• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is is so difficult to convince devout Christians the value of evidence?[W:68]

That's the belief I'm talking about; your chosen epistemology, the basis of all your beliefs. You are choosing to embrace some version of empiricism (I get the impression you don't even know which), which leads you to reject rationalist notions in favor of demanding everything be backed by evidence. That is itself a belief system.

Further reading:
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Epistemology of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yes I'm familiar and you would be correct to some extent.

I'm not a solipsist nor am I a nihilist. I do hold one belief that has enormous consequences and I don't "check it at the door" and that is the belief that my senses are sometimes accurate. Rather Kantian, but I think Kant was wrong about a few things. That is my "belief", from there my actions are based on provisional evidence. That is to say that there is no "truth" only what works until it can be proven wrong.

I can't "prove" that were not brains in vats, or that I am, in fact the only "real" person and the rest of you are all just illusions, but what are the negative consequences of the belief I hold? You also believe the same and much, much more. Doesn't it make sense that we should hold as few beliefs as possible?
 
It's a fair question.

What is evidence?

I think the actual definition is sufficient.

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Now in all fairness the OP (me) singled out Christians, in retrospect, probably not fair. You don't have to be Christian not to value evidence. Anyone can fail to see the value of evidence, but I chose to address Christianity, because in the US, it's a very influential group and as a group has a lot of influence on social issues.

Having said that....

Since beliefs inform our actions then it's important that what we believe actually be true....Wouldn't you agree?

At one time most people believed that cigarettes were good for you. Beliefs can inform actions in a way that results in people to taking actions that cause unnecessary suffering.

When it comes to Christians.....

Christians often believe that homosexuals are more likely to be sexually deviant...(eg. pedophiles). Some believe that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old and others believe that we should teach "intelligent" design in classrooms even though evidence says otherwise.

The reason it matters how everyone values evidence is that when people believe things that aren't true their beliefs often inform their actions in the public sphere. It would be great if people that believed things that are based on faith could leave those beliefs at home and in church, but they do not. That's why it matters.

Now there are a LOT of Christians, probably most Christians, value evidence in their lives and even respect the boundaries between their religious beliefs and the rest of society, but those same Christians rarely if ever condemn the actions of the fundamentalists that make the claims above.

Why would a matter of faith be subject to mundane measures ?
Is a rock harder than water ? Yes it is. No need to rely on faith to demonstrate that.
You make comment on matters of doctrine that are not true.
Well lets take a look. The most common view of homosexuals is not that they may be predisposed to criminally deviant behavior but rather that sodomy is deviant behavior. Communities who establish their own standards of behavior at one time concurred near univetsally and over time have shifted their opinion.
Intellegent design.is similarly managed. And as relativly few ascribe to the timelines stated its rarely placed in educational setting
So you have a question of morals and a question of discernable fact. Both are subject to community standards as is every other element of curriculum
 
Why would a matter of faith be subject to mundane measures ?

Not sure I follow.

Is a rock harder than water ? Yes it is. No need to rely on faith to demonstrate that.

Did Jesus turn water to wine?

You make comment on matters of doctrine that are not true.
Well lets take a look. The most common view of homosexuals is not that they may be predisposed to criminally deviant behavior but rather that sodomy is deviant behavior.

Ok, is sodomy deviant behavior? Does god really care where I put my.....?

Communities who establish their own standards of behavior at one time concurred near univetsally and over time have shifted their opinion.

What does that have to do whith the points I was making?

Intellegent design.is similarly managed.

How so?

And as relativly few ascribe to the timelines stated its rarely placed in educational setting

But it is in some places, do you oppose it?

So you have a question of morals and a question of discernable fact. Both are subject to community standards as is every other element of curriculum

All morals are based on values, all values can be reduced to facts about the experiences of sentient creatures. Morality and facts are related based on values people hold. If the purpose of morality, generally speaking, is to promote good and avoid the bad, then values and the facts upon which those values are based upon matters and my contention is that basing matters on faith has conflicted with evidence, yet people stubbornly refuse to consider the evidence. That's a problem in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
"Don't confuse the issue with facts".
 
I suspect that the reasons are rooted in human behavior and more specifically human desire to know, or as the case may be, to avoid coming to the conclusion that we in many cases don't know.

For some a bad explanation is better than no explanation at all.

