Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[gad-fly]

"What evidence is there to support the idea that evidence is important? It just seems to me that this is an argument that the non-believer's sense of what is obvious and right is valid whereas a believer's sense of what is obvious and right is invalid."

I am not in the position of judge or preacher to defend or argue against the above point. Nor am I to compare which is more important. Suffice to say that I believe both are important.

As motion, faith involves a leap. Whether the leap is justified or not is another question which I shall not parley. Evidence is more substantive, to involve hearsay, observation, and experience. Faith and evidence may breed from the same soil, to the effect that they may mutually strengthen each other. What I have said applies to marriage as well. How do you survive a marriage if you have no faith in your spouse? And yet, would you take his every word without reasonable doubt?

Some says there is evidence of God's existence, though not empirical evidence. I am not sure about that. 'Empirical' means derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles. Evidence apparently can arise from experience. The problem is that evidence is seldom beyond reasonable doubt. A further problem is that reasonable doubt depends on the beholder.

Take a scenario. You throw ten thousand eggs at a brick wall, and expect them all to be smashed. To your surprise, one remains on the grass. Now there is evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. It is a miracle. Who could have brought it? Certainly not you, but rather, some super being called God. Not only that, the decision on, who that lucky egg is, is his. More than that, the surviving egg is the only one to tell the story. Are you still not convinced, with that only story being around? I would, until I hear another argument, enlightening me with the law of probability, chance, uncertainty, unpredictability, or whatever. Who would you believe?

I don't know about you, but guess I would feel like Adam in the Garden of Eden, after that fateful bite on the apple. I would accept being driven away, while remaining skeptic on what I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY GOD AND THAT SNAKE. Fine, if you spit it out and declare you have not swallowed.

[Sculptor1]

"What evidence is there to support the idea that evidence is important? It just seems to me that this is an argument that the non-believer's sense of what is obvious and right is valid whereas a believer's sense of what is obvious and right is invalid."

I am not in the position of judge or preacher to defend or argue against the above point. Nor am I to compare which is more important. Suffice to say that I believe both are important.

As motion, faith involves a leap. Whether the leap is justified or not is another question which I shall not parley. Evidence is more substantive, to involve hearsay, observation, and experience. Faith and evidence may breed from the same soil, to the effect that they may mutually strengthen each other. What I have said applies to marriage as well. How do you survive a marriage if you have no faith in your spouse? And yet, would you take his every word without reasonable doubt?

Some says there is evidence of God's existence, though not empirical evidence. I am not sure about that. 'Empirical' means derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles. Evidence apparently can arise from experience. The problem is that evidence is seldom beyond reasonable doubt. A further problem is that reasonable doubt depends on the beholder.

Take a scenario. You throw ten thousand eggs at a brick wall, and expect them all to be smashed. To your surprise, one remains on the grass. Now there is evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. It is a miracle. Who could have brought it? Certainly not you, but rather, some super being called God. Not only that, the decision on, who that lucky egg is, is his. More than that, the surviving egg is the only one to tell the story. Are you still not convinced, with that only story being around? I would, until I hear another argument, enlightening me with the law of probability, chance, uncertainty, unpredictability, or whatever. Who would you believe?

I don't know about you, but guess I would feel like Adam in the Garden of Eden, after that fateful bite on the apple. I would accept being driven away, while remaining skeptic on what I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY GOD AND THAT SNAKE. Fine, if you spit it out and declare you have not swallowed.

The answer to your question is about experience.
As long as you live in never helps that you believe. You can believe that you car has petrol in it, but I will not get you fer if it does not.
You might beleive you can get a job regardless of having being qualified for it, but you will remain unemployed as a brain surgeon if you do not know how to fix brains. My can have faith that the fridge is full of food and that the cupboards are overflowing with packets of pasta. When you open the cupboards to find them empty - THAT is evidence.
A small child learns all this, and a life time of experience tells then the usefulness of evidence. This sort of argument is INDUCTIVE.
It lies at the heart of our existential being, at the heart of science.
There are reasons that a egg might survive - and it is not a miracle.
You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO believe. Try to exist without evidence. You cannot even live without gaining evidence unless you are blind, and deaf. Gathering evidence is fundemental. It requires no effort.

