Teak421's thread on the philosophical burden of proof

[Rocinante]

Tell me… what is your definition of faith? I enjoy hearing from the “spiritual but not religious” folks on this…

• Michael

ok, enjoy away!..

like i said, i think the word gets used in a variety of ways. some important senses of the word relate to trust, belief (believing a fact or believing in a conviction), and loyalty. of these four i think the one of these that ought to have the least relevance to religion is factual belief, yet that is the one that tends to get emphasized above all others.

in terms of factual belief, to have faith is to believe something on insufficient evidence or in spite of contradictory evidence. this sort of faith frequently gets praised as virtue, but it is just the opposite. this is the usage that gets criticized by so-called atheists. catholics ought to join nonbelievers in criticizing this use of the word faith in favor of uses of the word in terms conviction, trust, and loyalty.

rocinante

 

[teak421]

ok, enjoy away!..

like i said, i think the word gets used in a variety of ways. some important senses of the word relate to trust, belief (believing a fact or believing in a conviction), and loyalty. of these four i think the one of these that ought to have the least relevance to religion is factual belief, yet that is the one that tends to get emphasized above all others.

in terms of factual belief, to have faith is to believe something on insufficient evidence or in spite of contradictory evidence. this sort of faith frequently gets praised as virtue, but it is just the opposite. this is the usage that gets criticized by so-called atheists. catholics ought to join nonbelievers in criticizing this use of the word faith in favor of uses of the word in terms conviction, trust, and loyalty.

rocinante

I did really enjoy that… Love your thoughts… conviction, trust and loyalty… however, I believe that we have an intellect that reviews available facts to see if they are reasonable. For example, I will lose an argument with an atheist 100 percent of the time because I can not meet their burden of proof. SO, for me… say 100 is absolute certainty, I might be at a 75… the 25 is made up with faith. To get the 75 however, I do like to read, talk with people like yourself,etc. basically, using my intellect. Then, my full 100 has aspects of conviction, trust and loyalty… and… facts and figures too.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

• Michael

 

[Rocinante]

I did really enjoy that… Love your thoughts… conviction, trust and loyalty… however, I believe that we have an intellect that reviews available facts to see if they are reasonable. For example, I will lose an argument with an atheist 100 percent of the time because I can not meet their burden of proof. SO, for me… say 100 is absolute certainty, I might be at a 75… the 25 is made up with faith. To get the 75 however, I do like to read, talk with people like yourself,etc. basically, using my intellect. Then, my full 100 has aspects of conviction, trust and loyalty… and… facts and figures too.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

• Michael

as far as i’m concerned, the % certainty issue is not a spiritual issue of faith but of mundane factual belief. you are trying to have the best such beliefs as possible based on the available evidence rather than just accept such claims on blind faith. i see faith as a way of hopefully relating to the world rather than a degree of certainty on factual matters. certainty about facts is not the spiritual concern. for example, standards of evidence aren’t of issue in evaluating such claims as “i choose to try to live according to what jesus taught and to learn what that means through the catholic church.” this isn’t something that is either true or false. it is something you either do or do not do. it is a statement of faith that is a comepletely separate issue from factual belief.

that’s how i see it, but again, i don’t know how the church defines faith. is there a statement in the catechism?

 

[teak421]

as far as i’m concerned, the % certainty issue is not a spiritual issue of faith but of mundane factual belief. you are trying to have the best such beliefs as possible based on the available evidence rather than just accept such claims on blind faith. i see faith as a way of hopefully relating to the world rather than a degree of certainty on factual matters. certainty about facts is not the spiritual concern. for example, standards of evidence aren’t of issue in evaluating such claims as “i choose to try to live according to what jesus taught and to learn what that means through the catholic church.” this isn’t something that is either true or false. it is something you either do or do not do. it is a statement of faith that is a comepletely separate issue from factual belief.

that’s how i see it, but again, i don’t know how the church defines faith. is there a statement in the catechism?

In order for me to make a decision to follow the teachings of Jesus, doesn’t my intellect have to make a choice that there is enough evidence (75) to warrant me following him.