Christianity offers answers to questions that for some need to be answered. Christianity offers an extremely attractive social network made of of like minded people who "witness" to one another and provide answers to questions that in many cases aren't know and in some cases, probably cant be known. Faith, especially deep devout faith among a large group of people leads to a powerful group mentality. To reject or even to seriously question a formally held religious belief is tantamount to social and spiritual suicide. To mentally tether yourself to an idea founded entirely on faith can be a terrible traumatic link to break. Many maintain the illusion simply to avoid the mental and social consequences that denial brings.

I don't condone religion, but I understand the social and physiological draw.

The irony, and I'm as guilty as anyone, is that the more we try to convince the devout believer that they are wrong, the more deeply they retreat into their belief system. After all, if they are wrong, why do we care so much? They conclude that our violent aversion must be because we fear they are right only re-enforcing the notion that they must be right.

In the end I suspect that LM's of this message board are few and far between, though their influence (in the big picture) is much greater than the number of people they represent. The weakness of mainstream everyday Christianity, the kind that accepts evolution, don't concern itself with the lives of homosexuals (on a purely religious basis) and isn't the least bit interested in having their ideas about god taught in schools has little or any grounds to stand on to reject the more radical forms of Christianity. After all, if you can concede something can be known by faith (without evidence), then anything can be known without evidence.

Can this cycle be broken? Can society value evidence and still hold religious ideals? I suspect the problem lay in the idea that spiritual is a religious term. People want to feel and identify with spiritual feelings but fear that letting go or religion means letting go of spirituality, I think this not be the case.

I think that the cycle of religious dominance of society is very much being broken. I expect that this period will, in 80 years, be seen as the last gasp of religion in the developed world. The young of today are very much connected to places such as this and can challenge the teachings of religious idiots.

A big part of the draw of religion is, I think, the freedom to lie. Since all of it is obviously drivel and you have to profess your belief in drivel lying as a matter of normal life has to be much more normalized. That certainly fits with my experience of religious people in all situations.
 
I think that the cycle of religious dominance of society is very much being broken. I expect that this period will, in 80 years, be seen as the last gasp of religion in the developed world. The young of today are very much connected to places such as this and can challenge the teachings of religious idiots.

A big part of the draw of religion is, I think, the freedom to lie. Since all of it is obviously drivel and you have to profess your belief in drivel lying as a matter of normal life has to be much more normalized. That certainly fits with my experience of religious people in all situations.

I agree that religion will continue to loose it's grip, but that's only if the world stays reasonably stable.

Far as why religious people are religious, I don't think it has anything to do with lying, nor do I think the religious think out it that way. I was semi-religious at one point and I can say I was that way because I was genuinely worried about what would happen to me when I died. I worried that if I did bad things the negative things in my life were the result, but I also knew that if I genuinely repented that I would be forgiven. It was mostly a belief born in fear. Different people have different reasons and I would never generalize.
 
Jango gave it in a nutshell. Faith requires no evidence.




Fear. They are scared to death that they might be wrong, so cannot tolerate their beliefs be questioned.
 
You also believe the same and much, much more. Doesn't it make sense that we should hold as few beliefs as possible?

This is where I think you go wrong. You fail to differentiate between properly basic beliefs and justified beliefs. It's your properly basic beliefs that are used to support (justify) your other beliefs. We probably have the same or very close to the same number of properly basic beliefs. In fact, it's quite possible you have more properly basic beliefs than I do. The difference between our world view isn't that I have more properly basic beliefs than you, it's that we have different properly basic beliefs. I build my epistemology on rationalism and reformed epistemology, you build yours on empiricism and evidentialism. Empiricism and evidentialism, at least of the foundationalist variety, rest on certain properly basic beliefs that aren't shared by rationalists. That's where the difference between our worldviews lies, not in the number of properly basic beliefs, but in what those beliefs are.

If it is preferable to hold as few beliefs as possible, and I think it may be, this would apply only to properly basic beliefs. There's no reason I can think of why we should prefer to have less justified beliefs. In fact, the more justified beliefs one has, the more knowledge they have and the more robust and complete their worldview.
 
