• 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]

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,604
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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.
You just answered your own question.

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.
I like to think that rationalization is the second-strongest human emotion. I know I do it.

I'd also add that the phrase "I don't know" is an extremely difficult obstacle to overcome. Practically everywhere -- at school, at work, as parents, as voters -- we're expected to be subject experts. The teacher calls on the student, and the "right thing" is for the student to answer the question correctly. Not knowing just doesn't cut it for the student, employee, parent or just about anyone. Thus for a social network to provide detailed answers to all of the deep, philosophical questions, it is tantamount to a gold mine.
 
Perhaps your idea of evidence is too narrow. But really, why do you feel the need to teach me this ?
I dont begrudge you your lack of faith. If you are good with it thats cool with me.
 
I don't think it's very difficult at all. Having lived in cities where the dominant employers were R&D companies (NASA, Thiokol, Lockheed Martin, etc.), I've worshipped alongside engineers, scientists, researchers, and others who place immense value on evidence plenty of times.
 
Perhaps your idea of evidence is too narrow. But really, why do you feel the need to teach me this ?
I dont begrudge you your lack of faith. If you are good with it thats cool with me.

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.
 
I don't think it's very difficult at all. Having lived in cities where the dominant employers were R&D companies (NASA, Thiokol, Lockheed Martin, etc.), I've worshipped alongside engineers, scientists, researchers, and others who place immense value on evidence plenty of times.

That's great, and as I stated above, imo you are representative of most Christians, but can you, or do you openly condemn the actions of more radical Christians who share you're faith only take it to a greater extreme? Can you tell me how a person that has a little faith in god condemns someone that has a lot of faith in god?

Do you think that the Christian minority is largely silent (as Christians, not people) when it comes to issues like the teaching of creationism in schools?

Would you consider yourself a devout Christian?
 
Last edited:
I'd primarily say loss aversion. When somebody has dedicated their whole life to a cause then the musings of someone online is hardly going to change your opinion, even if they have all the logic and evidence in the world. Performing a 180 on your opinion on something which has been such a massive part of your life up to that point is an incredible undertaking and something I respect greatly, particularly when you think of all the social/familial pressures people feel when it comes to their religion.

While I don't think 'god' is wired into our brain, belief in sticking to our principles certainly is wired into us. Confirmation bias, the backfire effect and persecution complexes are all symptoms of this.
 
Jango gave it in a nutshell. Faith requires no evidence.
 
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.

The solution for you folks is to bust the resurrection. I did a whole thread on it and the anti-Jesus crowd failed to offer up even ONE convincing argument against the resurrection.

They deny evidence that miracles are now documented. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

Every evidence presented in the thread "Evidence for God / the Bible" has been summarily mocked, ignored, or swept under their collective rugs.

They are the party of "NO, it can't possibly be true," even though one atheist after another has become believers in Christ.

And it's us that has the problem? Nope, it's you, and you will understand that in vivid detail at the end of the age, if not sooner when you expire.
 
That's great, and as I stated above, imo you are representative of most Christians, but can you, or do you openly condemn the actions of more radical Christians who share you're faith only take it to a greater extreme? Can you tell me how a person that has a little faith in god condemns someone that has a lot of faith in god?

I don't believe your understanding of fundamentalism is accurate. Fundamentalists do not believe what they do based on having more properly basic beliefs than mainstream or liberal Christians. They believe what they do based on the way they read and interpret scripture. Therefore, the question of how someone with less faith can condemn someone with more just doesn't make much sense because the premise is flawed. It isn't true that fundamentalists have faith in more things than mainstream or liberal Christians, what they have is a difference of opinion on how scripture should be interpreted.


Do you think that the Christian minority is largely silent (as Christians, not people) when it comes to issues like the teaching of creationism in schools?

What is "the Christian minority"?. How would we divide Christians into two groups so that one could be called majority and the other minority? The only division that makes sense to me is: Catholic/Orthodox vs Protestant, but even that isn't a very useful way to divide Christian belief for most purposes. There is a wide variety of Christian belief and I don't know how you would categorize them all under two huge umbrellas, calling one majority and the other minority; I don't think that is practical, useful, or even accurate.

Would you consider yourself a devout Christian?

