Standards of Evidence

[Dimmesdale]

It is said that there does not exist sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a deity.

But this can be said of almost anything which we perceive to be real.

How do I know there exists anyone else besides me? How do I know the images I see day in and day out are not simply my own hallucinations and I am simply the dreamer of a great dream?

You may say that I have empathy. But that proves nothing besides the fact that I have dream-empathy. By itself empathy does not have to imply other minds. After all, what if it's simply another trick which my mind dreamed up?

Now, I do actually believe in other minds. Why? Not on any rigorous philosophical basis, but simply because of COMMON SENSE. Indeed, I would argue that just about everyone believes in other minds due to COMMON SENSE.

So what if a theist claims he believes in God, but admits his reasoning for his position does not hold strict philosophical water. He admits to "FAITH." Now isn't FAITH for him no different than COMMON SENSE for us? If so, wouldn't FAITH and COMMON SENSE be, in a sense, interchangeable terms?

If so, what right do atheists have to deride the common sense of one person when they themselves rely on the same? Doesn't that smack of some degree of hypocrisy?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by 7homas]

A. The very definition of faith is belief without evidence. This inherently means that it is a claim based exclusively not on demonstrated facts, but on personal prejudice. Faith provides no filter from bad ideas whatsoever (see B), whereas "common sense" (depending on what definition you use, but in your case I'd say you've just used a loaded definition to equivocate unlike terms) relies on grounded reasoning that can be backed up at any time.

B. If "faith" can lead me to any conclusion, that means that the majority of unique faith-based positions are wrong (since many faith-based positions exclusively deny other faith-based positions). If your faith could not be wrong, there could be no "risk." If there is no "risk," it is not faith. I know what you'll say, that "Common sense can be wrong too, therefore it's just like faith!" Here's the dig, though: A person's understanding of something, and therefore their perception about, and common sense about this something can change using verifiable methods. If every person who used a "common sense" understanding of reality was incapable of altering their perceptions based on the evidence, then the majority would take incongruent risks due to a failure to adapt to evidence. They would die (see F).

C. I know what you'll say next: "Faith-based beliefs can change over time, too! And using evidence." Here's the thing: That's not faith, that's a repackaging of evidence-based belief under the label of "evolving faith." You already tried to connect common sense and faith together, claiming one person's faith is another person's equivalence for common sense, but faith in and of itself does not improve understanding about reality. Neither does common sense, but it is informed by verification methods that can lead to an answer that reflects reality (See E).

D. If faith could be informed by evidence, then that would mean a belief about a deity could be informed by evidence, removing the "risk" and turning it from faith into a postulation. Faith is essential to Christianity, you cannot operate without it. You claim faith is a virtue, so that's the cross you bear. But if faith (belief in that which is unseen, or unevidenced) is not a virtue (as I believe), then there is no reason for me to give it the kind of respect you insist on.

E. Here's where you might say "evidence isn't proof, that evidence could be hallucinated or imagined." But with each concurrent and competing line of evidence, each scientific instrument, each alternative observing agent, each mathematical model that successfully explains and predicts observations about what our senses perceive necessarily demonstrates that predictions made by these comparative and agreeing sources have greater likelihood to be true than predictions made by sources that do not depend on verification methods. It requires greater assumptions to believe that every comparative line of evidence is imagined, and that the actual nature of reality is wholly removed from what we perceive.

F. We have to make assumptions about reality in order to interact with it, even if these assumptions are never cleanly described or formulated by each individual human. Each human must believe that the universe exists (though anti-realists like to philosophically throw around claims that they don't make that assumption, the fact they go about their daily lives sustaining themselves means they recognize they must act in accordance with reality if they want to live in it). Each human must believe that their senses are sometimes accurate (those who claim you can't make this assumption expose an open target for criticism: Would they therefore claim you can never believe your senses are accurate? In which case, their actions should be entirely disconnected from what their senses perceive, but we know that isn't the case). The problem now is that religious people add way more assumptions that can't be justified, and the belief in a deity is one such assumption. This means that it cannot be compared to common sense, because it is a cumulative, unsupported assertion that is not connected to what makes common sense essential: That acting as if reality exists and has consequences is what it takes to survive. After that, it's a matter of collecting evidence using senses, collaboration, and instruments to determine the structure and rules of how reality behaves. And all of this only depends on the assumption reality exists and that senses are sometimes accurate (which you also believe regardless of what you might claim). Faith is nowhere near this compulsory, and is not remotely tied to common sense because it depends on assumptions I have no reason to take seriously. So I'll deride that. If you like, you can "deride" my assumption that reality exists. See how far that gets you.

