Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you're really asking is what is my epistemology -- my theory of what truth is, and how one comes by it. The theory of knowledge, its methods, validity and scope. What distinguishes justified belief from opinion from delusion.
If we want to determine the truth of a thing then evidence is observable, examinable facts or logical arguments concerning the thing. If the truth is that I murdered someone then some combination of a body, surveillance footage, forensic evidence, fingerprints and suchlike should point in that direction. Or at least a court of law would require that before putting me away for life or sending me to death row.
In my view, the more doctrinaire sorts of religion is like the hothead who says I did it, he knows I did, I look guilty to him, and tries to get a lynch mob going. Or maybe more exactly like the guy who claims god told him I did it and says I will burn in hell for it.
Conveniently invisible beings and realms cannot be evidenced in the above sense, definitionally. So evidence becomes irrelevant. It boils down to feelings, hunches, desires, hopes, and beliefs ... and then various forms of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning fallacies to force fit reality to those beliefs.
But wait, some of the foremost epistemologists are Christians or at least theists.
Your definition of evidence is observable, examinable facts or logical arguments concerning a "thing." I assume in the category of logical arguments you would include reasonable inferences from observable, examinable facts?
Many believing epistemologists and garden-variety believers are convinced that observable, examinable facts and the reasonable inferences flowing from them, bolstered by logical arguments, make theism or even something as specific as Christianity the most plausible "thing." Indeed, abductive reasoning - inference to the best explanation of a vast body of scientific evidence - is the foundation of the Intelligent Design movement; this is true even if one strongly disagrees with the ID position.
The statement that "evidence becomes irrelevant. It boils down to feelings, hunches, desires, hopes, and beliefs ... and then various forms of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning fallacies to force fit reality to those beliefs" seems to me to be 180 degrees off-base. It's an inaccurate caricature of what theistic epistemology actually looks like and how it actually operates.
Ok, I thought about making this 2 different threads but I'm really trying to avoid creating multiple threads on this forum.
First topic: Evidence...
It seems obvious that atheists and Christians have different ideas of what "evidence" is. What a Christian accepts as evidence of God's existence, an atheist may reject. Example: A Christian will say "the bible is evidence that God exists" and an atheist will respond back saying "no, the bible is evidence that a person or a bunch of people creates a lot of stories, bundled it into a book, and promoted the idea of a religion".
So what do you guys, atheists and Christians, consider as evidence?
Evidence is something that supports an idea. Credible evidence is something that can be tested. What is more important is what is often missed out. One must look at all the evidence to determine which of the opposing views is more credible.
An example is one of our current uses arguing the anthropic principle is an argument for a god. But what is missed out is that most of the universe is not friendly to human life. The anthropic principle is also an argument for the idea of a multiverse,
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02
Second topic: The bible...
My question is: how do you guys read and interpret it?
I read it as a collection of works of different genres, from histories to faked histories to letters to poetry to wisdom sayings to allegories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02
I say this because in literally every argument I've seen from both atheists and Christians, biblical scripture is used. A lot of people say the bible is filled with fantasy stories. Others say the bible is not aligned with science. Some say the bible could be legit but say "I refuse to worship a God that murders people".
I personally believe the bible should not be taken literally word-for-word. I do believe a real person (or persons) wrote the scripture (there's evidence that many scriptures were written by someone). What were they thinking while they were writing the scripture? I have no idea. Was the writer a genius? Did they write knowing that many people would not understand what they were writing?
It's fascinating because the interpretation of the bible has caused many people to become atheists and has divided the entirety of Christianity into several branches including Catholicism.
I think many atheists use the Bible literally because they are arguing against Christians who are using it literally. But I may be wrong with that idea.
As to genius, I think the unknown author of the gospel of Mark was a literary genius despite his 'mistakes' with the Greek, something I think was deliberate.
Indeed, abductive reasoning - inference to the best explanation of a vast body of scientific evidence - is the foundation of the Intelligent Design movement; this is true even if one strongly disagrees with the ID position.
The ID movement either invents it's own science, or misrepresents actual science. That is the foundation of the ID movement.
If the Bible is a scientific work, it fails; as a matter of faith it doesn't. I don't understand why believers argue about evidence.
When Hurricane Florence (category 4) veered from VA, the late Pat Robertson claimed credit for it (also giving credit to his supporters who also prayed with him) and protecting his ministries. Would that be evidence of Robertson's direct line to the Almighty?
"We prayed and look at that...We asked the Lord to take it out of here and He did ... It's like a shield that God has put around us. Why? Because God's people prayed and that's what happened. This is a miracle ladies and gentlemen ... When we pray, God does miracles."
what any person considers to be "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence"
is itself subjective.
it is an opinion, view, belief what a person deems to be "credible evidence"
and varies from person to person.
making it subjective
Naturally you must dismiss "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence" as subjective opinion because you have no "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence" for your beliefs.
Naturally you must dismiss "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence" as subjective opinion because you have no "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence" for your beliefs.
But wait, some of the foremost epistemologists are Christians or at least theists.
Your definition of evidence is observable, examinable facts or logical arguments concerning a "thing." I assume in the category of logical arguments you would include reasonable inferences from observable, examinable facts?
Many believing epistemologists and garden-variety believers are convinced that observable, examinable facts and the reasonable inferences flowing from them, bolstered by logical arguments, make theism or even something as specific as Christianity the most plausible "thing." Indeed, abductive reasoning - inference to the best explanation of a vast body of scientific evidence - is the foundation of the Intelligent Design movement; this is true even if one strongly disagrees with the ID position.
The statement that "evidence becomes irrelevant. It boils down to feelings, hunches, desires, hopes, and beliefs ... and then various forms of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning fallacies to force fit reality to those beliefs" seems to me to be 180 degrees off-base. It's an inaccurate caricature of what theistic epistemology actually looks like and how it actually operates.
what any person considers to be "good evidence" or "reliable evidence" or "credible evidence" is itself subjective.
it is an opinion, view, belief what a person deems to be "credible evidence"
and varies from person to person making it subjective
This is your subjective opinion, view, belief and I'm sure that you subjectively, albeit sincerely, deem it to be correct.
I don't, a here is why.
I do have a subjective opinion, view, belief that water on my stove starts to boil at 212F.
To check if my subjective opinion, view, belief is objectively correct I put thermometer in the water prior to boiling. Every time at the point the water starts to boil thermometer shows 212F.
I consider this observation to be good, reliable, credible objective evidence that confirms my subjective opinion, view, belief about boiling point of water.
Apparently, you don't consider this kind of evidence objective.
Can you explain why?
Many believing epistemologists and garden-variety believers are convinced that observable, examinable facts and the reasonable inferences flowing from them, bolstered by logical arguments, make theism or even something as specific as Christianity the most plausible "thing."
Along with many believing epistemologists and garden-variety believers, I would be convinced by that too.
The problem is, I'm not aware of any sound and valid logical theistic argument that would support reasonable inferences from observed facts.
Can you point me to one so I would understand why I'm wrong?
Otherwise I'm perfectly justified to consider theistic epistemology to be a caricature of what sound epistemology should look like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