Yes
 
Last edited:
I don't believe your understanding of fundamentalism is accurate. Fundamentalists do not believe what they do based on having more properly basic beliefs than mainstream or liberal Christians. They believe what they do based on the way they read and interpret scripture. Therefore, the question of how someone with less faith can condemn someone with more just doesn't make much sense because the premise is flawed. It isn't true that fundamentalists have faith in more things than mainstream or liberal Christians, what they have is a difference of opinion on how scripture should be interpreted.

What is "the Christian minority"?. How would we divide Christians into two groups so that one could be called majority and the other minority? The only division that makes sense to me is: Catholic/Orthodox vs Protestant, but even that isn't a very useful way to divide Christian belief for most purposes. There is a wide variety of Christian belief and I don't know how you would categorize them all under two huge umbrellas, calling one majority and the other minority; I don't think that is practical, useful, or even accurate.
Well put. I don't believe the OP is asking the right question. There is no need for evidence, because that is non-sequitur. It has no bearing on the will to religion. After all, what evidence is there for existentialism? There is no right answer, because it does not make sense to ask the question.
 
The solution for you folks is to bust the resurrection. I did a whole thread on it and the anti-Jesus crowd failed to offer up even ONE convincing argument against the resurrection.

They deny evidence that miracles are now documented. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

Every evidence presented in the thread "Evidence for God / the Bible" has been summarily mocked, ignored, or swept under their collective rugs.

They are the party of "NO, it can't possibly be true," even though one atheist after another has become believers in Christ.

And it's us that has the problem? Nope, it's you, and you will understand that in vivid detail at the end of the age, if not sooner when you expire.

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.

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.

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.
 
Jango gave it in a nutshell. Faith requires no evidence.

And like I said to LM, that's cool, that is totally your right to believe whatever you want, but don't be surprised that people are exasperated with you when you try to defend something that you admit cannot be defended, by definition. Faith is to believe without evidence, just as you've admitted.

I want to make it clear as I did in the OP, it's not your beliefs as a Christian that I take issue with, it's the actions that Christians or anyone that takes that have reasonably meaningful negative consequences based on ideas that cannot be shown to be true via evidence.

Again, I want to make it clear that not all unfounded beliefs have negative consequences. I believe there is probably life in other parts of the universe, probably intelligent, but for me the belief does not manifest into actions that have meaningful consequences on society. If religion could stay in the homes of the people that practice it and the churches where it's worshiped, that would be great, but we know that they don't and that's why I make posts like this.

So you can believe anything you want based on faith and I will continue to endeavor to point out why that can have serious negative social consequences.

If you can believe something that leads to good based on faith, you can believe something bad, but whats worse, and is really the point, is if you believe based on faith you can say nothing to those that would persecute you based on a different faith.
 
I don't believe your understanding of fundamentalism is accurate. Fundamentalists do not believe what they do based on having more properly basic beliefs than mainstream or liberal Christians. They believe what they do based on the way they read and interpret scripture. Therefore, the question of how someone with less faith can condemn someone with more just doesn't make much sense because the premise is flawed. It isn't true that fundamentalists have faith in more things than mainstream or liberal Christians, what they have is a difference of opinion on how scripture should be interpreted.

I see and understand what you're saying and admit to some laziness in the way I wrote my post.

Having said that, fundamentalists to me tend to interpret the scriptures to the greatest degree ignoring evidence to the contrary and spend lots of time looking for evidence to prove the truth they believe they already know. This is backwards to how we do everything else. Imagine if a plane was built that could not fly, but the builders spent time trying to convince people that it could. Belief that plane would fly would not make it fly and would just result in people getting hurt (see the metaphor?).

What is "the Christian minority"?. How would we divide Christians into two groups so that one could be called majority and the other minority? The only division that makes sense to me is: Catholic/Orthodox vs Protestant, but even that isn't a very useful way to divide Christian belief for most purposes. There is a wide variety of Christian belief and I don't know how you would categorize them all under two huge umbrellas, calling one majority and the other minority; I don't think that is practical, useful, or even accurate.

I think I meant majority, but I think you're question would still stand.

Those who take the bible literally, Minority, those that take some of it literally, and the rest as metaphor, inspiration ect, majority.



Then you probably fall into the same group as Tosca and LM, but before I toss you in that crowd, I'd be happy to continue any conversation you'd like.

