Why ask for evidence?

[Paul of Tarsus]

Years ago I was debating a Christian who demanded that I present evidence for what I was saying to him. He agreed to concede I was right if I forked over that evidence. When I gave him the evidence he asked for, he broke his promise still refusing to concede I was right.

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them. It seems unlikely that anybody really wants evidence that will falsify what they want to believe, so why ask for that evidence? Based on my experiences with people like the Christian I mention above, the real purpose of demanding evidence in these debates is to try to trip up an ideological opponent hoping he does not have that evidence or that it will be difficult and time-consuming for him to offer it if he does have it.

[Miles]

The physicist Victor Stenger explains the difference between science and religion this way:
1. In science, if the evidence does not support the belief, then the belief is discarded.
2. In religion, if the evidence does not support the belief, then the evidence is discarded.

Although I think Stenger is right about the ideal in science, in practice scientists can be as bull-headed as any religious person.

Good quote, and from what I've seen some scientists become so invested in their position that they do indeed defend it beyond reason: they are bull-headed.

A few years ago I was in what was called a "science forum." The people there were extremely rude and often cursed at and engaged in name-calling against those they disagreed with which included me, naturally. Those who did so included one of the moderators. Anyway, somebody there started a thread on whether math is invented or discovered, and I argued the view that math is invented. I soon realized I was in a forum full of math-is-discovered fundamentalists who could not tolerate the math-is-invented heresy, and I was reviled for my attempts to argue my case any evidence I posted ignored. One of them demanded that the thread be shut down, and the rather immoderate moderator was only so happy to comply with that demand for censorship.

So, do you feel any of the participants were actual scientists or just science groupies?

I hope the silver lining is that people here can read and understand what groups like Jehovah's Witnesses do to people's thinking. If a person cannot understand that what has created cells has created cancer cells, then that is the kind of "thinking" that people should know to avoid.

It's almost frightening to think that such people have the right to vote.


.

[Purple Knight]

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

I actually don't do this. I change my mind due to evidence all the time. It's a tortured existence.

However, I am also among the last to ask for or demand evidence.

The answer to your question is that people demand evidence so they can tell you how it's not good enough, or because you might not have any, and then they declare themselves the victor. Nobody changes their mind due to evidence mainly because it's terrible to live that way.

[Paul of Tarsus]

So, do you feel any of the participants were actual scientists or just science groupies?

It's hard to say what they were except that they were rude and apparently insecure. One of them said that he was a math teacher and that he was going to post printouts of my posts on a bulletin board so that his students could mock what I was arguing. That was all he said to counter my arguments. He was committing what's known as "the laughing jackass fallacy." The mistake in reasoning there is to conclude that if you can mock a person's arguments, then you have refuted those arguments.

Anyway, I hope that none of them are actual scientists or work as mathematicians. Their approach is a threat to the advancement of knowledge. If that guy is a math teacher, then I hope his students look me up. They're going to need a good tutor.

I hope the silver lining is that people here can read and understand what groups like Jehovah's Witnesses do to people's thinking. If a person cannot understand that what has created cells has created cancer cells, then that is the kind of "thinking" that people should know to avoid.

It's almost frightening to think that such people have the right to vote.

You need not fear Jehovah's Witnesses voting because they are discouraged to vote unless the laws of their home countries mandate that they vote. But I don't worry much about them voting because they probably couldn't do much worse than those who do vote. I often fail to see the wisdom in democracy.

[Paul of Tarsus]

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

I actually don't do this. I change my mind due to evidence all the time. It's a tortured existence.

New evidence can change my mind, but I'm conservative in that I take my time making sure that the evidence is legitimate. For example, about ten years ago some scientists claimed they accelerated particles past the speed of light. I was skeptical, and later those scientists turned out to be wrong. I'm glad I took my time there!

However, I am also among the last to ask for or demand evidence.

If I want evidence, then I just look it up if a person making a claim doesn't post it. It's easy enough to do these days with search engines and YouTube. If I suspect a person demanding evidence is just trying to get me to waste my time, I tell them to look it up themselves.

The answer to your question is that people demand evidence so they can tell you how it's not good enough, or because you might not have any, and then they declare themselves the victor. Nobody changes their mind due to evidence mainly because it's terrible to live that way.

To be honest, I don't always accept evidence, and in those cases I make a point of explaining why it doesn't convince me. There's a lot of "evidence" online, and it seems that it's available for almost any position you take on any issue. No doubt Google has inspired a lot of confirmation bias as people comb through a search-results page looking for that one website that has something to say that they agree with. Websites contrary to one's position can be conveniently passed over.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

A few years ago I was in what was called a "science forum." The people there were extremely rude and often cursed at and engaged in name-calling against those they disagreed with which included me, naturally. Those who did so included one of the moderators. Anyway, somebody there started a thread on whether math is invented or discovered, and I argued the view that math is invented. I soon realized I was in a forum full of math-is-discovered fundamentalists who could not tolerate the math-is-invented heresy, and I was reviled for my attempts to argue my case any evidence I posted ignored. One of them demanded that the thread be shut down, and the rather immoderate moderator was only so happy to comply with that demand for censorship.
...
...

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.


