posted
I don't think the distinction you're drawing between two kinds of evidence is very relevant. Subjective experience is evidence too; it's just that there are so many other subjective religious experiences that are evidence of completely different things than what you conclude, that the only honest appraisal must be "The mind is capable of getting into states quite unconnected with the actual state of the Universe."
Look at it from still another angle: Suppose the jury had said "It's not about evidence; we're sure he's guilty." What do you call that?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that juries have a different standard of evidence than matters of faith and that is how it should be. Juries for civil trials have a different standard of evidence than juries in criminal trials. Science has a different standard of evidence than either faith or juries. So do crossing the street and falling in love.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand it perfectly, and I reject your application of it as immoral. Juries have standards of evidence that represent a trade-off between finding truth, and spending the entire resources of society on nothing but court cases. We accept, of necessity, that they will have a certain error rate. Similarly for crossing the street, and for falling in love. But in none of these cases do we say "Evidence is unimportant", and anyone who did would be regarded as foolish, dishonest, or outright evil, depending on the application. To have a standard of evidence with some accepted error rate is one thing. To simply dismiss evidence with a cavalier "Oh well, I choose to believe" is a lie.
What's more, in other matters we apply more stringent standards as the matter becomes more important. Nobody looks up accident rates before crossing the street; we date for a year or two before marrying; we require criminal guilt to be shown "beyond reasonable doubt"; and you must have five-sigma evidence before you can claim to have discovered a new particle. Are you seriously going to claim that your faith is less important to you than crossing the street?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, come to think of it, that does raise the possibility of a whole new set of jokes.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the street? A: To redeem the sins of mankind.
Q: What's on the Other Side? A: Life eternal.
Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A: The Chicken, the Egg, and the Holy Rooster are eternal, outside of time, and uncaused. They exist in a mystical unity, none of them prior to any other.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a lot more evidence for "crossing the street is dangerous" than you have for "God does not exist".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope you do not believe that this is an honest argument which can be made in good faith. When you assert the existence of X, the burden of proof is on you: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You know this, and you apply it correctly to unicorns, leprechauns, and all gods except the vaguely Christianic one you profess belief in. I suggest that your last post does not live up to the standards of honesty and fair dealing which you probably think your faith enjoins you to hold.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this. Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
Again, different questions have different standards of evidence. I have more reason to believe in God than I do in unicorns or leprechauns - though there could be kernels of truth hidden in legend. Stories of rhinos maybe? There are also, I think, kernels of truth is stories of "other gods". People trying to make sense of the universe and the divine and their relationship with both get bits right. I think the Christianity gets more bits right, but isn't the whole of truth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this. Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
Absence of evidence because you haven't looked properly is a far, far different thing than absence of evidence after you've tried every test anyone can think of for thousands of years. The orignal context was a cosmologist, pointing out that since we could barely examine other planets, it was premature to conclude that none of them had life, based on the lack of evidence. The phrase was later used by Carl Sagan in his "Baloney Detection kit". Believe me, there's nothing there that will help your arguement, including this out of context quote.
Besides, this is by far the more relevant Carl Sagan quote:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
And one might throw in:
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
It is an attempt to appeal to your better nature, such as it is.
quote:Again, different questions have different standards of evidence.
And again, you are applying a lesser standard to your faith than to crossing the street!
quote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this.
I know nothing of the kind; were it so, I should have to conclude that unicorns, leprechauns, Greek gods, and Alaskan politicians with foreign-policy experience all exist with equal probability. Again, I invite you to carefully draw the distinction between evidence and proof; absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is certainly very suggestive when millions of people have spent years looking.
To attempt to shift the discussion to "proof for nonexistence" is dishonest; there is a difference between absence of belief, and belief in absence, and there is such a thing as a degree of confidence. You accuse me of absolutism, yet you are the one who insists on certainty, even to the extend of 'choosing' to believe where no compelling evidence exists, and requiring proof of absence before you will abandon that cowardly lie.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
