must every reasonable belief be evidentially based?

[~M~]

what the thread title asks.

[perfessor]

Is it reasonable to believe something for which there is no evidence? I think not.

So my answer to the OP is, yes.

[Peter Kirby]

Some would point out that, "every reasonable believe must be evidentially based," would be a difficult thing for which to find evidence, depending on what is understood by "evidence." So...what is understood by "evidence"?

[Scifinerdgrl]

Shouldn't "reasonable" be defined as having a good reason? How could something with no evidence have a good reason for believability? Even faith-by-emotion fundamentalism cites the feelings they have about jebus as evidence.

[~M~]

Is it reasonable to believe something for which there is no evidence? I think not.


why?

[perfessor]

Belief is always going to be a personal calculus; everyone is entitled, I think, to decide what constitutes "evidence." We see that all the time on this forum, don't we? :)

Those of us who find a particular belief to be unreasonable, may and do try to point out the "lack of evidence." But it's usually a very tough sell. Those who believe, always seem to have evidence to talk about.

[Draconis]

It's okay to hold a belief without evidence, but you really need evidence to turn that belief into fact.

[~M~]

Some would point out that, "every reasonable believe must be evidentially based," would be a difficult thing for which to find evidence, depending on what is understood by "evidence." So...what is understood by "evidence"?

:huh:

[Peter Kirby]

~M~, in the words of Alice, "it's your stupid riddle." What is meant by evidence?

[kennethamy]

what the thread title asks.

I would think that if you have a reasonable belief, then you should have a reason for believing it. Wouldn't you?

[JohannGoodflag]

Some would point out that, "every reasonable believe must be evidentially based," would be a difficult thing for which to find evidence, depending on what is understood by "evidence." So...what is understood by "evidence"?

I would sooner ask what is meant by "reasonable".

It seems to me that "this beleif is reasonable" is a value judgement. That is to say, it is an assessment that it is consonant with a system of morals --- a system of actions which are supposed to achieve some good. In this case, "the good" would be "correspondance between one's beleifs about the world and the world itself".

Morals are what we define them to be: they are cultural. You can disagree with their objective, or their effectiveness, or you can propose an alternative set of morals, but this is not unlike arguing about how to speak correct English, French, or what-have-you. They are defined in practise by common usage. And "reasonable" usually entails the application of logic to evidence, supplemented by theories which are posited on the basis of more evidence.

Taking this approach of understanding the word "reasonable", I would answer your question by saying "it holds by definition (i.e. by the meaning of the words) and so does not require evidence"; and as to the OP, I would say "yes, by definition".

[andrewpkyap]

what the thread title asks.so what's the alternative? Can you give us an example of a "reasonable belief" that is not based on evidence?

[kennethamy]

so what's the alternative? Can you give us an example of a "reasonable belief" that is not based on evidence?

Or a reasonable belief that has no reasons supporting it?

[~M~]

~M~, in the words of Alice, "it's your stupid riddle." What is meant by evidence?



whatever evidentialism holds. Or, any of the philosophies espoused commonly in this forum. take your pick.

[~M~]

I would think that if you have a reasonable belief, then you should have a reason for believing it. Wouldn't you?



what's your point, kenny?

[~M~]

so what's the alternative? Can you give us an example of a "reasonable belief" that is not based on evidence?



the pragmatic arguments for god are not evidential arguments.

[Ktulen]

"must every reasonable belief be evidentially based?"

It depends on what you mean by 'evidentially based'. If you mean physically evidentially based, I say yes.

Scientists formulate ideas all the time. The ideas which stand the test of time are those which are verified via physical evidence. To me, this is what distinguishes philosophy from science. Philosophy is all well and good, until it collides with the physical evidence produced by scientific inquiry.

You can add theology and wishful thinking to philosophy. The ultimate arbiter of reality is reality, and our best method for understanding reality is scientific inquiry.

[Peter Kirby]

whatever evidentialism holds. Or, any of the philosophies espoused commonly in this forum. take your pick.
Well, I fear that if the evidentialists came out and delimited the nature of 'evidence,' they would soon be hoisted by their own petard; they would find that some reasonable beliefs, not least 'evidentialism' itself, are not based on evidence. Hence the question.

