What are the alternatives to evidence?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

[Slopeshoulder]

I also believe in God, but I don't try to pigron hole him into a particular religion. There is no physical proof, not a subatomic particle nor the entire universe is proof of a design or creator. I refuse to fall into the trap of having to physically prove something that isn't physical.

Its the same as trying to prove that you love your wife or girlfriend or dog. I can't show any physical proof, its the experience itself. The proof is how I feel and my actions toward them. Its attitude, which I can't show you.

My belief in God grew into faith and trust through my experience with God, my relationship. Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given. But if you choose not to seek or ask, don't expect much.

I am confident that you have and love your wife and your dog. I too have a dog and a wife and experience what others have described as 'love' toward them. We have ample evidence of wives and dogs and reciprocal love relationships with them. I can point to my wife and my dog. Since neither of us can point to your particular 'God', we speculate, we imagine, we concoct. I am not saying there are not 'Gods', but I have no coherent manner of discerning what they would be or where they would be or what they are about until and unless I have credible evidence. The point of the OP is demonstrated by those who speculate without such evidence.

Dammit, I'm going to allow myself a rare moment of evangelism (think of it like recommending a band):
Let's stipulate that there is no evidence of god, and that experience and attitude are non-physical and non-provable. Yet we acknowledge those as experiences (e.g. love of wife and dog). Can we also agree that this experience of open-ended non-garuanteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious? And if we agree that evidence is not the point, only a tool en route to the point, does that not give us license, not to say ridiclous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy (non-fundamentalist) religious neighborhood and let it wash over us and see what happens? In Acts, Jesus had a good line to Thomas about blessed are those who have (keep?) faith without having seen. Rather than being a demand for blind belief, perhaps this can be interpreted to mean that it is fruitful and worthwhile to allow ourselves to get beyond our 5 senses and just let things like feelings and attitudes and experiences indwell in us, to orient toward possibility and go with our gut. Many people who do this, including many very smart and sane folks, report that this has been terrific, so maybe there's something to it. Whether it leads one to the God of western monotheism I couldn't say. But surely there are religious teachers out there who have sufficient respect for the laws of evidence (logical, legal, scientific) and are worth listening to.

FWIW I knew several people in div school doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in div school. MANY Jesuits teach science and law and hold doctorates in these fields. I was reading just yesterday in an alumni magazine about a young woman who is an M.Div./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her faith is anti-evidentiary. So it's out there if you care to look. But maybe being ethical, as you are, in the face of so much dumb and shameful religion is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

[cnorman18]

I also believe in God, but I don't try to pigron hole him into a particular religion. There is no physical proof, not a subatomic particle nor the entire universe is proof of a design or creator. I refuse to fall into the trap of having to physically prove something that isn't physical.

Its the same as trying to prove that you love your wife or girlfriend or dog. I can't show any physical proof, its the experience itself. The proof is how I feel and my actions toward them. Its attitude, which I can't show you.

My belief in God grew into faith and trust through my experience with God, my relationship. Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given. But if you choose not to seek or ask, don't expect much.

I am confident that you have and love your wife and your dog. I too have a dog and a wife and experience what others have described as 'love' toward them. We have ample evidence of wives and dogs and reciprocal love relationships with them. I can point to my wife and my dog. Since neither of us can point to your particular 'God', we speculate, we imagine, we concoct. I am not saying there are not 'Gods', but I have no coherent manner of discerning what they would be or where they would be or what they are about until and unless I have credible evidence. The point of the OP is demonstrated by those who speculate without such evidence.

