Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[Argenta]

... we all take a leap of faith at some point, since none of us seems to possess objective truth on anything.

I find this an odd argument. When you boil it down it says:

1. Faith is a flawed epistemological method
2. Both theists and non-theists believe things on faith
3. Therefore both theists and non-theists have flawed thinking

In other words, I might not be smart but neither are you!

But this argument is not just pointless, it is also dishonest. The things I take on faith are only those things that all human beings have to take on faith. Like, I exist; the universe exists in reality and not just in my mind; my feelings are real etc. The list of things I take on faith is very, very short.

Now compare that with the list of things you take on faith. Your list is long and includes many things that are entirely optional.

Argenta

[Flail]

...one cannot argue a deity is a simpler explanation than a natural explanation because we don’t have a natural explanation to compare it with...

Are you saying that there is no positive evidence for the 'no god' hypothesis?

I don’t have a “no god� hypothesis, so I don’t need any evidence. I am simply unconvinced by your god hypothesis. Give me evidence with sound logic and I’ll believe it. I am open to changing my mind about almost anything.

Argenta

Well stated. You will find your views are in agreement with many on this site including myself.

[JoeyKnothead]

Fair warning: it has some rude language like "w*dding" and "m*rried" on it.

This looks like a joke but in the absence of a smiley, I wonder...?

Argenta

Just funnin', and welcome to the forooms.

I agree with your OP, and all "evidence" I've ever seen to support god notions has been faulty.

[JoeyKnothead]

... we all take a leap of faith at some point, since none of us seems to possess objective truth on anything.

I find this an odd argument. When you boil it down it says:

1. Faith is a flawed epistemological method
2. Both theists and non-theists believe things on faith
3. Therefore both theists and non-theists have flawed thinking

In other words, I might not be smart but neither are you!

But this argument is not just pointless, it is also dishonest. The things I take on faith are only those things that all human beings have to take on faith. Like, I exist; the universe exists in reality and not just in my mind; my feelings are real etc. The list of things I take on faith is very, very short.

Now compare that with the list of things you take on faith. Your list is long and includes many things that are entirely optional.

Argenta

Very good response.

Why add more faith to the mix?

[EduChris]

...Under what circumstances might an extraordinary claim not require extraordinary evidence?...

It is irrational to demand extraordinary evidence for fundamental questions when all appearances suggest that such evidence will not be forthcoming. Refusing to make a decision until adequate evidence is found is the stance of followers, not leaders. Leadership demands that some decisions be made despite a lack of evidence.

...subjective evidence can be shown to be highly unreliable...

All evidence is subjective. We can't get out of ourselves in order to grasp objective reality. We hope that our subjective evidence corresponds to "reality as it is," but we have no way of determining this.

...I...have not proposed a “No-god hypothesis�...

That depends on the definition of the "No-god hypothesis." You seem to be assuming that God, if there is a God, would necessarily provide a certain amount of evidence if such a God desired for us to believe in God. I don't believe you can defend that assumption, but at any rate it leads directly to the "No-god hypothesis," and if that is true, then you have de facto adopted the "No-god hypothesis."

...The rational thing is not to believe a hypothesis until it’s adequately supported...

That statement sounds exactly like a hypothesis to me. Can you prove logically that it applies in all circumstances?

...In the meantime, far from being “immobilised� we can search for evidence to support any possible hypotheses...

The search for evidence continues regardless of whatever tentative hypothesis is adopted.

...What has “hope� got to do with the truth or falsity of a hypothesis?...

In mathematics, you start with a certain set of axioms and you proceed logically from there. If you reach an absurdity, then it is reasonable to conclude that one or more of the axioms were false. Conversely, if you adopt another set of axioms and reach a solution, then it is reasonable to conclude that the axioms are either true or at least not falsified.

...Could it ever be reasonable to say, “Hypothesis A is more likely to be true than hypothesis B because it offers greater hope�? If you get to this stage in your thinking you have abandoned reason for emotion. And this is exactly what you have done...

The option of hope is not proved true, but in the absence of evidence for either position--if there is no evidence for "hope" and equally no evidence for "no hope"--then the reasonable thing is to choose the "hope" option and see where it leads.

...you should be honest and tell people that your belief in Christianity is based on emotion and not reason. That’s all...

And I would turn that back on you--and indeed on everyone. In the end, we usually base our decisions on Freud's pleasure principle.

[Zzyzx]

.

...Christianity cannot be true if Yahweh does not exist, yet your reasons for believing that Yahweh does exist are seriously flawed. Is it time to re-think?...

I am always re-thinking, and I don't think that extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence.

It is not surprising that people who believe that the dead body of a religious icon came back to life after days in the grave, that donkeys converse with humans, that a star stops over a birthplace, etc – based solely upon tales in religious promotional literature -- would say “I don’t think that extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence�.

Of course not – such favorite extraordinary claims don’t require ANY evidence beyond the tales themselves (to believers).

I have asked many times of promoters of bible stories if they accept similar extraordinary claims and stories with similar “evidence� made regarding OTHER “gods� – and receive no honest and non-evasive answer.

For them to say that they DO accept similar extraordinary claims for other “gods� would indicate that they are polytheist – defined as: “the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods� (i.e., they believe in other “gods�, though they may not worship them since doing so supposedly angers a favored “god�).

One can hardly say, “I accept extraordinary claims made for ‘god X’�, without giving “god status� to the entity in question.

