Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[fredonly]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #307]

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

No problem.
Evidence
Evidence broadly refers to data and or knowledge that is gathered, analyzed, and used to generate a conclusion.

Do you have a way to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias in your collection and analysis of evidence? If yes, please demonstrate how that process mitigates the possibility of confirmation bias. Thanks.

Exactly. Evidence is indeed collation of data and knowledge, but to be worthwhile as valid evidence, it has of course to be validated. Collating a pile of myths, fairy tales and conspiracy theories is not Good evidence. How do we validate it? Science and reasoning, and we know how religious apologetics thinks about science and reasoning - they claim it is on their side, until it undercuts their faith, and then it is merely 'human opinion'. In short, Religion has no business talking about 'Evidence' if we mean valid evidence.

I'm going to weigh in with my opinion on this.

Evidence is any set of facts. The controversy begins when an argument is made based on those facts. Controversies include: are these actually facts? are other facts being ignored? Are correct inferences being made from those facts? Is the cited evidence sufficient to establish the proposed conclusion? Does a broader set of facts entail something different?

So I think it's a mistake to ever say, "there's no evidence" for something. Instead, ask what evidence (set of facts) he's basing his conclusion on - and then identify issues with that.

Example1: "The empty tomb is evidence for the Resurrection"
The alleged empty tomb is not established fact. The established fact is that an empty tomb narrative exists.

Example2: "The existence of the universe is evidence of God."
The existence of the universe is consistent with, but does not entail, God - so the evidence is not sufficient.

[John17_3]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #307]

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

No problem.
Evidence
Evidence broadly refers to data and or knowledge that is gathered, analyzed, and used to generate a conclusion.

Do you have a way to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias in your collection and analysis of evidence? If yes, please demonstrate how that process mitigates the possibility of confirmation bias. Thanks.

No problem.

Confirmation bias is unavoidable, so long as humans are involved.
It does not matter what field of study.

Please read the following:
Science and Scientific Research
4. Cognitive Biases in Science
Understanding confirmation bias in research

Even when persons believe with all their heart that there is honesty in a particular field of study, that in itself is subject to confirmation bias.
How do you mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias in such a belief.

For example, in science, and theories that other scientists are opposed to - how would you know that your belief is not driven, or influenced by confirmation bias?


To answer your question, though, in my case.

1. The evidence must be corroborative.
2. Once there is a solid foundation of truth, that becomes the basis on which to build on.
3. If new evidence comes to light, we adjust our understanding to fit that evidence.

Background
I was raised by parents... at least one, who believed in God.
I went to church, yes, but I do not know if that made me believe strongly in God, more than my experience.
Cognitive bias? I do not know.

People who were not raised going to church, or believing in God, came to believe in God, so believing in God, does not depend on being raised as I was.

We all have a brain to think, and yes, we think differently... oftentimes, our thinking - the way we think, is molded by our experiences.
Confirmation bias is possible in anyone. From the skeptic, to the believer.

For me, and other millions - including atheists, science intellectuals with PhDs, you name it, we used our brain to think and come to a conclusion... Not because we wanted that conclusion to be true, but because we found the evidence too strong, to deny.
No true atheist wants to believe in God, unless the proof is there, and most scientists, will want to see evidence for what is claimed.

Long story short...
I found corroborating evidence for an unseen creator, though not looking for it.
In my life experience; the creation around us; the Bible. These three, continually are being confirmed every day, in everyday life - that of my own, and the people around me.

In fact, the evidence is so strong around me, I can forget about my own experience, and creation, and just take the Bible, and show anyone, that the Bible is true. There is an unseen creator!

Would you like to see that evidence?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #312]

Confirmation bias is mitigated by ensuring your hypothesis is falsifiable, identifying the disconfirming evidence you should expect to discover if your hypothesis is false, determining if that disconfirming evidence exists, and submitting your analysis to a rigorous peer review and replication process.

• Is your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god falsifiable? If yes, proceed to the next question below. If no, then please submit a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested.

• What disconfirming evidence would you expect to find if your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god is false? If you've identified the expected disconfirming evidence, proceed to the next question. If you haven't, then please indicate as such and stop here.

• Have you conducted any experiments designed to try and determine if the expected disconfirming evidence for your hypothesis exists?

[John17_3]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #312]

Confirmation bias is mitigated by ensuring your hypothesis is falsifiable, identifying the disconfirming evidence you should expect to discover if your hypothesis is false, determining if that disconfirming evidence exists, and submitting your analysis to a rigorous peer review and replication process.

• Is your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god falsifiable? If yes, proceed to the next question below. If no, then please submit a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested.

• What disconfirming evidence would you expect to find if your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god is false? If you've identified the expected disconfirming evidence, proceed to the next question. If you haven't, then please indicate as such and stop here.

• Have you conducted any experiments designed to try and determine if the expected disconfirming evidence for your hypothesis exists?

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.
It is also a myth, to believe that science follows a rigid method.
Myth: The scientific method
Perhaps the most commonly held myth about the nature of science is that there is a universal scientific method, with a common series of steps that scientists follow. The steps usually include defining the problem, forming a hypothesis, making observations, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions and reporting results. In classrooms, students can be seen writing up the aim, hypothesis, method, results and conclusion.

[TRANSPONDER]

I just love it when supernatural - believers try to argue science away because it comes up with conclusions that don't suit the believer.

Aside that it utterly discredits the believer's input into any discussion and they cannot cite science when it suits them but dismiss it when it doesn't, even if it was valid to wave away the conclusions of science, that would not do the thing they want - validate Christianity as it would mean that nobody has any valid basis for believing anything.