[Janus]

Yes, all beliefs must be based on evidence, except obviously the initial assumption that there is an external reality to have beliefs about. There are some pragmatic assumptions made for the sake of discovering truth (naturalism, the validity of induction, etc), but they're not really beliefs, i.e. you don't need to believe in metaphysical naturalism, just methodological naturalism.

And of course, the amount of evidence needed to make belief in some claim warranted depends on how extraordinary and universal the claim is. "Spacetime is curved" was, at the time, an extraordinary claim. "My sister caught a cold last week" is not.

[kennethamy]

Well, I fear that if the evidentialists came out and delimited the nature of 'evidence,' they would soon be hoisted by their own petard; they would find that some reasonable beliefs, not least 'evidentialism' itself, are not based on evidence. Hence the question.

Since a reasonable belief must be reasonable, and, therefore, there must be reasons supporting it, why would it be true that evidentialism defined as meaning that all reasonable beliefs must have reasons is, itself, not a reasonable belief?

[Garrett]

Ktulen
our best method for understanding reality is scientific inquiry
If that hypothesis were the result of scientific inquiry, then you would have a point.

[Peter Kirby]

Since a reasonable belief must be reasonable, and, therefore, there must be reasons supporting it, why would it be true that evidentialism defined as meaning that all reasonable beliefs must have reasons is, itself, not a reasonable belief?
Kennethamy,

What is the difference between 'reason' and 'evidential basis'?

If there is none, why doesn't the O.P. ask, whether every reasonable belief must be reasonable, instead of evidentially based? Why sneak in the notion of evidence and equate it with reason?

[naturalist.atheist]

what the thread title asks.

Only if you do it fairly. But if you do then your standards must be high or you are going to be accepting all sorts of amazing things.

[premjan]

Even evidence may not be any use in the face of a radically dynamic universe. What if Newton's laws hold today and don't hold tomorrow? Implicitly we believe that that is not the case and the evidence tends to bear us out.

[~M~]

Kennethamy,

What is the difference between 'reason' and 'evidential basis'?

If there is none, why doesn't the O.P. ask, whether every reasonable belief must be reasonable, instead of evidentially based? Why sneak in the notion of evidence and equate it with reason?

my thoughts.^^^

[kennethamy]

my thoughts.^^^

I was under the impression that when someone gives evidence for the truth of some statement, he is also giving reasons for the truth of that statement. Giving evidence is one kind of way of giving reasons: empirical reasons. Isn't that your impression too? For instance, if I am asked, what are your reasons for believing that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I would say (for instance) it says so in the World Book of Facts, and in Hammond's World Atlas. I could just as well say that was my evidence.

Both the giving of reasons, and the giving of evidence, fall under the heading of giving justification for the truth of a belief or of a statement.

I think that this controversy is really about whether it can be reasonable to accept a belief even though there is no justification for the belief (and even it there is justification for the negation of the belief). An example might be this: A man may be dying of a terminal illness. His physicians tell him he will die soon. But he nevertheless decides to ignore them, and believe he is going to survive. It may be argued that even if the belief that he will survive is unreasonable, it is reasonable for him to accept that belief since that may make his last days (and perhaps those of his relatives) easier to bear. The belief that he will survive is unreasonable, but his believing he will survive is reasonable even if it is contrary to the evidence.

[apeman]

what the thread title asks.

imo the answer is yes.

for instance, if a practicing Christian said "my belief in God gives my life meaning." that's good enough evidence for the reasonableness of his belief. ok the evidence comes after the belief but that doesn't matter.:D

the truth is science can not give meaning, only religious faith can do that.

[kennethamy]

Those interested in the question of this thread would, I think, find the following famous essay, The Ethics of Belief by W.K.Clifford, worth-reading:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

It is a famous defense of evidentialism.

[kennethamy]

imo the answer is yes.

for instance, if a practicing Christian said "my belief in God gives my life meaning." that's good enough evidence for the reasonableness of his belief. ok the evidence comes after the belief but that doesn't matter.:D

the truth is science can not give meaning, only religious faith can do that.