I do know the Church touts faith and reason all the time… There are several encyclicals about that… Consider reading them… It seems to me if we do not have reason bound with faith we have people flying planes into buildings or blowing up abortion clinics.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

In order for me to make a decision to follow the teachings of Jesus, doesn’t my intellect have to make a choice that there is enough evidence (75) to warrant me following him.

I do know the Church touts faith and reason all the time… There are several encyclicals about that… Consider reading them… It seems to me if we do not have reason bound with faith we have people flying planes into buildings or blowing up abortion clinics.

• Michael

Here’s is the link to JP2’s encyclical about faith and reason. I’ll read over this week, please do the same and we can discuss.

goo.gl/enWZ

• Michael

 

[Rocinante]

In order for me to make a decision to follow the teachings of Jesus, doesn’t my intellect have to make a choice that there is enough evidence (75) to warrant me following him.

note that the sort of evidence needed to justify following jesus–that the way of jesus is a good way to live–is different from the sort of evidence needed to justify believing certain facts about jesus.

I do know the Church touts faith and reason all the time… There are several encyclicals about that… Consider reading them… It seems to me if we do not have reason bound with faith we have people flying planes into buildings or blowing up abortion clinics.

note that the people who do such things are fundamentalists–people who think faith is a matter of believing the right facts.

 

[teak421]

note that the sort of evidence needed to justify following jesus–that the way of jesus is a good way to live–is different from the sort of evidence needed to justify believing certain facts about jesus.

note that the people who do such things are fundamentalists–people who think faith is a matter of believing the right facts.

Completely disagree with your 1st paragraph… If I do not believe in the facts about Jesus that satisfies my threshold (75), then I would not follow him (the way) because I would think he’s a fairy or some other sort of guru. It is not reasonable.

Your 2nd paragraph does not actually address my comments about people flying planes into buildings by not coupling faith and reason together. There are lots of folks who might fit into your statement that do not fly planes into buildings nor blow up abortion clinics. What does your statement have to do with faith and reason?

• Michael

 

[Pieman333272]

Here’s a good parallel: do you believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn who is intangible, lives outside of space and time, and wants everyone to dress up like pirates on the first friday after every full moon?

If you say that you don’t believe in Shirley, do you have to produce evidence to support your position? Or can you simply ask me why in the world I would believe in Shirley and see whether or not my evidence is sufficient to convince you?

Shirley and God are indistinguishable as creators. However, they are not indistinguishable as revealed creators. Any justification I have for choosing God over Shirley, or Zeus, or an uncaused Hindu god, is based on revelation. This is because, in my view, the Universe undeniably has a supernatural creator, but we can’t tell who or what said creator is unless it reveals itself to us (it can do so in multiple ways).

First of all, there’s Jesus (if you wish to discuss further on this specific point, just so I don’t hijack my third thread to this topic, please revive your own on this topic), who specifically claimed to be Jehovah’s Son, preformed miracles, died by crucifixion, and was raised from the dead.

Next, there are no cases of Shirley giving her people modern miracles, unlike God, who sends Mary down every so often, makes bread bleed, and heals people instantly.

Third, Shirley has no ancient book(s) about her, suggesting she has made no revelation of any kind and was, in fact, fabricated. Note that I’m not saying the existence of the Bible proves God’s existence, but it makes his case much stronger than gods with no Divinely Inspired book(s). God’s presence in the Bible shows he was not easily fabricated, if he was, he had to have been fabricated over 200 years of history, the first 100 of which virtually no religion for him existed except for some who he revealed himself to.

Then there’s the fact the Unicorn had no reason of making other Unicorns when the humans would beat them out in the end, while God’s creations seemed to keep his land in shape for a nice while. I’ll give you more, and links if you like, later.

 

[teak421]

Shirley and God are indistinguishable as creators. However, they are not indistinguishable as revealed creators. Any justification I have for choosing God over Shirley, or Zeus, or an uncaused Hindu god, is based on revelation. This is because, in my view, the Universe undeniably has a supernatural creator, but we can’t tell who or what said creator is unless it reveals itself to us (it can do so in multiple ways).