The fact is, there isn't much objective evidence for the "God hypothesis" or for the "No-god hypothesis.

As I have pointed out previously, “god hypothesis vs. no-god hypothesis� is a FALSE dichotomy. The “WHAT GOD?� position is an alternative that is more rational, in my opinion, than either of those proposed because it does NOT assume to have knowledge of existence or non-existence of “gods� without evidence upon which to make such a decision.

" What we do in such cases of insufficient evidence is either throw up our hands and say, "I must remain immobilized in my thinking," or else we examine each hypothesis to see where it leads.

One’s thinking is NOT “immobilized� when they recognize that they have insufficient information on a given topic to make a reasoned decision.

However, those who HAVE made a decision to “believe in gods� with “evidence� no more substantial than testimonials and personal mental exercises often insist that others should make a decision based upon such “evidence� even though that level of “evidence� (testimonials and mental exercise) is below their standards for what is regarded as credible evidence to make a critical decision.

In my case, subjectively I see that the "No-god hypothesis" leads to nowhere--it is an uninteresting and unfruitful hypothesis.

It is not surprising that someone trained in Christian lore would see things that way (in addition to “seeing� the dichotomy of “god hypothesis vs. no-god hypothesis� and failing to recognize other alternatives such as the “What god?� hypothesis).

On the other hand, the "God hypothesis" opens the door for hope.

Exactly WHAT “hope� is available to “god� worshipers that is not available to non-worshipers?

The ONLY part of “hope� that appears to be exclusive to worshipers is the hope that their “god� exists and will grant them “salvation� in an “afterlife�.

Is there ANYTHING else that a worshiper can hope for that is NOT equally available to non-worshipers?

“Hope� in general can exist with or without a “god hypothesis� – god worshipers have no exclusive claim on “hope�.

I, personally, view the “hope� to mean “I hope there is a ‘god’ and that by worshiping properly I hope to be rewarded in an ‘afterlife’� (and often “my chosen hope allows me to think of myself as superior to others – though I will disclaim that if questioned�).

As I proceed tentatively along that hopeful path, I compare the various religious traditions, and I find that one of them makes sense and is worthy of my trust.

Did you make a commitment to one of the “various religious traditions� BEFORE comparing it to other religious traditions?

If so, the “comparison� was NOT the basis for a decision of which of them “makes sense and is worthy of my trust� because that decision was ALREADY MADE.

I don't claim that everyone who examines the matter will adopt the same approach or conclusions as I do. But we all take a leap of faith at some point, since none of us seems to possess objective truth on anything.

“We all take a leap of faith at some point� is a FALSE statement because it does NOT apply to the “What god?� position. No “leap of faith� is required in asking for evidence upon which to make a decision.

The Apologist claim that one MUST make a decision regarding “gods� is simply a projection onto others of THEIR need to make a decision, and a failure to recognize or respect the position of those who ask “What god?� and require information sufficient to meet their standards for making a reasoned decision.

“Hurry up and make a decision even without evidence� sounds like a sales pitch made for time-share condominiums by high-powered salesmen. Demeaning or discrediting those who do not “buy the pitch� is a pressure tactic often used in such presentations.

A rational question is “What’s the hurry?� or “Why should I make a decision to buy or not buy what you are promoting just because you think I should?�

[EduChris]

...The list of things I take on faith is very, very short...

This would seem to go against current postmodern understandings of epistemology and our unavoidable "situatedness" within social constructs of culture, gender, ethnicity, language, life-cycle stage of development, etc, etc, etc.

...Now compare that with the list of things you take on faith. Your list is long and includes many things that are entirely optional...

I'm not sure that my list is any longer or shorter than yours. I knowlingly adopt the "God hypothesis," whereas you (unknowingly?) adopt the "No-god hypothesis." To me we both start with an equal number of unprovable assumptions.

[Flail]

EduChris wrote:

I'm not sure that my list is any longer or shorter than yours. I knowlingly adopt the "God hypothesis," whereas you (unknowingly?) adopt the "No-god hypothesis." To me we both start with an equal number of unprovable assumptions.

IMO, the 'no-god' hypothesis is more 'knowing' than yours. Based upon the available evidence we do not 'know' of any gods. Based upon that same 'evidence', you 'claim' to 'know' something you cannot know. The non-theist simply wants support for your claim of 'knowledge' while making no such knowledge claims of her own.

[EduChris]

...you 'claim' to 'know' something you cannot know...

No, I do not claim "knowledge." I claim that given the uncertain situation we're all in, I choose one unevidenced option on the basis of hope, whereas the non-theist chooses another (equally unevidenced) option on the assumption that "commitment in the face of unassailable uncertainty is always the best option."

"Faith leading to understanding" seems more reasonable, given the human epistemological condition, than the alternative of "certainty must precede any commitment."

[Flail]

...you 'claim' to 'know' something you cannot know...

No, I do not claim "knowledge." I claim that given the uncertain situation we're all in, I choose one unevidenced option on the basis of hope, whereas the non-theist chooses another (equally unevidenced) option on the assumption that "commitment in the face of unassailable uncertainty is always the best option."

"Faith leading to understanding" seems more reasonable, given the human epistemological condition, than the alternative of "certainty must precede any commitment."

When faced with jumping from places in the dark or staying put, experience demonstrates the wisdom in not jumping into un-evidenced conclusions...particularly when those who has take the leap previously have never been heard from again..... it could be a long way down.