Last edited:
I can agree to disagree with you LM. You were actually the inspiration for the OP. You are a person that believes so deeply, no amount of evidence could prove you wrong. You've spent so much of your time and efforts here, not trying to convince others that you're right, but convince yourself. The truth is, there is evidence for virtually anything if all you're looking for are circumstances that support your claim. The Flat Earth Society is the best example I know if. They have a lot of very clever explanations that "prove" the world is flat. They explain gravity, the size of the sun, why ships appear to go below the horizon and lots more. The point is, they are no more right than you are, because just like people that believe the earth is flat, the moon landings never happened and Jesus rose from the dead, you thin that the quantity of evidence is all that matters. It's not quantity it's quality.

actually no this is not correct. The flat earth theory was held heavily as a scientific theory for years. that ships would just fall off the face of the earth, however science knew for a fact that the earth was flat. science was proven wrong.

so be careful in your own argument how you are presenting things.

If I want to know something is true, I look, not for evidence that proves it right, because as I said, you'll almost always find evidence that supports a particular position, but evidence that proves is wrong.

then you realize that the big bang theory was just proven wrong correct?

People don't rise from the dead after 3 days. Period. If you have to evoke "supernatural" causes, that's cool, but just say it can't be explained, it can't be proven and you believe entirely on faith. That's cool, then I'm not talking to you because you are beyond my reach.

Yet we have documented evidence from one of the most accurate historical authors that over 500 people saw him after his death on the cross.
each of these people saw him at different times and instances. so if you think they are lying or deluded please provide evidence.
 
This is where I think you go wrong. You fail to differentiate between properly basic beliefs and justified beliefs. It's your properly basic beliefs that are used to support (justify) your other beliefs. We probably have the same or very close to the same number of properly basic beliefs. In fact, it's quite possible you have more properly basic beliefs than I do. The difference between our world view isn't that I have more properly basic beliefs than you, it's that we have different properly basic beliefs. I build my epistemology on rationalism and reformed epistemology, you build yours on empiricism and evidentialism. Empiricism and evidentialism, at least of the foundationalist variety, rest on certain properly basic beliefs that aren't shared by rationalists. That's where the difference between our worldviews lies, not in the number of properly basic beliefs, but in what those beliefs are.

If it is preferable to hold as few beliefs as possible, and I think it may be, this would apply only to properly basic beliefs. There's no reason I can think of why we should prefer to have less justified beliefs. In fact, the more justified beliefs one has, the more knowledge they have and the more robust and complete their worldview.

I shouldn't have said beliefs, I should have said unjustified beliefs. I agree and it is my point that justified beliefs are better to hold than unjustified beliefs, that's why evidence is important.
 
csbrown28;1063942471 said:
You are assuming that your reasoning in trying to convince believers, is right.
So what am I assuming, specifically?


You said:

The irony, and I'm as guilty as anyone, is that the more we try to convince the devout believer that they are wrong, the more deeply they retreat into their belief system.

You're assuming your reasonings are convincing.
 
I shouldn't have said beliefs, I should have said unjustified beliefs. I agree and it is my point that justified beliefs are better to hold than unjustified beliefs, that's why evidence is important.

Now you have come around full circle and are back to simply assuming that some form of empiricism is the only legitimate way to justify beliefs and that those who disagree with you are simply wrong, some to a greater degree than others.

You keep running around in circles and retreating back into "but I'm right!" as if simply saying so makes it true.


Go ahead, prove to me that empiricism is the only legitimate source of epistemic justification. I'll wait...
 
Last edited:
tosca1

If no one can disprove the existence of God, why would anyone come to the conclusion that Christianity is not grounded on fact? That doesn't make any sense.


csbrown28

It baffles me that you can't hear how untenable that statement is.


What is untenable is your position; you've made a conclusion that the Christian faith is groundless, yet no one can disprove that God exists.
 
Last edited:
actually no this is not correct. The flat earth theory was held heavily as a scientific theory for years. that ships would just fall off the face of the earth, however science knew for a fact that the earth was flat. science was proven wrong.

So what? I never said that science is right about anything, only that evidence is the best path to truth. Anything that is scientifically "proven" is only provisionally true. If at some point we learn more, then when can prove old theories wrong and replace them with new ones, but it is important to remember that over a long enough timeline science always gains information. It always gets closer to the truth.

The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that if you want evidence for a position you hold, in this day and age you will almost always find it. Theories aren't "proven" soley on the strength of evidence found to support them, but more importantly that there is no clear evidence against it.


then you realize that the big bang theory was just proven wrong correct?

That's you're problem right there. You think that proving a theory wrong undermines the integrity of science, but your wrong and it just demonstrates your bias and lack of understanding. It demonstrates that science is based on available information. There is no doctrine of belief. Any theory can be shown to be wrong, and like I just said, it's not an abundance of evidence for competing theories that proves a theory wrong, but negative evidence that undermines it. If this is in fact the case, super.