What you propose, that all reality could be an illusion, therefore believing reality exists is "common sense" and therefore equivalent to "faith" is a grotesquely twisted philosophical form of anti-realism used entirely to drag down other philosophical positions without demonstrating the merits or value of your own. A classic theist move.

Epistemological discussions are great and all, but you don't seem interested in setting up a groundwork for common discourse, you seem like you're trying a scorched earth strategy: "Nothing can be verified, everything is equally unjustified, therefore you can't touch my faith!" Wholly unproductive, and be mindful of this: It's juvenile.

Oh, and solipsism isn't worth discussing. It's so boring, like a child plugging his ears with his fingers and screaming "lalalala." Do better.

[wiploc]

It is said that there does not exist sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a deity.

Right. I say that myself.

But this can be said of almost anything which we perceive to be real.

No. There's plenty of evidence for many things. My foot for instance. I can touch it, weigh it, measure it, see it, have other people touch it, and so on. A commission of independent investigators would all agree that I have a foot.

The same is true for the earth, red shift, protons, Crayolas, vinegar, standing rib roasts, oak leaves, and many many other things.

If your god had as much evidence as these other things, almost everybody would believe in him. Skepticism would be rare, negligible.

... Indeed, I would argue that just about everyone believes in other minds due to COMMON SENSE.

I don't believe there are common sense reasons for believing in god. I've never heard of them. If they exist, tell us what they are. You'll be world famous within 24 hours. People will convert in droves.

So what if a theist claims he believes in God, but admits his reasoning for his position does not hold strict philosophical water. He admits to "FAITH." Now isn't FAITH for him no different than COMMON SENSE for us?

I think you're trying to establish a false equivalence. Radical skepticism ("I don't believe in anything,") isn't the same as rational skepticism ("I don't believe in things for no reason.")

If you have a common sense reason to believe in gods, just tell us what it is. If you don't have such a reason, don't claim that your belief is based on common sense.

...
If so, what right do atheists have to deride the common sense of one person when they themselves rely on the same? Doesn't that smack of some degree of hypocrisy?

If you have a common sense reason for believing in gods, tell us what it is. Don't just claim to have it; tell us what it is. And until you do that, don't blame us for being skeptics.

The skeptic in me believes that you don't have a common sense reason for believing in gods. And that you shouldn't be claiming that you have. If you really had that, you'd have converted millions long ago.

But still, if you have such a reason, tell us what it is. Don't just dance around the topic. Tell us what it is.

[Dimmesdale]

Much food for thought. Not sure how to respond. I seem to have been bested. Thanks.

[Divine Insight]

It is said that there does not exist sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a deity.

But this can be said of almost anything which we perceive to be real.

How do I know there exists anyone else besides me? How do I know the images I see day in and day out are not simply my own hallucinations and I am simply the dreamer of a great dream?

You may say that I have empathy. But that proves nothing besides the fact that I have dream-empathy. By itself empathy does not have to imply other minds. After all, what if it's simply another trick which my mind dreamed up?

Now, I do actually believe in other minds. Why? Not on any rigorous philosophical basis, but simply because of COMMON SENSE. Indeed, I would argue that just about everyone believes in other minds due to COMMON SENSE.

So what if a theist claims he believes in God, but admits his reasoning for his position does not hold strict philosophical water. He admits to "FAITH." Now isn't FAITH for him no different than COMMON SENSE for us? If so, wouldn't FAITH and COMMON SENSE be, in a sense, interchangeable terms?

If so, what right do atheists have to deride the common sense of one person when they themselves rely on the same? Doesn't that smack of some degree of hypocrisy?

If you're speaking in the purest philosophical sense I would actually agree with you.

We can't say with absolute certainty that there is no God anymore than we can say with absolute certainty that Solipsism isn't true.

So on those very abstract philosophical points I would agree.

However, if a Christian Theists is going to try to use this argument to justify his or her belief in the specific God described in the Bible then all of this pure philosophy quickly breaks down.

Why? Because now we're not just talking about believing in a purely "ill-defined" (or "undefined") abstract deity. Now we are talking about a need to believe all manner of scriptural claims made about this God.

