What constitutes 'Evidence': is it different for science and religion? (Buddhists, Muslims)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I won't dispute the typical theist approach, since I am not a typical theist. I began as a typical atheist. The only dissent I would take with it is describing it as "what you wish to be so." I suspect there are many theists who simply see existence and accept that God is behind it (not merely wish it) and THEN are influenced by the process you describe, mordant.

I would then question why they accept that god is behind it. Where's the percentage in accepting such a thing? I would submit that most people are heavily conditioned to believe that the wheels fly off of their sanity and all hope is lost if they have to admit they we are on our own. God is like a safety valve, a sort of guarantee that no matter what humanity manages to screw up, his inexorable plan cannot be undermined or diverted. And that plan somehow has our best interests in mind.

But that cuts both ways; while providing some superficially reassuring foundation for our hopes and dreams, it also absolves us of much of our responsibility to treat each other well and do the Right Thing in various situations. Many climate change deniers for example will tell you that it's utter nonsense to think that god would allow us or society as we know it to become extinct, that is suggesting that we are more influential than god. Well guess what, we are WAY more influential than god, and ought to start acting like our actions have consequences.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

As to the issues of personal bias, that is seldom recognized by the individual operating under it. For example, your use of the phrase "wrongly inferred agency" when referring to an unsupported inference of agency. The "wrongly" reflects your bias against the existence of any agency behind the processes of our reality (a typical one for atheists). I held a similar view. This reveals what the true source of difference is: "What we are willing to accept as the Source of our reality." Atheists accept "We do not know." Theists do not. The specific explanations theists adopt would probably follow your typical theist paradigm, with the correction about wishing.

Actually when I wrote that I didn't have in mind what you state here. I simply had in mind that our tendency to infer agency is quite strong and usually leads to perceiving it where it either is not much of a factor or no factor at all. So it is a very strong bias that we should ruthlessly push back against because it is way more often wrong than right. That's because it's a survival adaptation (though not one that's terribly useful as-is in the modern world).

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The part of your post in bold reveals your personal bias because it is applicable to both theists and atheists as my atypical experience and process would attest. My experiences were the starting point, NOT any religion. I spent decades without attaching the God I encountered with any religion. I only adopted the Christian label because the central character of that religion matched perfectly the consciousness I encountered and fit with my PLAUSIBLE understanding of reality as revealed by science.

If you say your experiences were your starting point, I believe you, truly I do. But I was taught from the cradle to distrust my experiences and to trust ecclesiastical pronouncements. My parents were Catholic and Lutheran, became Presbyterians and then evangelicals. I never knew a world where what I thought, felt, or experienced could be trusted or even mattered. One did one's duty, was true to one's god / country, etc. Once we were in the orbit of evangelicalism especially, we were also taught to be very distrustful of mere human wisdom (despite that being the only kind to actually be had, and what little there is of it ought to be encouraged, not discouraged). And we were to consider any form of independent thinking to be dangerous hubris at best. The only reality that was accepted was that there was an invisible man in the sky who loves us and yet will punish us for eternity if we don't love and worship him. We accepted the plan of salvation in return for which we would be his children and he would be our god, a friend who sticks closer than a brother and who will (eventually) wipe away every tear. Everything that is seemingly at odds with that is to be ignored and rebuked and rejected and papered over at any cost. Going down that road leads to doubt, apostasy, depravity, madness, and even more unimaginable things than those.

So I don't make those statements lightly. They were my reality and despite some independent thinkers like yourself it is, in my experience, mostly the reality of most theists we encounter here. Even some of the liberals will get all out of joint if you so much as question the one or two axiomatic beliefs they are still clinging to, such as the existence of even their generic sortagod.

[bUU]

There is no such thing as evidence in religion. Anyone claiming there is is committing a deception, perhaps upon themselves.

[JerZ]

I really just don't know...personally, I feel never the twain shall meet, at least partially BECAUSE religion requires that one maintain "faith" which implies, maintain belief even in the face of refuting, well, evidence (or at other times, and in fact overall, with a lack of actual evidence).

Honestly I never find religious "evidence" compelling. If I did, I'd be religious, that's for sure. But it's always something like "how can you look into a baby's eyes and not see God's hand in this" or "I nearly died on the operating table, the doctor says I SHOULD have died, therefore God must have pulled me back" or "How could we just 'happen' to have exactly 5 fingers on each hand...exactly the right amount including the opposable thumb to grip things just right?" or "I KNOW I feel God..." things like that. Those things aren't evidence, they have scientific/chemical bases or OTOH may occasionally be full-on fantasy...I don't know.