Furthermore, I wouldn't start flapping my arms just yet. One research team at King's College in London has written a paper an published it in "Physical Review Letters". Ill be very interested to see how others follow up on the work and if it is indeed true, and if it is I will revel in the fact that science has increased our knowledge of the universe.

You should know that there have always been alternate theories to the big bang and claimed problems with it....

Problems with the Big Bang Theory - HowStuffWorks

Yet we have documented evidence from one of the most accurate historical authors that over 500 people saw him after his death on the cross.
each of these people saw him at different times and instances. so if you think they are lying or deluded please provide evidence.

Stories written thousands of years ago do not make concrete proof.

This is what I'm talking about...I don't have to prove that he did or didn't die on a cross, there is nothing miraculous about that, but we know the body cant reanimate after 3 days. That's my proof it didn't happen. I can also offer many, many plausible alternatives that could explain such an even't.

If you believe it, cool, but just admit that it must be taken on faith. You can't prove something like that. The best you can do is show that it might have happened, but you can't prove it the way that I can prove that water is 2 parts oxygen and 1 part hydrogen.
 
Now you have come around full circle and are back to simply assuming that some form of empiricism is the only legitimate way to justify beliefs and that those who disagree with you are simply wrong, some to a greater degree than others.

You keep running around in circles and retreating back into "but I'm right!" as if simply saying so makes it true.


Go ahead, prove to me that empiricism is the only legitimate source of epistemic justification. I'll wait...


Do you believe that faith is a better source of epistemic justification? I do not. I don't claim to have the answer, just a better answer than faith as a path to truth.
 
csbrown28;1063942471 said:
You said:



You're assuming your reasonings are convincing.

And you have't undermined my reasons. Just questioned them. If you have an alternative, I'm all ears, but if it's based on faith, then by definition you've admitted that it cannot be show to be true.
 
First, as Zyzygy pointed out, that's a myth, but even if it wasn't you've missed the point entirely.

I do believe that aliens probably exist elsewhere, but I have a choice about how I let that belief inform my actions. I wouldn't support public money in the creation of equipment with the expressed purpose of finding aliens if the money could better be used to build schools, hire teachers, help needy children, ect....

Well, how you choose to exercise your belief is your choice. That being said, I don't think you can say that your choice how to spend your money is better than the Christian's choice how he spends his.
 
Last edited:
And you have't undermined my reasons. Just questioned them. If you have an alternative, I'm all ears, but if it's based on faith, then by definition you've admitted that it cannot be show to be true.


I don't care about the reasons you give to try to convince people. I'm simply reacting to your bafflement why you say, the more you try to convince Christians, the more they retreat and cling to their faith:

did it ever occur to you that maybe....your reasons are not convincing at all?


On the other hand, we see learned or highly educated atheists converting to Christianity - several of them not only converted, but became prominent defenders of the faith! Why do you think they converted?
Obviously they had their own reasons - convincing reasons - that made them believe.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about the reasons you give to try to convince people. I'm simply reacting to your bafflement why you say, the more you try to convince Christians, the more they retreat and cling to their faith:

did it ever occur to you that maybe....your reasons are not convincing at all?

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




On the other hand, we see learned or highly educated atheists converting to Christianity - several of them not only converted, but became prominent defenders of the faith! Why do you think they converted?
Obviously they had their own reasons - convincing reasons - that made them believe.

The Clergy Project
 
Do you believe that faith is a better source of epistemic justification? I do not.

No, I believe reason is a better source than empirical data. Reformed epistemology is a branch of rationalism.

I don't claim to have the answer, just a better answer than faith as a path to truth.

You claim to be right. You claim those whose view differ from your own are wrong. You even compare them to people trying to make a fake airplane fly. Yet here you are, having been reduced to admitting that you can't prove your view is superior, you merely believe it better than "faith as a path to truth" (a position no one here has claimed to hold). In the ultimate ironic twist, your view appears to be supported by nothing but faith...the very thing you claim to be inferior.
 
Last edited:
No, I believe reason is a better source than empirical data. Reformed epistemology is a branch of rationalism.

Finally, something we can sink our teeth into. Would you like to discuss Reformed Epistemology? Would you like to defend it against my critique?


You claim to be right.

Where?

You claim those whose view differ from your own are wrong.

Where?