Even if the belief turns out to be false?

[apeman]

Even if the belief turns out to be false?

meaning is not open to scientific testability.you either get it or you don't.

if someone says Christianity gives them meaning who are you to say that is unreasonable?

[kennethamy]

meaning is not open to scientific testability.you either get it or you don't.

if someone says Christianity gives them meaning who are you to say that is unreasonable?

It is unreasonable if it is contrary to reason. If someone says that the world is flat, no one has to be anyone to say that belief is contrary to reason. Whether a belief is contrary to reason is not a personal issue.

One way of evading the issue of evidence and reason is to say that a question is not open to evidence and reason. But whether or not that is true is open to evidence and reason. After all, who are you to say that something is no open to reason?

It may be true that either you get it or you don't. But it may also be true that what you get is false.

[kennethamy]

Even evidence may not be any use in the face of a radically dynamic universe. What if Newton's laws hold today and don't hold tomorrow? Implicitly we believe that that is not the case and the evidence tends to bear us out.

I imagine you mean that what may be true today might well be false tomorrow. But that does not imply that evidence is of no use in determining what is true today, or what is true or false tomorrow. Indeed, you would not even know that what is true today may be false tomorrow without evidence.

[SophistiCat]

I was under the impression that when someone gives evidence for the truth of some statement, he is also giving reasons for the truth of that statement. Giving evidence is one kind of way of giving reasons: empirical reasons.

The question in the OP is "must every reasonable belief be evidentially based?" What is there to quibble about? Reason does not necessarily imply evidence. Neither does justification. At least not in the eyes of the OP - or else he wouldn't be asking the question, would he?

Some basic epistemic principles cannot be derived from any others. You either accept them or you don't. In trying to persuade others of your epistemic stance you can pump their intuition with examples and thought experiments. You can show that your principles generally lead to consistent and agreeable results, while others don't. But that's pretty much the limit of what can be done in support of one's epistemology.

[~M~]

I was under the impression that when someone gives evidence for the truth of some statement, he is also giving reasons for the truth of that statement.

this is not about truth of some statement but belief.







I think that this controversy is really about whether it can be reasonable to accept a belief even though there is no justification for the belief (and even it there is justification for the negation of the belief).


evidential justification.

The belief that he will survive is unreasonable, but his believing he will survive is reasonable even if it is contrary to the evidence.

I make a similar distinction in my formal debate with tom swayer. it is entitled the pragmatic argument.

[~M~]

Those interested in the question of this thread would, I think, find the following famous essay, The Ethics of Belief by W.K.Clifford, worth-reading:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

It is a famous defense of evidentialism.

and a commonly criticized one.

[apeman]

It is unreasonable if it is contrary to reason. If someone says that the world is flat, no one has to be anyone to say that belief is contrary to reason. Whether a belief is contrary to reason is not a personal issue.

One way of evading the issue of evidence and reason is to say that a question is not open to evidence and reason. But whether or not that is true is open to evidence and reason. After all, who are you to say that something is no open to reason?

It may be true that either you get it or you don't. But it may also be true that what you get is false.

science can not give you meaning.the fact that the world is not flat has no bearing on meaning.

it is obvious that some questions are not subject to evidence, some things just do not need to be proven evidentially. faith is required for meaning, not evidence.

if you said your favourite colour is red who am i to argue that it isn't ? the only issue should be if you tell me my favourite colour is red.:D

[luvluv]

I'm going with no. If every believe needed to be evidentially-based to be rational, we'd immediately generate either an infinite regress or admit that the foundations of our rational deliberation are unreasonable.

Also, evidence is not self-interpreting. You'd need some kind of rational principles on how to evaluate evidence that would have to be prior to evidence. The laws of logic, for example. Such laws are prior to and independent of experience or evidence, and without them, we couldn't interpret either. For on the basis of what would you evaluate the evidence for logic?

[~M~]

So,if not all beliefs must be evidentially based, then must God-belief be?

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

must every reasonable belief be evidentially based?

rea·son·a·ble [ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, reez-nuh-] – adjective

1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.

2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.

3. moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.

4. endowed with reason.

5. capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.

[luvluv]

So,if not all beliefs must be evidentially based, then must God-belief be?

Uh oh.

[kennethamy]

The question in the OP is "must every reasonable belief be evidentially based?" What is there to quibble about? Reason does not necessarily imply evidence. Neither does justification. At least not in the eyes of the OP - or else he wouldn't be asking the question, would he?



Well, he might if he were not clear about what the term "reasonable" meant. And, anyway, it is not up to the OP or anyone else to decide what a word means.

But as I have already pointed out, it is one thing to ask whether a belief is reasonable, and a different thing to ask whether it is reasonable to hold that belief. There might be times when it is reasonable to hold an unreasonable belief. The example I have already given is that of a man who is dying of a terminal illness. The belief that he will recover is unreasonable, but holding the belief that he will recover might be thought to be reasonable if it helps him and his family to ease his last days.

The OP might not be distinguishing between whether the belief itself is reasonable, and whether holding the belief is reasonable.

In other words, one might have a reasonable motive for holding an unreasonable belief.

[Tears In The Rain]

imo the answer is yes.

for instance, if a practicing Christian said "my belief in God gives my life meaning." that's good enough evidence for the reasonableness of his belief. ok the evidence comes after the belief but that doesn't matter.:D

the truth is science can not give meaning, only religious faith can do that.

Wrong. Only the individual gives their life meaning. No religion is required. Those who use religion to do that are the ones giving it that meaning, not the religion.

[Tears In The Rain]

In response to the OP: no, go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want if it doesn't matter to you whether it's true.

[kennethamy]

In response to the OP: no, go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want if it doesn't matter to you whether it's true.

I wonder why you would say that.

[SophistiCat]

But as I have already pointed out, it is one thing to ask whether a belief is reasonable, and a different thing to ask whether it is reasonable to hold that belief. There might be times when it is reasonable to hold an unreasonable belief.

Oh boy, more hair splitting :rolleyes: I am not even going to bother with this.

[~M~]

rea·son·a·ble [ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, reez-nuh-] – adjective

1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.

2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.

3. moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.

4. endowed with reason.

5. capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.




....:huh: i know how to work a dictionary. I will assume you got lost in your forum ventures and I will point out that this is a philosophy forum.

[~M~]

Well, he might if he were not clear about what the term "reasonable" meant. And, anyway, it is not up to the OP or anyone else to decide what a word means.


Shall we leave that to you?



But as I have already pointed out, it is one thing to ask whether a belief is reasonable, and a different thing to ask whether it is reasonable to hold that belief. There might be times when it is reasonable to hold an unreasonable belief.




i do not abide by your distinction. i make a distinction in the form of pragmatic or evidential reasonableness.

[~M~]

Uh oh.


It's a good question.

[kennethamy]

Shall we leave that to you?







i do not abide by your distinction. i make a distinction in the form of pragmatic or evidential reasonableness.

No. It is not up to any individual what a word means. Meanings are not private, they are public. And you can get a good start on finding out what an English word means by looking it up in a good English dictionary.

I am not asking you whether you abide by a distinction or not. Either there is that distinction or there is not. I explained the distinction between the reasonableness of holding a belief, and the reasonableness of the belief itself. And I gave an example of that distinction. You may have a valid distinction, but you will have to explain it. In fact it may be much the same distinction that I made only in different words. What you mean by "pragmatic reasonableness" may be what I mean by the reasonableness of holding a belief; and what you mean by evidential reasonableness may be what I mean by the reasonableness of the belief itself. If you look at my example again about the dying man, it may be what you call "evidentially unreasonable" is for him to believe he will survive his illness; but what you call "pragmatically reasonable" is for him to believe that he will survive his illness. So maybe we agree, after all.

[Garrett]

Tears In The Rain
In response to the OP: no, go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want if it doesn't matter to you whether it's true.
Are you saying we shouldn't believe whatever the hell we want if it does matter to us whether its true? I'm not sure that makes sense (whether or not evidence is involved). Would you restate, perhaps a bit more carefully?