I would suggest that if we that kind of detailed information concerning solipsism we could probably make a very confident determination of whether solipsism is or isn't true as well.

But keep in mind that to have that kind of detailed information about solipsism we would need to have hundreds of pages of very specific texts that make all manner of claims about solipsism including claims that can be shown to be contradictory.

So can I say anything against someone who wants to believe in an "Undefined God"? Not really.

But if they want to start pointing to hundreds of pages of dogma that supposedly describe the God they claim to believe in, that's when the problems are going to become insurmountable.

I mean the idea of agreeing that some sort of abstract concept of God might potentially exist is nowhere near the same as agreeing that all the tales ever told about Zeus, or Yahweh, or Jesus make sense. They don't.

So this kind of philosophical pondering most certainly isn't going to support any seriously dogmatic religion.

All it can lead to is an agreement that we can't rule out an undefined deity.

But as soon as we start defining the deity in detail, we are suddenly given many rational reasons to reject those claims.

[Bust Nak]

If so, what right do atheists have to deride the common sense of one person when they themselves rely on the same?

We do that on the grounds of inconsistency. The amount of faith afforded to particular theistic beliefs differ wildly without any consistency. Things like taking the relative accuracy of our senses for granted, we atheists have faith for, we grant the same to theists.

[wiploc]

I would suggest that if we that kind of detailed information concerning solipsism we could probably make a very confident determination of whether solipsism is or isn't true as well.

There are no possible observations to support or undermine solipsism.

• Assume solipsism is false: If you're hungry you should eat.
  
  Assume solipsism is true: If you think you're hungry you should think you eat.

There's no difference. The result is that solipsism has no consequences. It doesn't lead to anything. It has no consequences.

It can't be refuted, but it is terminally boring.

[Divine Insight]

I would suggest that if we that kind of detailed information concerning solipsism we could probably make a very confident determination of whether solipsism is or isn't true as well.

There are no possible observations to support or undermine solipsism.

Agreed. But then again we don't have a large black book of endless claims about what else must be true in order for solipsism to be true. That was my point.

If the God described in the Bible is true, then all the descriptions of what that God had commanded, said, and done must also be true.

So my point is that when speaking of the "Biblical God" we can't really reduce that specific God to a simple philosophical idea of an undefined deity.

In other words, there's far more to be considered when speaking of the Biblical God than just whether or not an abstract undefined purely philosophical deity might potentially exist.

When it comes to an undefined purely philosophical deity we're in the same boat with solipsism. We can't prove or disprove the idea.

Not so with the detailed information we have about the Biblical God.

So I'm just saying that the concerns raised by the OP wouldn't apply to the Biblical God anyway. There are too many additional claims being made about this God in the Bible that cannot be ignored.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by 7homas]

A. The very definition of faith is belief without evidence.

Wrong - oh.

The very definition of faith is [Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty / conviction of what we do not see.] an unproven HOPE / trust in someone leading to the conviction of truth on evidence only, without proof.

Belief, acknowledging that which is proven to a high degree of probability, has no place in this except to corrupt the meaning of faith. Conflating evidence with proof is another no no...

[rikuoamero]

It is said that there does not exist sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a deity.

But this can be said of almost anything which we perceive to be real.

How do I know there exists anyone else besides me? How do I know the images I see day in and day out are not simply my own hallucinations and I am simply the dreamer of a great dream?

You may say that I have empathy. But that proves nothing besides the fact that I have dream-empathy. By itself empathy does not have to imply other minds. After all, what if it's simply another trick which my mind dreamed up?

Now, I do actually believe in other minds. Why? Not on any rigorous philosophical basis, but simply because of COMMON SENSE. Indeed, I would argue that just about everyone believes in other minds due to COMMON SENSE.

So what if a theist claims he believes in God, but admits his reasoning for his position does not hold strict philosophical water. He admits to "FAITH." Now isn't FAITH for him no different than COMMON SENSE for us? If so, wouldn't FAITH and COMMON SENSE be, in a sense, interchangeable terms?

If so, what right do atheists have to deride the common sense of one person when they themselves rely on the same? Doesn't that smack of some degree of hypocrisy?

Your OP would have held water...IF anyone on this forum subscribed to solipsism.
No-one does, as far as I can see.
You don't...you're putting keys to a keyboard to type out a message so that people who are not-you can read it. A person who is a solipsist wouldn't do that.
I don't - I am aware that I am typing keys on a keyboard to craft a message so that people are not-met can read it.