Matter of fact, I'd be happy to debate with you you're beliefs...If you want pop over to my post on the Euthyphro dilemma and, after you respond to the OP, I'll demonstrate how unreasonable the idea of "Objective" Christian morality is. So far, none of the devout believers are up to the task.....Perhaps you are?
 
I see and understand what you're saying and admit to some laziness in the way I wrote my post.

Having said that, fundamentalists to me tend to interpret the scriptures to the greatest degree ignoring evidence to the contrary and spend lots of time looking for evidence to prove the truth they believe they already know. This is backwards to how we do everything else. Imagine if a plane was built that could not fly, but the builders spent time trying to convince people that it could. Belief that plane would fly would not make it fly and would just result in people getting hurt (see the metaphor?).

You seem to have started with the assumption that your beliefs are correct and then proceeded to place those who disagree with those beliefs on a continuum so that Christian fundamentalists fall on one extreme as those who are "most wrong" (since your belief is assumed right a priori), and others fall somewhere in between. Then you proceeded to craft a worldview about why those people on the extreme are so wrong while others are less so. Finally, you invited others to join you in pondering that question. Are you certain it's your writing that is lazy?


Then you probably fall into the same group as Tosca and LM, but before I toss you in that crowd, I'd be happy to continue any conversation you'd like.

I doubt I have much in common with either of them.

Matter of fact, I'd be happy to debate with you you're beliefs...If you want pop over to my post on the Euthyphro dilemma and, after you respond to the OP, I'll demonstrate how unreasonable the idea of "Objective" Christian morality is. So far, none of the devout believers are up to the task.....Perhaps you are?

There are literally thousands of pages written on the euthyphro dilemma and Divine Command Theory (DCT) in general. Why would I be interested in spending any time discussing it with joe blow on an internet forum when that time could be spent reading Immanuel Kant's take on it, or Thomas Aquinas' or listening to a lecture on the topic by John Hare? I don't find such discussions all that interesting on general purpose internet forums. Were I interested in revisiting this issue, there's far better ways for me to do that than by debating you.

DCT is not the only approach to Christian morality, btw. It's not even very common anymore. So even if you were declared grand champion of your euthyphro debate, congratulations you just debunked a theory of Christian morality that hasn't found widespread support sincethe middle ages.
 
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.


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.

You are assuming that your reasoning in trying to convince believers, is right.



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.

And you're assuming that their religious ideal is groundless.


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.
 
Again, I want to make it clear that not all unfounded beliefs have negative consequences. I believe there is probably life in other parts of the universe, probably intelligent, but for me the belief does not manifest into actions that have meaningful consequences on society.

Practically everything in life comes with both negative and positive consequences.


Your unfounded belief in alien beings can also result in negative consequences manifested into actions.
Simple panicked hoarding of food in preparation for an alien attack can cause serious damage to our society.


Here's an example that comes to mind:

Orson Welles causes a nationwide panic with his broadcast of "War of the Worlds"—a realistic radio dramatization of a Martian invasion of Earth.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/welles-scares-nation
 
Last edited:
You seem to have started with the assumption that your beliefs are correct and then proceeded to place those who disagree with those beliefs on a continuum so that Christian fundamentalists fall on one extreme as those who are "most wrong" (since your belief is assumed right a priori), and others fall somewhere in between. Then you proceeded to craft a worldview about why those people on the extreme are so wrong while others are less so. Finally, you invited others to join you in pondering that question. Are you certain it's your writing that is lazy?

Well I don't know which beliefs you're speaking of so I can't directly address your point, but I can say that I try to stick to evidence when making decisions about truth. The greater the consequences of holding a belief, the more evidence I want before I make decisions based on it.


I doubt I have much in common with either of them.

Glad to hear that. Honestly I got you and Manny confused when I said that.


There are literally thousands of pages written on the euthyphro dilemma and Divine Command Theory (DCT) in general. Why would I be interested in spending any time discussing it with joe blow on an internet forum when that time could be spent reading Immanuel Kant's take on it, or Thomas Aquinas' or listening to a lecture on the topic by John Hare? I don't find such discussions all that interesting on general purpose internet forums. Were I interested in revisiting this issue, there's far better ways for me to do that than by debating you.