You even compare them to people trying to make a fake airplane fly.

Twisting my words aren't going to help you make you're point. I said that no amount of belief that a plane that isn't air worthy will make it fly. Believing things on faith won't change reality.

Yet here you are, having been reduced to admitting that you can't prove your view is superior, you merely believe it better than "faith as a path to truth" (a position no one here has claimed to hold). In the ultimate ironic twist, your view appears to be supported by nothing but faith...the very thing you claim to be inferior.

There are several definitions of faith, a fact often exploited by the religious and what you are doing right now, nice try though. I have faith that the 737 I'm about to take to Orlando will get me there safely, but my faith is based on evidence.
 
So what? I never said that science is right about anything, only that evidence is the best path to truth. Anything that is scientifically "proven" is only provisionally true. If at some point we learn more, then when can prove old theories wrong and replace them with new ones, but it is important to remember that over a long enough timeline science always gains information. It always gets closer to the truth.

So now your story changes. I just proved your first premise and argument incorrect. The Fact is that science said the earth was flat. Science also said that the sun revolved around the sun. Both were proven wrong. accepting science as infallible truth is ignorance at it's best.


The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that if you want evidence for a position you hold, in this day and age you will almost always find it. Theories aren't "proven" soley on the strength of evidence found to support them, but more importantly that there is no clear evidence against it.

yet when there is evidence against it people like you plug your ears and go uh huh. so you are kind of doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing.

That's you're problem right there. You think that proving a theory wrong undermines the integrity of science, but your wrong and it just demonstrates your bias and lack of understanding. It demonstrates that science is based on available information. There is no doctrine of belief. Any theory can be shown to be wrong, and like I just said, it's not an abundance of evidence for competing theories that proves a theory wrong, but negative evidence that undermines it. If this is in fact the case, super.

no there is no problem what it shows is that attempting to act as if science is an infallible truth is ignorant. while science can explain many things it cannot explain everything. there is a limit in what science can explain. even the stuff it does try to explain changes.

you have a doctrine of belief whether you realize it or not.

Furthermore, I wouldn't start flapping my arms just yet. One research team at King's College in London has written a paper an published it in "Physical Review Letters". Ill be very interested to see how others follow up on the work and if it is indeed true, and if it is I will revel in the fact that science has increased our knowledge of the universe.

You should know that there have always been alternate theories to the big bang and claimed problems with it....

Problems with the Big Bang Theory - HowStuffWorks

yet it is quoted as fact of statement and anyone that criticizes it is supposedly ignorant. now that they have determined that the big bang was really not possible,
the people that have said this for years are not so ignorant.

Stories written thousands of years ago do not make concrete proof.

Then you just invalidated about 90% of the history books we have because well they were all considered stories at one point. in fact that is how we piece together history is by those stories.

This is what I'm talking about...I don't have to prove that he did or didn't die on a cross, there is nothing miraculous about that, but we know the body cant reanimate after 3 days. That's my proof it didn't happen. I can also offer many, many plausible alternatives that could explain such an even't.

wrong we have a historically accurate event written by a person who is known as one of the most accurate historians in that day. this person was an associate of the people that knew Christ. so he had first hand account information of what happened and or occurred during that time frame.

so please provide evidence or backing that any of the people that he recorded was lieing or deluded. the burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the claim.

If you believe it, cool, but just admit that it must be taken on faith. You can't prove something like that. The best you can do is show that it might have happened, but you can't prove it the way that I can prove that water is 2 parts oxygen and 1 part hydrogen.

You have to prove that the people writing it are lieing. this you cannot do.

you are perfectly fine to believe in whatever you want. to attempt to try and belittle someone else because they believe differently or believe something happened a different way is ignorance.

I do not believe that science contradicts the bible. For me science only reinforces it.

science can't explain how the universe came to be nor can it explain how life began.
they can guess but that is about all they can do.

the fact that people accept this guess as fact is stupidity on their part.
 
Finally, something we can sink our teeth into. Would you like to discuss Reformed Epistemology? Would you like to defend it against my critique?

Finally, the truth comes out. You want to engage in deep philosophical discussion - and the OP was the bait!


Oh, for crying out loud csbrown....why don't you just post a philosophical subject as a topic, and let those who have something to say respond?
 
Last edited:
science can't explain how the universe came to be nor can it explain how life began.
they can guess but that is about all they can do.

An imaginary being saying magic words does't explain it either.
 
Back
Top Bottom