Dammit, I'm going to allow myself a rare moment of evangelism (think of it like recommending a band):
Let's stipulate that there is no evidence of god, and that experience and attitude are non-physical and non-provable. Yet we acknowledge those as experiences (e.g. love of wife and dog). Can we also agree that this experience of open-ended non-garuanteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious? And if we agree that evidence is not the point, only a tool en route to the point, does that not give us license, not to say ridiclous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy (non-fundamentalist) religious neighborhood and let it wash over us and see what happens? In Acts, Jesus had a good line to Thomas about blessed are those who have (keep?) faith without having seen. Rather than being a demand for blind belief, perhaps this can be interpreted to mean that it is fruitful and worthwhile to allow ourselves to get beyond our 5 senses and just let things like feelings and attitudes and experiences indwell in us, to orient toward possibility and go with our gut. Many people who do this, including many very smart and sane folks, report that this has been terrific, so maybe there's something to it. Whether it leads one to the God of western monotheism I couldn't say. But surely there are religious teachers out there who have sufficient respect for the laws of evidence (logical, legal, scientific) and are worth listening to.

FWIW I knew several people in div school doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in div school. MANY Jesuits teach science and law and hold doctorates in these fields. I was reading just yesterday in an alumni magazine about a young woman who is an M.Div./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her faith is anti-evidentiary. So it's out there if you care to look. But maybe being ethical, as you are, in the face of so much dumb and shameful religion is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

Hear, hear. Very many religious Jews are active in science, law and medicine as well, and that has been true since the Middle Ages. Religious belief does NOT -- repeat, DOES NOT -- demand hostility toward and rejection of the laws of evidence, the laws of logic, or the laws of science.

Once again I post, in part, my own small statement of the meaning of "faith":

---

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

---

Some choose to believe nothing at all without hard evidence and rigid logic. Peace and long life to them, and there's nothing wrong with that approach at all. But the constant, incessant, unrelenting drumbeat of the implicit subtext, "Faith of any kind is childish, stupid, irrational, and completely illegitimate and inexcusable" DOES grow a bit tiresome around here. I regard that attitude as every bit as arrogant, self-righteous, and thoroughly objectionable as that of any fundamentalist/literalist Christian or Muslim on this board.

Not all religion is fundamentalism/literalism, no matter how hard or how persistently some try to equate them.

[Flail]

I also believe in God, but I don't try to pigron hole him into a particular religion. There is no physical proof, not a subatomic particle nor the entire universe is proof of a design or creator. I refuse to fall into the trap of having to physically prove something that isn't physical.

Its the same as trying to prove that you love your wife or girlfriend or dog. I can't show any physical proof, its the experience itself. The proof is how I feel and my actions toward them. Its attitude, which I can't show you.

My belief in God grew into faith and trust through my experience with God, my relationship. Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given. But if you choose not to seek or ask, don't expect much.

I am confident that you have and love your wife and your dog. I too have a dog and a wife and experience what others have described as 'love' toward them. We have ample evidence of wives and dogs and reciprocal love relationships with them. I can point to my wife and my dog. Since neither of us can point to your particular 'God', we speculate, we imagine, we concoct. I am not saying there are not 'Gods', but I have no coherent manner of discerning what they would be or where they would be or what they are about until and unless I have credible evidence. The point of the OP is demonstrated by those who speculate without such evidence.

Dammit, I'm going to allow myself a rare moment of evangelism (think of it like recommending a band):
Let's stipulate that there is no evidence of god, and that experience and attitude are non-physical and non-provable. Yet we acknowledge those as experiences (e.g. love of wife and dog). Can we also agree that this experience of open-ended non-garuanteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious? And if we agree that evidence is not the point, only a tool en route to the point, does that not give us license, not to say ridiclous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy (non-fundamentalist) religious neighborhood and let it wash over us and see what happens? In Acts, Jesus had a good line to Thomas about blessed are those who have (keep?) faith without having seen. Rather than being a demand for blind belief, perhaps this can be interpreted to mean that it is fruitful and worthwhile to allow ourselves to get beyond our 5 senses and just let things like feelings and attitudes and experiences indwell in us, to orient toward possibility and go with our gut. Many people who do this, including many very smart and sane folks, report that this has been terrific, so maybe there's something to it. Whether it leads one to the God of western monotheism I couldn't say. But surely there are religious teachers out there who have sufficient respect for the laws of evidence (logical, legal, scientific) and are worth listening to.

