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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,184 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
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.
let's hear what your perspective of the word evidence means, perhaps we can have some intelligent conversations thereafter.
for me, evidence of "intelligent conversation" is speaking to others with dignity, respect, courtesy and kindness. Whereas the following behaviors are evidence of lack of intelligent conversation: sarcasm, insult, mockery, derision, arrogance, belittling others, attacking, superiority.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-04-2015 at 10:59 AM..
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 just about covers it but there many of us who become convinced of an idea through evidence presented but who then are unwilling to let go of that idea when further evidence doesn't support the idea.
I think he is looking for what constitutes evidence for objective reality with a request for intelligent conversation around that topic.
I understand exactly what he is asking;
a person's behavior with others directly impacts, affects, determines and precludes, whether intelligent conversation occurs, regardless of the topic.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-04-2015 at 12:10 PM..
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"
Theists tend to differ in that they take the written word(Bible) alone as evidence on the natural world(despite lack of concrete evidence to support many Biblical things). The written can be used as evidence in regards to claims on the Christian religion since that is what it is based out of, but no more.
Also, they tend to not understand how to properly interpret evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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 lable 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.
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.
On average, an English word has 25 meanings. There are over 700 000 words in modern English language and counting.
Average person needs 500 - yes, only 500 words for daily communication. 500x25= 12 250 possible meanings of those words.
As such, in-communication is considered a basic way humans communicate. Every conversation you go into, you should proceed with assumption that you will NOT be understood the way YOU mean it.
Otherwise, evidence is a FACT that falls inline with common sense. Surprisingly, unless based on pure empirical observable facts, any scientific theory ONLY posts some level of probability of what it postulates. P is always less than 1. 1 means it is absolute solid observable fact. You can, say, pick a rock and say - this is a rock. P of your statement will be equal 1 as it is indeed a rock. But that is not a theory. It is statement of a fact.
In science, even such dogmatic statements as "2x2=4" or "parallel lines are always parallel" are nothing more than theories with very high probability level, as there are conditions when parallel lines intersect and 2x2 does not equal 4. And so on. But, for practicality and sanity reason, we ASSUME that those are axioms, or statements that do not need proof(evidence) as they are universally true "as is".
For a religious person though, his or her "common sense" or "voice of conviction" comes fore and becomes an ultimate judge to "true" vs "false" choice. A religion simply gives that person some sort of justification, generally accepted by a group of people, to listen to that voice. A person will not accept that religion, if that person internally was not inclined ALREADY to that idea. Knowing that or not.
Evidence is any observations or data that suggest a certain thing. It's universal, or at least becoming so. Within criminal justice, we're finding things like forensic scanning is actually a more reliable way to uncover the truth than reliance on eye witness testimony.
A key thing to keep in mind is to ensure consistency in the evidence. If the results are not consistent, the evidence is not very useful.
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.