[Tears In The Rain]

In response to the OP: no, go ahead and believe whatever the hell you want if it doesn't matter to you whether it's true.

I wonder why you would say that.

Are you saying we shouldn't believe whatever the hell we want if it does matter to us whether its true? I'm not sure that makes sense (whether or not evidence is involved). Would you restate, perhaps a bit more carefully?

What I'm saying is the standard you hold your beliefs to is up to you. Some people are fine with believing in things because they want them to be true or it makes them feel good or it just works for them, etc. Pascal's wager is an example of this type of thinking. I have also heard arguments based on the comfort people feel from their beliefs. Many people use something called "faith" which means believing in something without adequate justification. Anyone who values such a concept is clearly not that concerned with truth. You are not going to die for holding false beliefs. Personally, I don't care for "belief" at all. To me any belief is only as good as the evidence to support it.

[Tears In The Rain]

What I'm saying is the standard you hold your beliefs to is up to you.

Please read as "to which you hold your beliefs".

[Hugh Nose]

I am curious about the notion "evidence" as participants here understand it. I know the capitals of some of the states in that make up the United States. For example, I know that Dover is the Capital of Delaware. I am not clear about what evidence I have for this belief. I can, of course, say that my evidence is the Enyclopedia Britannica where one can read that the Capital of Delaware is Dover. But, is this evidence for my belief that Dover is the Capital of Delaware.
Or, is the fact that it says that Dover is the Capital of Delaware (part of) my eivdence for the accuracy of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hugh Nose

[~M~]

I am curious about the notion "evidence" as participants here understand it. I know the capitals of some of the states in that make up the United States. For example, I know that Dover is the Capital of Delaware. I am not clear about what evidence I have for this belief. I can, of course, say that my evidence is the Enyclopedia Britannica where one can read that the Capital of Delaware is Dover. But, is this evidence for my belief that Dover is the Capital of Delaware.
Or, is the fact that it says that Dover is the Capital of Delaware (part of) my eivdence for the accuracy of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hugh Nose



You have a funny name. I keep thinking "huge nose".

[premjan]

I think it is supposed to be funny - like "Who Knows".

[kennethamy]

I am curious about the notion "evidence" as participants here understand it. I know the capitals of some of the states in that make up the United States. For example, I know that Dover is the Capital of Delaware. I am not clear about what evidence I have for this belief. I can, of course, say that my evidence is the Enyclopedia Britannica where one can read that the Capital of Delaware is Dover. But, is this evidence for my belief that Dover is the Capital of Delaware.
Or, is the fact that it says that Dover is the Capital of Delaware (part of) my eivdence for the accuracy of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hugh Nose

What caused you to have that belief, I don't of course know. Maybe your teacher told you at one time. But that might also be your evidence for your belief, since, presumably, your teacher is (or is supposed to be) an authority. And the evidence could very well be that the Encyclopedia says Dover is the capital. And, furthermore, it can also be that the fact that the Encyclopedia has been found to be accurate in this, and in other matter, is part of you justification (evidence) for your belief that the Encyclopedia is an authority. It works both ways. But, I suppose that you have better evidence that the Encyclopedia is an authority on what the state capitals than just that it is right about the capital of Deleware, don't you? I would doubt that you would determine that the Encyclopedia is generally authoritative, by first finding out from some other authoritative source that the capital is Dover, and then checking to see whether the Encyclopedia agrees with that.

[kennethamy]

What I'm saying is the standard you hold your beliefs to is up to you. Some people are fine with believing in things because they want them to be true or it makes them feel good or it just works for them, etc. Pascal's wager is an example of this type of thinking. I have also heard arguments based on the comfort people feel from their beliefs. Many people use something called "faith" which means believing in something without adequate justification. Anyone who values such a concept is clearly not that concerned with truth. You are not going to die for holding false beliefs. Personally, I don't care for "belief" at all. To me any belief is only as good as the evidence to support it.