First of all, there’s Jesus (if you wish to discuss further on this specific point, just so I don’t hijack my third thread to this topic, please revive your own on this topic), who specifically claimed to be Jehovah’s Son, preformed miracles, died by crucifixion, and was raised from the dead.

Next, there are no cases of Shirley giving her people modern miracles, unlike God, who sends Mary down every so often, makes bread bleed, and heals people instantly.

Third, Shirley has no ancient book(s) about her, suggesting she has made no revelation of any kind and was, in fact, fabricated. Note that I’m not saying the existence of the Bible proves God’s existence, but it makes his case much stronger than gods with no Divinely Inspired book(s). God’s presence in the Bible shows he was not easily fabricated, if he was, he had to have been fabricated over 200 years of history, the first 100 of which virtually no religion for him existed except for some who he revealed himself to.

Then there’s the fact the Unicorn had no reason of making other Unicorns when the humans would beat them out in the end, while God’s creations seemed to keep his land in shape for a nice while. I’ll give you more, and links if you like, later.

Darn it Pieman… I was going to use some of those arguments against Shirley. In fact, the atheist will say that a bag of ruffles as god (it was in another thread) and the Christian God are equally lacking in evidence. So, since the atheist claims that evidence is EQUALLY lacking in the Christan God, I am going to make a little matrix to compare Shirley to the Christian God with some of the items you list…

Take care!

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Shirley and God are indistinguishable as creators. However, they are not indistinguishable as revealed creators. Any justification I have for choosing God over Shirley, or Zeus, or an uncaused Hindu god, is based on revelation. This is because, in my view, the Universe undeniably has a supernatural creator, but we can’t tell who or what said creator is unless it reveals itself to us (it can do so in multiple ways).

First of all, there’s Jesus (if you wish to discuss further on this specific point, just so I don’t hijack my third thread to this topic, please revive your own on this topic), who specifically claimed to be Jehovah’s Son, preformed miracles, died by crucifixion, and was raised from the dead.

Next, there are no cases of Shirley giving her people modern miracles, unlike God, who sends Mary down every so often, makes bread bleed, and heals people instantly.

Third, Shirley has no ancient book(s) about her, suggesting she has made no revelation of any kind and was, in fact, fabricated. Note that I’m not saying the existence of the Bible proves God’s existence, but it makes his case much stronger than gods with no Divinely Inspired book(s). God’s presence in the Bible shows he was not easily fabricated, if he was, he had to have been fabricated over 200 years of history, the first 100 of which virtually no religion for him existed except for some who he revealed himself to.

Then there’s the fact the Unicorn had no reason of making other Unicorns when the humans would beat them out in the end, while God’s creations seemed to keep his land in shape for a nice while. I’ll give you more, and links if you like, later.

If you scroll up you will see anti giving his coin trick idea. While it does merit some consideration, the reality is that there is plenty of evidence that supports God and its too bad the atheist is lazy by saying we have to provide all the evidence. Go out a search for yourself, might learn something.

In fact, anti wanted me to provide evidence to support my case against Shirley and in the process I’m hoping to learn a lot more about her origins, the people who follow her, etc.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

note that the sort of evidence needed to justify following jesus–that the way of jesus is a good way to live–is different from the sort of evidence needed to justify believing certain facts about jesus.

note that the people who do such things are fundamentalists–people who think faith is a matter of believing the right facts.

Just curious, will you make the effort to read the JP2 document? As you did not respond to my posting. You asked for a Catholic understanding of faith, read the document… learn… offer an opinion.

• Michael

 

[Rocinante]

Just curious, will you make the effort to read the JP2 document? As you did not respond to my posting. You asked for a Catholic understanding of faith, read the document… learn… offer an opinion.

• Michael

no, i doubt i’ll get around to reading that, but if there are relevant parts you want to quote, i’ll read you posts.

 

[teak421]

no, i doubt i’ll get around to reading that, but if there are relevant parts you want to quote, i’ll read you posts.