FWIW I knew several people in div school doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in div school. MANY Jesuits teach science and law and hold doctorates in these fields. I was reading just yesterday in an alumni magazine about a young woman who is an M.Div./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her faith is anti-evidentiary. So it's out there if you care to look. But maybe being ethical, as you are, in the face of so much dumb and shameful religion is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

...and I get all that.

I am not saying that you do this, but IMO, many theists presume that those of us who do not believe, don't allow these spiritual concepts to wash over us. In my experience most thinking atheists, agnostics and ignostics, are well versed in Biblical claims and ideas. Since most of these ideas and ideals, moral concepts etc are common sense and logical, and not necessarily unique to Christianity, we consider and apply them to our living just as do theists. We just don't attribute these ideas to your particular 'God', which permits us to refrain from drawing any lines in the sand with us on one side and you and your God on the other.

One of the main benefits I find from non-belief is the freeing up of time to think and study vs time spent for rituals and dogma, and the freeing up of revenue for more worthy causes.

[stlekee]

I must agree there is no physical proof of a non-physical reality. My thoughts about love of wife and dog were aimed at the experience of love, not the object of love.

In the sense that 'I am happy' cannot be proven.

[Slopeshoulder]

...and I get all that.

I am not saying that you do this, but IMO, many theists presume that those of us who do not believe, don't allow these spiritual concepts to wash over us. In my experience most thinking atheists, agnostics and ignostics, are well versed in Biblical claims and ideas. Since most of these ideas and ideals, moral concepts etc are common sense and logical, and not necessarily unique to Christianity, we consider and apply them to our living just as do theists. We just don't attribute these ideas to your particular 'God', which permits us to refrain from drawing any lines in the sand with us on one side and you and your God on the other.

One of the main benefits I find from non-belief is the freeing up of time to think and study vs time spent for rituals and dogma, and the freeing up of revenue for more worthy causes.

I agree.

I think it is a false move when some theists say evidence is not the only paradigm but then use this try to either prove god or claim that have unique experience and are better people. That is what is called being unclear of the concept!
Non-theists don't affirm a god; as a result they tend not to hang out in religious places, and many more arrogant and conservative theists make this an inevitability. You know what conversations are like in my neighborhood? This:
Athiest: "I'm an atheist."
Theist: "Yeah, you and everybody else around here. Don't laugh at me, but I'm going with theism myself."
Both: "Whatever, pass the pie. It looks great." OR "Whatever, people are sufferring. Let's get to work my friend."

Hey, BTW, here's a simple and personal reason why I orient toward theism: when I look at people I admire, from all walks of life, all my heroes, I find that time and time again there is a quality of thought and action, of maturity, wisdom, sublime perspective, insight etc that the great theists have that stands out for me and makes me say "Those folks are on to something, I want to hang out in their space." I'm not referring to apologists. And this is not to say that I don't deeply admire and heroize countless atheists and disapprove of countless theists. But at their best, these spiritual cats have something going on that reaches me, a certain sensibility that perhaps I have the antennae or desire for.

[Slopeshoulder]

Caveat: Whatever I write here will be inadequete, plus I just woke up a few minutes ago.
Here are a few point that speak to the OP:

- I absolutely and axiomatically...DELETED FOR BREVITY

Notwithstanding your caveat and your sleepiness, this is perhaps the best post of 'beliefs' I have ever encountered from a theist.

Sincere and humble thanks. It is often a lonely road in thin air, and it is good to be understood. Thank you.

If the belief system you describe had a name and a definitive identity, but 'no particular 'God', no place of worship, no Holy books or places, and no ritual practices,

OK. How about no particular god (unless you want one and choose one), no place of worship (unless worship means "affirm" and the place is everywhere), and no holy book (unless we mean all good books or you find one that is sacred to you). Re ritual, I hear you; I tend to doze or fidget during most religious rituals; I'm infamous for it. But humans are ritual making folks, if by this we mean repeated little actions and ceremonies that give structure and meaning to our lives amd memories. In this sense, ballgames, concerts, holidays, meals, courtrooms and families all have and value rituals. My wife is writing a book called 'The Rite Life" that is designed to provide ritual to people who seek meaning outside of religion or church. But, yes, I agree...