Aside form that, as I say, it wouldn't leave the god - claim in place as there is no valid basis for choosing one god over another. We have seen enough of this over the posts that have appeared.

Religious faithbased apologetics makes claims, and anything in science or reason that supports it can be praised as valid science. Anything that doesn't suit the faith is argued away as unreliable.

We smile as we see the sleight of hand being done, by the religious apologist as we know how the trick works and we aren't fooled by it.

We know the flaw in Faithbased apologetics, based on irrational faith, employing invalid cherry picking and misrepresentation of science, logic and history to suit the Faithclaim (1) to inversion of burden of proof, twisting of evidence (e.g the Egyptian tax - document) and attacking science and scientists unless it suits the faithclaim - even if the science is being misquoted; e.g the evolutionist who said it was 'a fairy tale'. Taken smack out of context (referred to the popular idea of ape to human straight line) but claimant refused to admit what was actually meant even when explained to him a dozen times. Same with slavery in the Bible, the resurrection contradictions and the nonsense nativity - still too widely accepted as an actual event.

I think that we know, or we should know, the trick and lie being perpetrated by faithbased rhetoric cherry picking science, logic and even the Bible (dismissing what it says about slavery because they don't like it) and anyone capable of reason and honesty should know a lie when they see it, just as cats and dogs in Springfield is a lie, no matter how often the lie is repeated, and the Other side is accused of being the ones with the bias.

When doing apologetics with Bible - believers, we should always be aware that they cannot help but do it wrong, selectively, illogically and with inbuilt bias, and - yes, of course projection...supposing that those who look at the evidence for and against, must be cherry picking, manipulating the evidence and pulling various dirty tricks to win, when in fact evaluating reasonable doubt - just like in law courts - is the aim, not validating One side.

We should keep this in mind when doing apologetics, or the Faithbased believer will ensnare us in logical muddles about epistemology and semantics, when we either use the methods we have or we don't use them. They do not get to cherry pick the method, evidence and even the data so it suits them. And we have to call them out, every time the do it. Which is pretty much every time. It goes with the faithbased territory.

(1) just two - historical records confirm the existence of Jesus. In fact, they do not. and, say...exodus is historically reliable.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #312]

Confirmation bias is mitigated by ensuring your hypothesis is falsifiable, identifying the disconfirming evidence you should expect to discover if your hypothesis is false, determining if that disconfirming evidence exists, and submitting your analysis to a rigorous peer review and replication process.

• Is your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god falsifiable? If yes, proceed to the next question below. If no, then please submit a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested.

• What disconfirming evidence would you expect to find if your hypothesis about the existence of an unseen creator god is false? If you've identified the expected disconfirming evidence, proceed to the next question. If you haven't, then please indicate as such and stop here.

• Have you conducted any experiments designed to try and determine if the expected disconfirming evidence for your hypothesis exists?

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.
It is also a myth, to believe that science follows a rigid method.
Myth: The scientific method
Perhaps the most commonly held myth about the nature of science is that there is a universal scientific method, with a common series of steps that scientists follow. The steps usually include defining the problem, forming a hypothesis, making observations, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions and reporting results. In classrooms, students can be seen writing up the aim, hypothesis, method, results and conclusion.

And where did that science - discrediting quote come from, I wonder?

The Myth is rather from the science skeptic side, which covers everything from science - denial for religious, political or just crazy belief reasons to fiddling the sciences and philosophy, waging about Authorities, Certificates and long Words to disguise the fact that these people are wrong from the start.

Case o in point, the fearsome Lane Craig and his Kalam nonsense. It means Nothing without a claim that whatever started off tyhe universe had to be intelligent and uncreated. Gasrbage, dressed up in long words.

Plantinga, whose revised Anselm nonsense should have had him sacked. If we can imagine it, it must be true - but only if it is Biblegod, mind, not Shiva or Viracocha. Duncelike reasoning dressed up in long words. And we all fell for it, the Myth being that faoi ithclaims werte anything but illogical, because they were swathed in a lot of philosophical jargon.

cue: You cannot cal out these frauds because of the Religious respect card. It is a swindle protected by tradition, exploited to the limit, and not only in the US.

[bluegreenearth]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.

I didn't claim that every investigation must follow the scientific method.

In your previous response, you claimed confirmation bias was unavoidable and asked how I would mitigate for it. So, I provided you with a method for mitigating confirmation bias. You are welcome to reject that method and use the one you described for investigating the claim about the existence of an invisible creator god, but it doesn't mitigate for confirmation bias. Accordingly, a failure to mitigate for confirmation bias provides a justification to remain agnostic about your god claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe the path to reality (fact, or the model of reality that best fits the data) does not pursue scientific method, but at least, it should be based on validated evidence (not faithclaims) and worked out logically (not based on confirmation bias). The scientific method (and logical argument) has rules (and the guardrails of logical fallacies) to ensure the detection (and reasoning) is done correctly.

This is of universal validity, even if it isn't done universally. The world is full of people who want to fiddle the rules, either for Faith, power or profit. We should call out and eschew all such fiddling of verification.

[John17_3]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.

I didn't claim that every investigation must follow the scientific method.

In your previous response, you claimed confirmation bias was unavoidable and asked how I would mitigate for it. So, I provided you with a method for mitigating confirmation bias. You are welcome to reject that method and use the one you described for investigating the claim about the existence of an invisible creator god, but it doesn't mitigate for confirmation bias. Accordingly, a failure to mitigate for confirmation bias provides a justification to remain agnostic about your god claim.

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

[Diogenes]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

Why so coy? If you have evidence for [whatever] that will "answer all questions," post it.

It will be interesting to see what you consider "evidence," since you seem to denigrate the scientific method.