Nah… 2nd hand on something that important is not a good idea. If you care enough about what Catholic thought is on faith and reason, you will read.

• Michael

 

[Rocinante]

Nah… 2nd hand on something that important is not a good idea. If you care enough about what Catholic thought is on faith and reason, you will read.

• Michael

you asked what i thought about faith and i told you. all i asked was whether there was a catholic definition of faith.it’s not big a deal. i’m not looking for second hand anything. a quote would be fine. or not if you don’t feel like it. we should both let one another judge for ourselves what is worth our time.

 

[teak421]

you asked what i thought about faith and i told you. all i asked was whether there was a catholic definition of faith.it’s not big a deal. i’m not looking for second hand anything. a quote would be fine. or not if you don’t feel like it. we should both let one another judge for ourselves what is worth our time.

that’s exactly what I did… i said if you thought it was worth your time, you would read…

Cya…

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

Shirley and God are indistinguishable as creators.

Sure they are. Shirley created our universe and 88 other universes. One of those universes is made entirely of lollipops.

Shirley is worshipped by large cults of creatures on 64 of her 89 universes. She has chosen not to reveal herself to the remainder of her universes for reasons unknown to mortals.

Your post, Pieman, doesn’t present any evidence against the existence of Shirley

First of all, there’s Jesus

This isn’t evidence against Shirley. You might gather evidence to argue in favor of the existence of Jesus, but that’s not the subject at hand. I’m looking for evidence against claim X, not in favor of claim Z.

Next, there are no cases of Shirley giving her people modern miracles

Wait, are you saying that there’s a lack of evidence for the existence of Shirley?

Third, Shirley has no ancient book(s) about her, suggesting she has made no revelation of any kind and was, in fact, fabricated.

So you’re saying that there’s a lack of evidence.

The point of my bringing up Shirley the universe-creating unicorn is that any claim requires evidence, and that in cases where there is not sufficient evidence for a claim – and there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of Shirley – the claim can be dismissed.

You don’t need to produce evidence against Shirley – and in fact, it is not possible to do so. You just need to note – as you do – that there is no good evidence for saying that Shirley is real.

 

[Pieman333272]

Sure they are. Shirley created our universe and 88 other universes. One of those universes is made entirely of lollipops.

Shirley is worshipped by large cults of creatures on 64 of her 89 universes. She has chosen not to reveal herself to the remainder of her universes for reasons unknown to mortals.

Your post, Pieman, doesn’t present any evidence against the existence of Shirley

That part was setting the scene. I’m saying with the exception of the deistic God, all Gods or other creating beings who are believed in by living things in a universe must have revealed themselves in that universe to their people, otherwise we can assert they are a fabrication or misinterpretation of the real God.

This isn’t evidence against Shirley. You might gather evidence to argue in favor of the existence of Jesus, but that’s not the subject at hand. I’m looking for evidence against claim X, not in favor of claim Z.

Very well, continue.

Wait, are you saying that there’s a lack of evidence for the existence of Shirley?

I’m saying belief is not justified in a God, besides the deistic one, in this Universe if it doesn’t reveal itself in said universe. This isn’t a lack of evidence but lack of potential for evidence - are you getting what I’m trying to say? God, between alleged miracles, at least one Holy Book, Christ Incarnate, and the need of a universe for a cause, has potential for evidence. Shirley, because she has only one of the above and needs at least one more for her cult to be justified to some extent, currently does not have potential for evidence.

The point of my bringing up Shirley the universe-creating unicorn is that any claim requires evidence, and that in cases where there is not sufficient evidence for a claim – and there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of Shirley – the claim can be dismissed.

Right, but there either is, for the Abrahamic God:
A) Evidence for belief
B) Potential for evidence for belief (see above)

Shirley has, nada.

You don’t need to produce evidence against Shirley – and in fact, it is not possible to do so. You just need to note – as you do – that there is no good evidence for saying that Shirley is real.