I might join.

Well, it exists and you can "join." In two ways.

The first way is to say I agree; shazam, you're in. Then, we converse here or elsewhere: shazam, it's a community. Then, you incorporate these thoughts into your own speaking when engaging others: shazam, it's a movement.

The other way you can join is to check out, register at, and tell folks about what I have created with my wife, Michele DeMarco Wilkie, which is designed specifically to do what you asked, yet even more flexible. Its her baby, but I am very involved. It's been given everything we have. The URL is www.spiritfulliving.com. But the site is being significantly reorganized and the URL changed to www.michelelife.com in November if all goes well. Spiritful Living or Spirit Wellness is NOT a religion, NOR is it a substitute for religion. Rather it is a framework for living and wellness that draws upon all great wisdom traditions, sacred and secular, and takes the best of everything we know. And while it insists that everyone has spirit and spirit is the key to spirit wellness and therefore to total wellness, it allows people from atheist to theist to define spirit however they like (as a core identity, a driving energy, a personal quality, or as an eternal soul, its up to you). It was born after 9/11. It sells no god or doctrine. It is intended to enhance the experience of people who have religion, and to provide a workable framework for living to those who dont. Its meant to build bridges. And it is VERY consciously about media not church, teaching not doctrine, and inclusion not exclusion. While Michele writes in a simple style for a broad audience, she doesnt dummy it down too much. And unlike many self-help and pop spirituality gurus, she actually has a STRONG credential: BA in religion, MA in religion, another MA in spiritual counseling, a certificate in conflict studies, and 2 years additional grad work in social work and in systems theory and relational counseling, all from elite schools and with honors. She is also a very young survivor of two unexplained heart attacks, so she looks the void in the eye every damn day and flourishes not despite, but because of it. AND you have my personal testimony that she is extremely wise, warm, insightful, charismatic, earthy, ageless, and possesses a genius IQ and an irrepressible spirit. So far our audience is drawn from stay at home moms who would otherwise be watching oprah (blech!), far more men than one might expect (Michele is a tough cookie and no nonsense), yoga teachers and practitioners, seekers, buddhists, jews, unitarians, mainstream christians, lots of agnostics, a growing number of atheists, doctors, nurses, yoga teachers, coaches, midlifers, seniors facing health crises, academics, architects, attorneys, physicians, psychologists, academics, finance types, and some tech millionaires, mostly in new England but its starting to fan out. Our legal, publicity, and brand team is top notch and getting it going. Theres no church or club, but one can get a book, sign up for a weekly wakeup call, get an occasional newsletter, tell a friend, send a testimonial, write a review, get individual advising, get a workshop, click like or :share" on facebook, etc.
So yes, it exists, and one can join. Id welcome your or anyone elses thoughts via PM.
EDIT: To be clear. I may call myself theist, but SL is not a theism and doesn't require theism. But it does welcome it.

Bonus: You might find you like humanistic uinitarian universalism. But after meeting separately and privately with two recent past presidents of the UU Association (the UU popes), I decided to create SL instead.

That said, I continue to think you would send a better message and set a better example to your fellows and family members were you to renounce Christian membership altogether.

You may be right. Watch this space. Actually my day to day orientation is spiritful living anyway, even though I speak WAY outside its brief here, speaking for myself as a person, not for it. Indeed, the need to do that is what brought me here.
Three little factoid/anecdotes that stop me from renunciation of my backgorund:
- a friend who was a white collar professional lived in london. He told me that in three years he got to know few londoners outside of work. His friends were other outsiders like him.
- whenever I go to europe, people speak to me in their native tongue and many adopt me or befriend me. But I know that I never get past the status of "charming american." Like it or not, I remain american. It shapes me. And america has been good to me. Even though I fantacize about emigrating.
- religions like hinduism are an identity and they laugh at western "converts." Jews make it hard too, for the same reason.
So, net, formal conversion is a nonstarter if I'm honest. But permutation,mashups, and reappropriations are fair game.
But who knows? As I said, watch this spot. I might go poof after all.

