best,
Leela

If we can’t agree on what a belief is, how could we possibly get to what “underlies” them?

 

[Leela]

Why do you think that “loving my wife” is a belief.

I know it is a fact.

If you know that you love your wife, then by Plato’s justified true belief) definition of knowledge you also believe that you love your wife. You can’t know something without also believing it, but believing something does not necessarily mean you have knowledge. But you also need not accept this definition of knowledge when it comes to assertions like “I know that I love my wife.” See below.

Since love for another is an act of the will, and not a belief, this does not follow from the premises.

If we can’t agree on what a belief is, how could we possibly get to what “underlies” them?

What is interesting about the space I’ve carved out for beliefs that do not need to be justified to others is that it also makes it unnecessary to determine whether what you have is a belief, hope, act of will, faith, or intention. So long as it doesn’t cash out as a habit of action that could potentially frustrate the desires of others, you needn’t worry about categorizing or defining it let alone justifying it.

Best,
Leela