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]

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.

A few I don't know and will look up.
The others I like a lot. I prefer camus and heidegger to sartre, usually. Dyer I left behind as a repackager and a marketer who shifts to follow the market. I prefer what my wife writes; deeper, more grounded.
I despise Rand. Sorry.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Rest assured that you are understood (at least to some extent) and respected by a wide range of people representing divergent viewpoints. Yours is a voice of reason that is often in opposition to what masquerades as Christian belief as presented by the ever-present Biblicists.

[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.

A few I don't know and will look up.
The others I like a lot. I prefer camus and heidegger to sartre, usually. Dyer I left behind as a repackager and a marketer who shifts to follow the market. I prefer what my wife writes; deeper, more grounded.
I despise Rand. Sorry.

Camus is excellent. Where can I get your wife's or perhaps your writings?

...as to Rand, Atlas Shrugged is currently applicable...Virtue of Selfishness my favorite of her offerings.

[Slopeshoulder]

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.

A few I don't know and will look up.
The others I like a lot. I prefer camus and heidegger to sartre, usually. Dyer I left behind as a repackager and a marketer who shifts to follow the market. I prefer what my wife writes; deeper, more grounded.
I despise Rand. Sorry.

Camus is excellent. Where can I get your wife's or perhaps your writings?

...as to Rand, Atlas Shrugged is currently applicable...Virtue of Selfishness my favorite of her offerings.

Then you'll like the discussion of Self in M's books. You can get her books by searching Michele DeMarco Wilkie at Amazon.com, and at barnes&Noble online. There's three on there. 2 for kindle or nook so far. I am intimately involved in brainstorming, outlining, editing, and co-crafting the difficult passages, debating every syllable. I also write some drafts. But as time goes on she stretches it farther; I can't keep up with her.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... rco+wilkie



http://www.spiritfulliving.com/michele_61.html

[Zzyzx]

.

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."

That is sound thinking. My experience is slightly different.

People I admire exhibit a quality of thought and action, of maturity, wisdom, sublime perspective, insight etc IRRESPECTIVE of their theological position.

Since I focused on sciences, not many of my mentors or heroes were Theists (or acknowledged being so?), though one was an Episcopal college Chaplin. Most were quite earthy, real-world-oriented, matter-of-fact, no nonsense people. Of course I am biased, as are we all " and all with different biases. I chose my mentors and heroes from those I considered outstanding in both brilliance and application.

I have encountered some Theists who exhibited similar traits (and a few who were also real-world-oriented). I must note that the quality of thought evidenced by several of the Thinking Theist members of this Forum has had a positive effect on my attitude in this regard. Those people have NOT been Biblicists / Fundamentalists / Literalists (with one possible exception) " and seem to be cut from different cloth.

[Kuan]

I agree, it seems to be so easy to argue against religion and so hard to defend it. Could religion be defined as a paradox? Now im confusing myself, im going to stop here.

[scourge99]

Alright. I admit. I had a little fun with this one. Hopefully you see the humor in it too.

But on a serious note, the religiosity of this thread strikes me as none too different than the satire below. What distinguishes religion from any arbitrary beliefs that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc? Or, if something, anything, provides such things to the "believer", is it immediately considered "religious" by definition?

Let's stipulate that there is no evidence , 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-guaranteed 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 ridiculous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy [casino] and let it wash over us and see what happens? In [the 2002 WSOP], [Doyle Brunson] had a good line to [Scotty Nguyen] about blessed are those who [go all in] without having seen [the flop]. 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 [winning your state lottery] I couldn't say. But surely there are [experienced gamblers] 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 [the casino business] doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in [the casino business]. MANY [craps players] 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 [professional WSOP champion]./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her [gambling] 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 [gambling] is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

Hear, hear. Very many [gamblers] are active in science, law and medicine as well, and that has been true since the Middle Ages. [Gambling] 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 " may mean no more than "I believe in [the lottery] 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 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 [rich lifestyle] and the [winnings] are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent [jackpot] - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in [a mega millions payout] that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether [the money] 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 [gamble] 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, "[Gambling] 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 [addicted] [black jack player] or [roulette player] on this board.