Surely you don't really think that it is up to the person what standard of evidence he ought to accept. Only up to the person what standard he does accept. The standard he ought to accept is the standard that stands to best chance of determining whether the belief is true or false. Don't you think that? In the case of Pascal, he argued that when it is impossible to tell when a belief is true or false, only then is it allowable to decide whether to hold that belief on the basis of whether it is useful to do so. But, to repeat, only when (as he thought was the case with the existence of God), when the evidence criterion fails so that the evidence is about even, it it allowable to decide, not, of course, whether the belief is true or not, but whether it is useful to hold that belief. But the usefulness of a belief is not, of course, evidence that it is true. Pascal never makes that mistake.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that you do not care for belief, and then say that beliefs are only as good as the evidence that supports them. Because now you seem to be saying not that you do not care for beliefs, but, rather, that you do care for beliefs that have evidence to support them. And I agree with you about that.

[Garrett]

Tears In The Rain
What I'm saying is the standard you hold your beliefs to is up to you.
Then I completely agree. And that btw answers ~M~'s question (post 38).

Some people are fine with believing in things because they want them to be true or it makes them feel good or it just works for them, etc.
I'm a pragmatist. If an idea works, then its justified.

Many people use something called "faith" which means believing in something without adequate justification. Anyone who values such a concept is clearly not that concerned with truth.
Now I object - you added the qualifier "adequate". Who gets to announce whether a given justification is "adequate"? We seem to be on the edge of the JTB chasm of despair.

I believe I will see the sun rise tomorrow. I have justification. Is my justification adequate? If I unexpectedly die tonight, or the sun unexpectedly goes nova or something, then my justification must have been inadequate. So my justified belief turned out to be, in your words, something called "faith"!

Yet I am concerned with truth being accurate.

You are not going to die for holding false beliefs.
And also you may behave more appropriately if you hold fase beliefs! Religion does provide moral foundation, for example - remove the religious belief and the person may founder.

But I'm more thinking along these lines: I believe I won't get in a fatal car crash on my way to work, otherwise I'd stay home. I know its possible of course, but I really don't believe it will happen. (I intend to pay attention to make sure it doesn't happen.) My belief may turn out to be false, only time will tell - but you'll have to pry it from my cold dead mind, cuz that's the only way I'll give it up.

Personally, I don't care for "belief" at all. To me any belief is only as good as the evidence to support it.
We should be able to justify our beliefs, I agree. But what do you mean by "evidence"? We pay to put our kids through college, but until they graduate there is no evidence they will graduate - there is only inductive justification (the kid is a good student, for example, therefore she's likely to graduate).

[kennethamy]

Then I completely agree. And that btw answers ~M~'s question (post 38).


I'm a pragmatist. If an idea works, then its justified.




Do you think that it should be justified that your idea works? But then, how do you decide whether it is justified that your idea works, though? I suppose that it is justified that it works if it is justified that it works. But then, how do you decide that it is justified, that it works? Obviously, if it is justified, that it is justified, that it justified. And so on, and so on, and so on. (We seem to be on the edge of the chasm of an infinite regress).

[apeman]

Wrong. Only the individual gives their life meaning. No religion is required. Those who use religion to do that are the ones giving it that meaning, not the religion.

religion need not be spiritual if that kind of stuff scares you;) .see it as devotion to a cause if it makes you happier. that sort of thing can't be explained by science, even if the devotion is to science!:D

[Zebulon]

if someone says Christianity gives them meaning who are you to say that is unreasonable?

Ah, but you are turning here from a statement about external reality ("the central doctrines of Christianity are true") to something more internal and subjective ("Christianity gives my life meaning"). The latter can be true even if the former is not.

"Green is my favorite color" and "Thomas Hardy is my favorite novelist" may be true statements about my aesthetic preferences, but they do not assert something about external material reality in the same way the proposition "the Earth is spherical" does.

[Zebulon]

So,if not all beliefs must be evidentially based, then must God-belief be?

Inasmuch as it is an assertion about something existent in external reality, yes.

[kennethamy]

So,if not all beliefs must be evidentially based, then must God-belief be?

A belief doesn't have to be evidentially based to be a belief. But it has to be evidentially based to be a reasonable belief. But many philosophers have held that the belief in God need not, and even should not and cannot be a reasonable belief. The Danish philosopher, Kierkegaard, held that "religion is the crucifixion of the intellect".