You might become a Buddhist

I'm deeply influenced by Buddhism. Love it. But I'm too serious to settle for less than serious Buddhism, and that's a decade of work, a huge distraction. Buddhism-lite bores me. But never say never.

or just refuse all labels/memberships and be nothing other than an individual 'citizen of the universe'.

Well outside this forum, this is exactly what I do. And I refer to aspects of all orientations pretty equally. As I mentioned, Michele has three degrees in religion, two from christian-ish universities (BC, BU), and studied at 4 others (Harvard Divinity, Episcopal Divinity, Weston Jesuit, and Andover-Newton), and she rejects the label Christian! You'd like her more. When asked she says "I'm the creator of spiritiful living at michlellife.com." She inclines toward Daoism. But secretly she likes catholicism (the liberal, mystical, grown up and smart jesuit kinds, NOT the regressive vatican). Christianity is much much less in her bones than in mine. But yes, I do what you suggest most of the time. But I think Simone Weil was once asked how she tolerates catholicism/christianity. She said "The church is a whore. But she is my mother and I love her." A priest told me that when I asked him the same question. Ain't life grand?

[Slopeshoulder]

I must agree there is no physical proof of a non-physical reality. My thoughts about love of wife and dog were aimed at the experience of love, not the object of love.

In the sense that 'I am happy' cannot be proven.

I got it and I agree.

[NoisForm]

If you came across a painting of Van Goghs sunflowers in the middle of the desert,...

Actually, if I found a painting (or any other obviously man made object) in the middle of the desert, I would presume that it was created precisely because it bears no resemblance to all of the naturally occurring phenomenon surrounding it - that is, it appears created.

Funny how those that attempt to use this type of argument are compelled to introduce a man made object which is quite obviously created (never a tree or a stone, say), exactly for this reason.

I mean, if it is so painfully obvious that all is 'created', why the introduction of the man made object? Why not use a rock? Well, because it doesn't work.

The reason the painting appears so obviously created (aside from the fact that it is), is because they always drop it in these completely naturalistic settings which effectively demonstrate the stark contrast between the two, the naturalistic surrounding having zero appearance of being created.

[Flail]

I must agree there is no physical proof of a non-physical reality. My thoughts about love of wife and dog were aimed at the experience of love, not the object of love.

In the sense that 'I am happy' cannot be proven.

Typically there is ample credible, circumstantial or anecdotal evidence for feelings such as love, hate, fear, sadness, happiness etc. I have never seen any such evidence for a 'God'.

[Flail]

Slopeshoulder wrote:

Hey, BTW, here's a simple and personal reason why I orient toward theism: when I look at people I admire, from all walks of life, all my heroes, I find that time and time again there is a quality of thought and action, of maturity, wisdom, sublime perspective, insight etc that the great theists have that stands out for me and makes me say "Those folks are on to something, I want to hang out in their space." I'm not referring to apologists. And this is not to say that I don't deeply admire and heroize countless atheists and disapprove of countless theists. But at their best, these spiritual cats have something going on that reaches me, a certain sensibility that perhaps I have the antennae or desire for.

I tend toward the opposite types when it comes to heroes. I doubt we have many in common, except for Jesus perhaps. I do count some 'spiritualists' among my favorite authors and types. I admire Hesse's 'Sidartha' for example. Other 'heroes' and authors that come to mind include Voltaire, Hume, Sartre, Rand, Ghandi, Warren Buffet, Wayne Dyer, Lance Armstrong, Cormac McCarthy, Dickens, Freud, Nietzsche, Faulkner, Knut Hamsung, John Fante, Charles Bukowski, Thomas Paine and Jerry Seinfeld.