[AmericanKestrel]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO believe. Try to exist without evidence. You cannot even live without gaining evidence unless you are blind, and deaf. Gathering evidence is fundemental. It requires no effort.

We believe in a lot of things that are based on faith (in the sense of hope and belief) such as the person who gave us poor service was just a bad salesman and not just a racist. These are useful delusions that help us get on with our life and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with that? It is far healthier than medication and therapy to treat depression and anxiety.

[gad-fly]

It appears some has mixed up faith in religion with belief in the physical domain. "faith that there is food in the fridge" is not faith. More correct to say: an impression. Someone providing poor service leaves you a bad impression. Your experience of his poor service would deter, dissuade, or discourage you next time. This is your learning process.

faith is intrinsic, in the heart. Your lover is faithful to you? that has nothing to do with her turning up late.

[LuckyR]

Faith is why you believe in the metaphysical, evidence is why you believe the physical. Since gods are metaphysical, belief in them is an example of faith. Folks can try to retroengineer "evidence" of the metaphysical, but it is just smoke and mirrors.

[Sculptor1]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO believe. Try to exist without evidence. You cannot even live without gaining evidence unless you are blind, and deaf. Gathering evidence is fundemental. It requires no effort.

We believe in a lot of things that are based on faith (in the sense of hope and belief) such as the person who gave us poor service was just a bad salesman and not just a racist. These are useful delusions that help us get on with our life and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with that? It is far healthier than medication and therapy to treat depression and anxiety.

You may not talk for others. Who is "WE"? Is that the Royal "we"? I believe nothing. But always seek to know. I take nothing for granted, but things not know a I never take unreservedly. I have no faith, though I can temporarily give trust, contingent on success.
I have no need nor want for any medication.

[mystery]

For sure the matrix and blue pill is a better choice for some, as long as they are or become happy/satisfied what else can be achieved in life.

A person shall choose to believe and imagine how I like the world and life to be, and with faith, it shall be so. This is a choice. It is possible to convince ourselves to believe something/anything. faith.

Trust but verify is a useful idea and in the evidence camp. I live in that place and have learned the hard way on many topics that trust but verify does serve me better than faith.

At the same time, I have seen the magic of faith heal people's minds that could not be reached by philosophy and training.

[AmericanKestrel]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO believe. Try to exist without evidence. You cannot even live without gaining evidence unless you are blind, and deaf. Gathering evidence is fundemental. It requires no effort.

We believe in a lot of things that are based on faith (in the sense of hope and belief) such as the person who gave us poor service was just a bad salesman and not just a racist. These are useful delusions that help us get on with our life and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with that? It is far healthier than medication and therapy to treat depression and anxiety.

You may not talk for others. Who is "WE"? Is that the Royal "we"? I believe nothing. But always seek to know. I take nothing for granted, but things not know a I never take unreservedly. I have no faith, though I can temporarily give trust, contingent on success.
I have no need nor want for any medication.

The royal “we” is about as royal as the “you”. We are all individuals and have different struggles and different capacities. Faith and hope are necessities for those who need the. Who “you” to dictate what “they” need? What is importantbis how one can cope without losing their mental health. If faith and prayers get them there , good for them.

[AmericanKestrel]

It appears some has mixed up faith in religion with belief in the physical domain. "faith that there is food in the fridge" is not faith. More correct to say: an impression. Someone providing poor service leaves you a bad impression. Your experience of his poor service would deter, dissuade, or discourage you next time. This is your learning process.

faith is intrinsic, in the heart. Your lover is faithful to you? that has nothing to do with her turning up late.

You may choose to define with some kind of precision that you believe exists between faith and belief. But it is an illusion nevertheless. Science only knows what is true, for now. It does not admit to how much it does not know yet.
Bad service may just be an impression on you. It can leave a deep hurt in someone else who is not so privileged, who has already been taught too many lessons. All that matters is how he deals with a hurt that is real to him, that you dont experience. He chooses to believe, have faith, trust his senses, which provides him with what he needs to go on.

[Sculptor1]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO believe. Try to exist without evidence. You cannot even live without gaining evidence unless you are blind, and deaf. Gathering evidence is fundemental. It requires no effort.