I point the obserserver to previous challenges I've presented within this thread, where there's the reasonable notion our claimant here is proud to cook him up a goose, he just don't wanna fix him up a ganderful of em.

[brunumb]

To be honest, I don't always accept evidence, and in those cases I make a point of explaining why it doesn't convince me.

In your OP you said:

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

Don't the two bits I have italicised amount to a contradiction?

If a person knocked on your door and claimed to be an IRS agent demanding that you immediately pay them a certain amount of allegedly owed money, wouldn't you ask for some confirming evidence before complying?

If someone claims that God told them to ask you to join their church and hand over 10% of your income, should one do it without asking for some compelling evidence that what they are claiming is true?

I have no problem in asking for evidence. It is what prompted me to visit this type of discussion forum. I want to know what compels people to believe and why. I have no problem in dismissing a response as not being compelling even though it might seem that way to the person providing it. So often when it comes to religion the alleged evidence is nothing more than hearsay, personal revelation, or things that have already been thoroughly debunked. Why should one refrain from offering a dismissal it if it doesn't meet one's personal threshold of credibility?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

That happens only when a person is lying - having no intention of agreeing with provided evidence. They're arrogant in the fact that in the whole of the universe, they've seen EVERYTHING that shows their belief to be true and 'know' there's nothing that can be provided to change their mind.

When that happens, it's best to ignore that person entirely IMO.

I know a Jehovah's Witness who has told me that he doesn't need to see any evidence that supposedly falsifies his beliefs because he already has the truth. Anything, then, that contradicts any of his beliefs can be deemed to be false without even looking at it. I've told him that I don't have his amazing power to be certain about religious issues. As a fallible human being I must wallow in doubt.

To me, that thinking denotes a cult (though I consider most all religions cults). When one disarms all ability to think outside their bubble is, often times, asking for trouble. Some call it faith. I call it stupidity, as best.

[Paul of Tarsus]

To be honest, I don't always accept evidence, and in those cases I make a point of explaining why it doesn't convince me.

In your OP you said:

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

Don't the two bits I have italicised amount to a contradiction?

No. A contradiction consists of two or more statements that cannot both be true at the same time. Let's take a look at the two statements in question:

1. I don't always accept evidence, and in those cases I make a point of explaining why it doesn't convince me.
2. This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

These two statements can easily be true simultaneously. I can explain why evidence doesn't convince me, and at the same time I can ask why other people demand evidence that they ignore or explain away. No sweat.

But I think you're really accusing me of hypocrisy. It may appear to you that I criticize others for explaining away evidence when I do so myself. The key difference in what I practice regarding evidence available to me and the evidence available to the others I speak of is that I don't demand evidence while having no intention of ever accepting it.

If a person knocked on your door and claimed to be an IRS agent demanding that you immediately pay them a certain amount of allegedly owed money, wouldn't you ask for some confirming evidence before complying?

Yes. I would be wise to do so.

If someone claims that God told them to ask you to join their church and hand over 10% of your income, should one do it without asking for some compelling evidence that what they are claiming is true?

Yes, if a person is wise, and they tithe, then they should have good reason to believe that an all-mighty God who has created the cosmos needs their money and sends people out to collect it.

I have no problem in asking for evidence. It is what prompted me to visit this type of discussion forum. I want to know what compels people to believe and why. I have no problem in dismissing a response as not being compelling even though it might seem that way to the person providing it. So often when it comes to religion the alleged evidence is nothing more than hearsay, personal revelation, or things that have already been thoroughly debunked. Why should one refrain from offering a dismissal it if it doesn't meet one's personal threshold of credibility?

If you find upon examination that some evidence offered to you doesn't meet your standards of credible evidence, then by all means don't accept the evidence as supporting the conclusion in question, and explain why the evidence falls short of your standards. I'd just recommend that you don't demand evidence with no intention of accepting it no matter how well the evidence supports a claim. To do so is dishonest.

So my main point is that there is a big difference between explaining why evidence offered for a claim is inadequate to support that claim and explaining away evidence that you demanded with no intention of accepting it.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I know a Jehovah's Witness who has told me that he doesn't need to see any evidence that supposedly falsifies his beliefs because he already has the truth. Anything, then, that contradicts any of his beliefs can be deemed to be false without even looking at it. I've told him that I don't have his amazing power to be certain about religious issues. As a fallible human being I must wallow in doubt.

To me, that thinking denotes a cult (though I consider most all religions cults). When one disarms all ability to think outside their bubble is, often times, asking for trouble. Some call it faith. I call it stupidity, as best.

Refusal to consider evidence that may falsify a preferred belief is not necessarily peculiar to the religious. Years ago I was debating some people on a supposed-science discussion board about the origin of mathematics--is it discovered or invented. When I posted a link to what I think is a good YouTube video explaining why math is invented, one of my opponents said he refused to watch it.

So as far as I'm concerned, the advancement of knowledge requires open-mindedness as long as the mind is not so open that the brain falls out.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #20]

Refusal to consider evidence that may falsify a preferred belief is not necessarily peculiar to the religious.

Of course not. But as this is a religious forum, it's discussed in that vein.

So as far as I'm concerned, the advancement of knowledge requires open-mindedness as long as the mind is not so open that the brain falls out.

It can be a thin line, sometimes for sure.