I just don't think religious "evidence" is usually "evidence" in an actual, legitimate, scientific sense.

[Arach Angle]

there are logical solutions and emotional needs. If one needs and emotional connection to drive their beliefs it doesn't matter what the facts are. Something akin to prediction how a personality types believes. What and why do people hold to baseless claims.

so they do meet. Just like a foot and a hand meet.

[Floorist]

Theists see evidence of God in everything, but it's only really faith.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by mordant

In my experience, the way theistic ideation works is along the following lines:

1) Decide what you wish to be so, or more likely, accept the assertion of what is so from some other person or organization, usually one that represents authority to you.

2) Look for any association or pattern that in any way, even a little, supports (1)

3) Call it evidence

4) Monitor one's continued compliance with (1), looking for any new associations from (2), thus adding to (3).

Where as empiricists generally go this route:

1) Look at evidence / data / arguments, controlling as much as possible for personal bias, wrongly inferred agency, etc.

2) Draw conclusions from the evidence

3) Accept the conclusions dictated by the evidence whether or not it is pleasing or intuitive.

4) Constantly subject (3) to (1) for possible revision as (1) changes and/or your reasoning process in (2) changes. Rinse and repeat.

In describing the typical theist approach I am serious based on my own experiences as a former theist. The axioms promulgated by your religion of origin are always the starting point ... not actual experience or situations. Any apparent experience or situation contrary to the starting point has to be a misunderstanding or illusion.

That.

I did Theist Steps 1-4 when I was still in Christian fundamentalism.

[OzzyRules]

God is a politician. You pick the God who tells you what you want to hear. And when He tells you what you want to hear, then it's confirmation that He is the one TRUE God.

[bulmabriefs144]

Originally Posted by cupper3

There has been much discussion in the threads that deal with the issue of evidence.

The word evidence itself may be the issue.

It means one thing for sciences, perhaps another thing for criminal investigations, and yet another thing for those that seek evidence in religion.

Unless we are talking the same language, using a word such as evidence may not mean much because if one thinks it should be red and the other one thinks it should be blue, never the twain shall meet. As such, let's hear what your perspective of the word evidence means, perhaps we can have some intelligent conversations thereafter.

Science and religion do indeed have different concepts of evidence.

Science is based on empiricism. It treats solid forms as proof, and asserts that you need to have repeated experiments.

Religion is a discipline where there are as many belief sets as grains of sand, and facts are highly personalized. This doesn't mean there can be no knowledge gained from religion. Proof is gleaned by comparative religion, use of philosophy and personal logic. As in, the following has happened to me, and if this is this, then that must be that. This is precisely why so much of my posts use heavy philosophy.

That would be enough to prove something for religion, that the terms add up to a coherent meaning. It apparently isn't in science. You have to have experience which is repeated by everyone. Which is impossible, since the divine ("God") appears differently to everyone. To an atheist, God appears not at all, to the theist they may eventually have an encounter, to the pantheist they eventually just get a strong feeling of God in the world around them.

[hljc]

With religion things are proved or confirmed by God , where God may quicken a prophetic message for faith in a believer , then hours or days later God will bring a prophetic Word with is the same message through someone else in the presence of the person who earlier heard the same message ..............as both people got the same message from God hours or days apart ............, as unseen spiritual conditions are different then science who makes the conditions that things must be seen or physical , yet science cannot see air or gasses but believes that air is there

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by hljc

With religion things are proved or confirmed by God , where God may quicken a prophetic message for faith in a believer , then hours or days later God will bring a prophetic Word with is the same message through someone else in the presence of the person who earlier heard the same message ..............as both people got the same message from God hours or days apart ............, as unseen spiritual conditions are different then science who makes the conditions that things must be seen or physical , yet science cannot see air or gasses but believes that air is there

What we are seeing all the way though, and is a basic to be understood, otherwise the difference between the religious and scientific approach cannot be comprehended.

It is absolutely nailed in that cartoon
(1) these are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from it?"
'(2) This in the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?'

The first has a willingness to change the conclusions in the light of new facts. *(deprecated by religious apologists as 'science is always getting things wrong)
The other is faith driven confirmation bias. This is seen again and again from the impudent presentation of Peter's bones by the Vatican to bolster faith to hijc's presentation of some very questionable 'evidence' even if the 'prophetic' experiences had been verified. And that of course by way of fiddled and faked 'evidence' all the way from the Paluxy tracks to Wyatt's Ark.

I will leave someone else the satisfaction of explaining the 'see the wind' fallacy.