[~M~]

A belief doesn't have to be evidentially based to be a belief. But it has to be evidentially based to be a reasonable belief. .

You and i differ here. :D

[Tears In The Rain]

Then I completely agree. And that btw answers ~M~'s question (post 38).


I'm a pragmatist. If an idea works, then its justified.


Now I object - you added the qualifier "adequate". Who gets to announce whether a given justification is "adequate"? We seem to be on the edge of the JTB chasm of despair.

I believe I will see the sun rise tomorrow. I have justification. Is my justification adequate? If I unexpectedly die tonight, or the sun unexpectedly goes nova or something, then my justification must have been inadequate. So my justified belief turned out to be, in your words, something called "faith"!

Yet I am concerned with truth being accurate.


And also you may behave more appropriately if you hold fase beliefs! Religion does provide moral foundation, for example - remove the religious belief and the person may founder.

But I'm more thinking along these lines: I believe I won't get in a fatal car crash on my way to work, otherwise I'd stay home. I know its possible of course, but I really don't believe it will happen. (I intend to pay attention to make sure it doesn't happen.) My belief may turn out to be false, only time will tell - but you'll have to pry it from my cold dead mind, cuz that's the only way I'll give it up.


We should be able to justify our beliefs, I agree. But what do you mean by "evidence"? We pay to put our kids through college, but until they graduate there is no evidence they will graduate - there is only inductive justification (the kid is a good student, for example, therefore she's likely to graduate).

I don't think I'm being unfair to faith by adding "inadequate" to it's justification. The concept of faith is based on that. If you had enough evidence for something, you don't need faith to believe it.

I don't see religion making people behave more appropriately. And I'm not going to take that on faith.

The putting your kids through college example is inappropriate because it is a decision not a belief.

[Tears In The Rain]

I am not sure what you mean when you say that you do not care for belief, and then say that beliefs are only as good as the evidence that supports them. Because now you seem to be saying not that you do not care for beliefs, but, rather, that you do care for beliefs that have evidence to support them. And I agree with you about that.

I realize that statement was unclear. I put quotes around "belief" when I said I don't care for it to indicate I meant something slightly different. I meant I don't care for belief as something that I believe in to the extent that I couldn't revise my view if given good reason.

[kennethamy]

You and i differ here. :D

If you say so, I guess it is true. Have you a good reason for differing?

[~M~]

If you say so, I guess it is true. Have you a good reason for differing?



yes.

[kennethamy]

yes.

I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.

[Garrett]

Tears In The Rain
I don't think I'm being unfair to faith by adding "inadequate" to it's justification. The concept of faith is based on that. If you had enough evidence for something, you don't need faith to believe it.
So "adequate" evidence is "enough" evidence. How much is that?

Btw, my definition for faith (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=faith&gwp=13) is the first entry: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

The putting your kids through college example is inappropriate because it is a decision not a belief.
Why do we make the decision?

Do you believe Have you decided you hold no beliefs?

[apeman]

Ah, but you are turning here from a statement about external reality ("the central doctrines of Christianity are true") to something more internal and subjective ("Christianity gives my life meaning"). The latter can be true even if the former is not.

"Green is my favorite color" and "Thomas Hardy is my favorite novelist" may be true statements about my aesthetic preferences, but they do not assert something about external material reality in the same way the proposition "the Earth is spherical" does.


all causes , even the cause of "reason is our highest purpose", are subjective. a cause is a subjective belief that is necessarily externalised.if that belief rewards the believer that is enough to validate his faith in it.

ok , some of the statements in the bible look to be false when checked against known science, but much of our science has proven to be wrong in the past too. provided Christians don't take the bible as absolute literal truth their belief can be adaptable to new knowledge.

[Ktulen]

ok , some of the statements in the bible look to be false when checked against known science, but much of our science has proven to be wrong in the past too. provided Christians don't take the bible as absolute literal truth their belief can be adaptable to new knowledge.

Fantastic. So I can be a Christian without accepting as absolute literal truth that Jesus is the son of God, or that the Christian God even exists. I can be a Christian without accepting the physical realities of Christian resurrection, special creation, and the idea of a personal god who helps me find my car keys when I pray to him earnestly.