No evidence, while that does apply to Shirley and possibly, but probably not, God, is distinct from no potential for evidence - if there is, in fact, no non-emotional evidence for God, then there is still potential evidence. If there is no non-emotional evidence for Shirley, as both you and I agreed upon, in contrast, there is also no potential (short of BoP shifting) evidence for her - no miracles or books or shrouds to investigate, no cause of the big bang to identify, nothing. God is different from Shirley.

 

[AntiTheist]

God is different from Shirley.

I agree that Shirley and Jehovah are two different entities, and the claims for their existence are two different claims. I’m saying that what’s similar is how we go about evaluating both claims.

Here are two claims:

1. Jehovah exists
2. Shirely, the universe-creating unicorn, exists

For each of those claims, we have to consider the evidence that supports each claim. If we decide that there is insufficient evidence to support claim (2), then we do not accept claim (2).

Let’s just limit ourselves to discussing claim (2) right now. Is it possible that Shirley the universe-creating unicorn exists, has created 89 universes, and just not revealed herself to this particular universe (yet, anyway)? Sure, it’s possible – in the sense that anything is possible – but I don’t think it’s true, and I don’t accept the claim because there’s not sufficient evidence to support it

If I came along and said, “I believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn!” it wouldn’t be your job to prove me wrong if you disagreed. It would be my job to support my claim with evidence. Now, we can debate how well the evidence I present supports the claim – and we may ultimately decide that the evidence I present does not support the claim at all – but the burden to supply evidence and the burden of proof rests entirely with me.

I’m saying that this is the process that we go through no matter what the claim is. Whether we discuss claim (1) or claim (2) or claim (3)…etc., it is always the party making the claim that has to support the case. If the party making the claim fails to support its case, we are justified in not accepting the claim.

 

[Pieman333272]

I agree that Shirley and Jehovah are two different entities, and the claims for their existence are two different claims. I’m saying that what’s similar is how we go about evaluating both claims.

Here are two claims:

1. Jehovah exists
2. Shirely, the universe-creating unicorn, exists

For each of those claims, we have to consider the evidence that supports each claim. If we decide that there is insufficient evidence to support claim (2), then we do not accept claim (2).

Let’s just limit ourselves to discussing claim (2) right now. Is it possible that Shirley the universe-creating unicorn exists, has created 89 universes, and just not revealed herself to this particular universe (yet, anyway)? Sure, it’s possible – in the sense that anything is possible – but I don’t think it’s true, and I don’t accept the claim because there’s not sufficient evidence to support it

If I came along and said, “I believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn!” it wouldn’t be your job to prove me wrong if you disagreed. It would be my job to support my claim with evidence. Now, we can debate how well the evidence I present supports the claim – and we may ultimately decide that the evidence I present does not support the claim at all – but the burden to supply evidence and the burden of proof rests entirely with me.

I’m saying that this is the process that we go through no matter what the claim is. Whether we discuss claim (1) or claim (2) or claim (3)…etc., it is always the party making the claim that has to support the case. If the party making the claim fails to support its case, we are justified in not accepting the claim.

I agree - the BoP is on the person making the claim. Now, since we’e covered that like 8 times, what constitutes evidence to you? Scientific? Historical? Only evidence that fits your current worldview? Logical, mathematical, or philosophical? Once we get over the BoP, we reach the much less spoken of, but perhaps more important, questions:

**What is evidence (to the person denying the claim)?
Is this “evidence” obtainable?
Is this “evidence” plausible in your worldview?
Can you present this evidence to make your case?
**

 

[AntiTheist]

I agree - the BoP is on the person making the claim. Now, since we’e covered that like 8 times

Well, we may have covered that 8 times, but I’m not sure if teak agrees with us. Since the whole point of this thread is to discuss who has the burden of proof, I’d like to hear what he has to say on the subject.

Has the Shirley example cleared things up for you, teak?

what constitutes evidence to you?

What constitutes evidence depends entirely on the claim. If you claim that a god exists, we have to have some specifics about the properties of this god. How, exactly, does this god interact with the universe? Only after you’ve defined the god’s specific properties can we begin to see if evidence supports the claim.