Not all [gambling] is [addiction] no matter how hard or how persistently some try to equate them.

[Slopeshoulder]

Alright. I admit. I had a little fun with this one. Hopefully you see the humor in it too.

But on a serious note, the religiosity of this thread strikes me as none too different than the satire below. What distinguishes religion from any arbitrary beliefs that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc? Or, if something, anything, provides such things to the "believer", is it immediately considered "religious" by definition?

Let's stipulate that there is no evidence , 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-guaranteed 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 ridiculous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy [casino] and let it wash over us and see what happens? In [the 2002 WSOP], [Doyle Brunson] had a good line to [Scotty Nguyen] about blessed are those who [go all in] without having seen [the flop]. 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 [winning your state lottery] I couldn't say. But surely there are [experienced gamblers] 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 [the casino business] doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in [the casino business]. MANY [craps players] 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 [professional WSOP champion]./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her [gambling] 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 [gambling] is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

Hear, hear. Very many [gamblers] are active in science, law and medicine as well, and that has been true since the Middle Ages. [Gambling] 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 " may mean no more than "I believe in [the lottery] 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 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 [rich lifestyle] and the [winnings] are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent [jackpot] - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in [a mega millions payout] that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether [the money] 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 [gamble] 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, "[Gambling] 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 [addicted] [black jack player] or [roulette player] on this board.

Not all [gambling] is [addiction] no matter how hard or how persistently some try to equate them.

Yes, creative and funny!
But as you say, on serious note, gambling and religion are not analogous, and thoughtful religious faith is not as random and self serving as you imply. Your (otherwise creative an humorous) post suggest an aversion to even the more nuanced versions of religion that approaches my own out of hand dismissal of the band Styx! Styx sucks, big time. There's just nothing more to say.

[Cathar1950]

Alright. I admit. I had a little fun with this one. Hopefully you see the humor in it too.

But on a serious note, the religiosity of this thread strikes me as none too different than the satire below. What distinguishes religion from any arbitrary beliefs that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc? Or, if something, anything, provides such things to the "believer", is it immediately considered "religious" by definition?

Let's stipulate that there is no evidence , 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-guaranteed 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 ridiculous things that we try to pass off as truth, but possibly some warrant to read, embrace and hang around in a worthy [casino] and let it wash over us and see what happens? In [the 2002 WSOP], [Doyle Brunson] had a good line to [Scotty Nguyen] about blessed are those who [go all in] without having seen [the flop]. 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 [winning your state lottery] I couldn't say. But surely there are [experienced gamblers] 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 [the casino business] doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in [the casino business]. MANY [craps players] 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 [professional WSOP champion]./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her [gambling] 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 [gambling] is itself a laudable faith.
Just a thought.

Hear, hear. Very many [gamblers] are active in science, law and medicine as well, and that has been true since the Middle Ages. [Gambling] 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 " may mean no more than "I believe in [the lottery] 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 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 [rich lifestyle] and the [winnings] are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent [jackpot] - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in [a mega millions payout] that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether [the money] 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 [gamble] 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, "[Gambling] 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 [addicted] [black jack player] or [roulette player] on this board.

Not all [gambling] is [addiction] no matter how hard or how persistently some try to equate them.

While we might focus on why someone is "religious" or a gambler there is also the social forces and benefits. Sure there are a lot of losers but someone is making some big money. And then here are all the money generated by the social and economic relationships. People with lots of money or religion might vote which influences an even broader relationships.

[scourge99]

But as you say, on serious note, gambling and religion are not analogous, and thoughtful religious faith is not as random and self serving as you imply.

The point was that belief in winning the lottery is "only a tool en route to the point". Winning the jackpot isn't the point just as the factual existence of God isn't the point as claimed by you and cnorman.

"wining the jackpot" or "God" can be substituted with a great deal of others things for other people. It doesn't appear to matter as long as the end result is the same. E.G., that the "experience of open-ended non-guaranteed 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."