We believe in a lot of things that are based on faith (in the sense of hope and belief) such as the person who gave us poor service was just a bad salesman and not just a racist. These are useful delusions that help us get on with our life and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with that? It is far healthier than medication and therapy to treat depression and anxiety.

You may not talk for others. Who is "WE"? Is that the Royal "we"? I believe nothing. But always seek to know. I take nothing for granted, but things not know a I never take unreservedly. I have no faith, though I can temporarily give trust, contingent on success.
I have no need nor want for any medication.

The royal “we” is about as royal as the “you”. We are all individuals and have different struggles and different capacities. Faith and hope are necessities for those who need the. Who “you” to dictate what “they” need? What is importantbis how one can cope without losing their mental health. If faith and prayers get them there , good for them.

For any and all absolute statement is it a fact that they are refuted by a single example. I told you I had not need for faith and hope and I meant it. That means, simply that they are no necessities in any sense. Even you can learn to live without them and live your life more truthfully.
If people cannot cope without prayers then more fool them. I prefer to live more authentically rather than live a lie and fool myself of a futre state or reward.

[gad-fly]

Faith is why you believe in the metaphysical, evidence is why you believe the physical. Since gods are metaphysical, belief in them is an example of faith. Folks can try to retroengineer "evidence" of the metaphysical, but it is just smoke and mirrors.

In dictionary;
Faith is strong or unshakable belief in something especially without proof or evidence.
Evidence is ground for belief or disbelief, data on which to base truth.

Please note "especially" in Faith. A miracle, which may lead to sainthood, can be taken as evidence or not. It is up to you or the Catholic Church.

[AverageBozo]

In religions, anything can be evidence if it is believed to be so.

But evidence that evidence is important sounds circular to me. And without clear criteria, “important” is vague, to say the least.

[Pattern-chaser]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO belief.

I think that's only possible if you confine yourself to a knowledge pool that is much smaller than you would prefer. Perhaps so small that teaspoons start to look enormous? If I understand your view of belief correctly, then it applies where there is no actual fact- or evidence-based knowledge. And this applies to most things, if we apply it strictly.

Faith is why you believe in the metaphysical, evidence is why you believe the physical. Since gods are metaphysical, belief in them is an example of faith. Folks can try to retroengineer "evidence" of the metaphysical, but it is just smoke and mirrors.

Well put. I see nothing to dispute with this.



Personally, I have no problem admitting to faith, and to belief also. The alternative, as I see it, is to claim knowledge and certainty that I don't have, to assuage my inner insecurity. Or I can look the world in the face and accept that there is much I do not KNOW, and that I probably will never know, and do what we all must do, in practice, in the real world: I guess. Some of it is educated guesswork, but a guess is a guess. I have no problem with that. It seems to bother quite a few other people, though, judging from their posted objections.

[Skyblack]

What evidence is there to support the idea that evidence is important?

There is none. The question of evidence only comes in if one is looking for evidence.

The general premise it seems is, rationality seeks evidence.

[Sculptor1]

You can survive and thrive with ZERO faith and ZERO belief.

I think that's only possible if you confine yourself to a knowledge pool that is much smaller than you would prefer. Perhaps so small that teaspoons start to look enormous? If I understand your view of belief correctly, then it applies where there is no actual fact- or evidence-based knowledge. And this applies to most things, if we apply it strictly.

I can hold knowledge as a skeptic without failing my discrimination and resorting to faith.

Faith is why you believe in the metaphysical, evidence is why you believe the physical. Since gods are metaphysical, belief in them is an example of faith. Folks can try to retroengineer "evidence" of the metaphysical, but it is just smoke and mirrors.

Well put. I see nothing to dispute with this.



Personally, I have no problem admitting to faith, and to belief also. The alternative, as I see it, is to claim knowledge and certainty that I don't have, to assuage my inner insecurity. Or I can look the world in the face and accept that there is much I do not KNOW, and that I probably will never know, and do what we all must do, in practice, in the real world: I guess. Some of it is educated guesswork, but a guess is a guess. I have no problem with that. It seems to bother quite a few other people, though, judging from their posted objections.