DCT is not the only approach to Christian morality, btw. It's not even very common anymore. So even if you were declared grand champion of your euthyphro debate, congratulations you just debunked a theory of Christian morality that hasn't found widespread support sincethe middle ages.

You're of course correct, but it is an interesting topic to discuss. No worries and thanks for your responses.
 
You are assuming that your reasoning in trying to convince believers, is right.
So what am I assuming, specifically?

And you're assuming that their religious ideal is groundless.

Faith, is by definition something that can't be shown to be true. If it could we wouldn't call it religious faith, but religious fact.

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.

It baffles me that you can't hear how untenable that statement is. Think of all the things that cannot be shown to be true that you don't believe in. That's just not how people including yourself process information. Well for you it's everything but god.

But again, let me reiterate, I don't care about anyone's belief in god, only that they chose to make decisions in the public sphere based on beliefs grounded in nothing more than positive assertions that by definition can't be grounded in fact. The same kinds of facts that we use in the rest of our lives when making decisions.

Abortion, homosexuality, condom and birth control use, evolution, marriage, the age of the earth.... All issues that the religious make decisions on based on faith not on fact.
 
It's natural for us to wonder about things and wondering about things has brought us knowledge. Before knowledge we look at the evidence as we see it and come to conclusions. Of course the teachings we received through the years influence those conclusions. Most of us seem to arrive at a theory and mostly those theories are group theories from groups who feel the need to convert others to their theories, the religious and atheists. Some claim to be agnostic, but more often than not it seems to me that agnostics are atheists.

Some years ago while reading about Einstein I ran across his seemingly changing ideas about religion, about God. He seemed to land on a belief in Nature's God which is ill defined by him. But is an idea brought forth by someone whose name escapes me during a period of time when being an atheist would have been a death sentence where he lived.

There are many things that we may never know but will always wonder about. At least we can test our theories for the upcoming football game.
 
Practically everything in life comes with both negative and positive consequences.


Your unfounded belief in alien beings can also result in negative consequences manifested into actions.
Simple panicked hoarding of food in preparation for an alien attack can cause serious damage to our society.


Here's an example that comes to mind:

Orson Welles causes a nationwide panic with his broadcast of "War of the Worlds"—a realistic radio dramatization of a Martian invasion of Earth.


Welles scares nation — History.com This Day in History — 10/30/1938

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....

So let me ask you.....

Do you think homosexuality is wrong? Do you support laws that prevent homosexuals from getting married?

Do you think abortion is wrong? Do you support laws that make it a crime?

Do you think we should have prayer in schools? Would you advocate laws that set aside time for prayer in school?

Do you think assisted suicide for the terminally ill is wrong? Would you support laws preventing it?

If the answer to any of these is "yes" then that's the point of the OP.

To you're point, yes most things can have negative consequences, but my point is that in some cases, your definition of positive and negative has been affected by something that isn't grounded in truth, but faith. Now if you leave you're beliefs at the door of your home and church, then you have my utmost apologies and I will move on, but if those beliefs tell you that you should support laws that affect me, well, that's where we have a problem.

What is negative and positive is determined by a worldview that can't show itself to be true via the same kind of evidence that we ask for in the rest of our lives and more importantly ignores all the evidence that it can't be true based on time tested theories of physics and biology.
 
Last edited:
Some claim to be agnostic, but more often than not it seems to me that agnostics are atheists.

Agnostic speaks to what you claim to know, atheism is what you say you believe.

The only middle ground between theism and atheism looks like this:

Question: "Do you believe in god?"
Answer: I never thought about it and I don't care."

If I asked you, do aliens exist and you said "I don't know" that wouldn't answer the question because I didn't ask what you know or don't know, but what you believe.

You could answer I don't know, but I think it's possible, you are agnostic alienist. In the same respect most atheists are indeed agnostic.


Some years ago while reading about Einstein I ran across his seemingly changing ideas about religion, about God. He seemed to land on a belief in Nature's God which is ill defined by him. But is an idea brought forth by someone whose name escapes me during a period of time when being an atheist would have been a death sentence where he lived.

Sounds like Deism or Pantheism.

There are many things that we may never know but will always wonder about. At least we can test our theories for the upcoming football game.

Amen to that!
 
Well I don't know which beliefs you're speaking of so I can't directly address your point, but I can say that I try to stick to evidence when making decisions about truth.

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)
 
Back
Top Bottom