[Underseer]

Would the Law of noncontradiction count as a reasonable belief that is not based on evidence?

[Bobinius]

Would the Law of noncontradiction count as a reasonable belief that is not based on evidence?

Of course. It is not an empirical belief. Even though it could be said that you can demonstrate it using truth tables, which involves observation.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable because it has a justification. Evidence (as in empirical or observational evidence) is only one type of justification.

[Tears In The Rain]

So "adequate" evidence is "enough" evidence. How much is that?

Btw, my definition for faith (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=faith&gwp=13) is the first entry: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.


Why do we make the decision?

Do you believe Have you decided you hold no beliefs?

That's not the definition of faith I'm using. I would call that "confidence" in something. You took the faith part out of it.

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith

The question of how much evidence is enough isn't really an issue in regard to faith. When I question the basis of a belief, we talk about reason and evidence until you play the faith card. Your question is like asking when a chess player should resign. You can resign whenever you want, but it's not up to me. I'll just keep trying to checkmate you.

There are many ways to make decisions. In general, I consider my options and try to predict the likely outcome of those actions then I choose the one that appeals the most.

No, I have beliefs.

[Garrett]

Tears In The Rain
That's not the definition of faith I'm using.
Your use is as correct as mine - this is a semantics issue, we should either agree on which entry to use, or agree to avoid using the word. I vote the latter.

When I question the basis of a belief, we talk about reason and evidence until you play the faith card.
I think you conclusion-jumped somewhere.

Here's where we are, as I recall: we agree a belief should be justified. You claim it also should be "adequately" justified. I'm trying to pin down what exactly you mean by that qualifier.

belief: something held to be true

justification: reasons for holding a belief

adequate justification: ?

[~M~]

I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.

I prefer to observe rather than argue.

[apeman]

Fantastic. So I can be a Christian without accepting as absolute literal truth that Jesus is the son of God, or that the Christian God even exists. I can be a Christian without accepting the physical realities of Christian resurrection, special creation, and the idea of a personal god who helps me find my car keys when I pray to him earnestly.


there'd be little point in being a Christian unless you believed in Christ:rolleyes: . i suppose ,provided you behaved yourself in church, most decent Christians would accept you into the fold though:D .

the point is that the bible is open to adaptation to tie in with known science, but there'd be little point in changing it's basic reason for being...ie the belief in the Christian God and His coming to earth.anyway ,the Christian God has never been disproved so no science needs to be adapted in His name,some of the ot may require some adjustment though:D .

[kennethamy]

I prefer to observe rather than argue.

Actually the trouble is that you do argue, but that your arguments are weak.

[Tears In The Rain]

Your use is as correct as mine - this is a semantics issue, we should either agree on which entry to use, or agree to avoid using the word. I vote the latter.


I think you conclusion-jumped somewhere.

Here's where we are, as I recall: we agree a belief should be justified. You claim it also should be "adequately" justified. I'm trying to pin down what exactly you mean by that qualifier.

belief: something held to be true

justification: reasons for holding a belief

adequate justification: ?

Let's agree to say confidence when we mean confidence and faith when we mean faith.

I already answered your other question, stop hassling me if you have nothing to contribute.

[~M~]

Actually the trouble is that you do argue, but that your arguments are weak.



This may be true but i said i prefer to observe. What pertinence does your response have?



anyhow:

1. Which of my arguments are weak?
2. Perhaps we could have a formal debate on the argument(s) you find weak?

[kennethamy]

This may be true but i said i prefer to observe and not that i do not argue.



anyhow:

1. Which of my arguments are weak?
2. Perhaps, we could have a formal debate on that argument you find weak?

I don't remember.

I don't do debates.

[~M~]

I don't remember.

I don't do debates.



hahahahahhahahahahahha. What a joke. you just excused yourself of any justification for your own claims--a joke.


And i asked you a question that you have yet to respond to: what pertinence does your response have?

[Zebulon]

the Christian God has never been disproved so no science needs to be adapted in His name

Given that there is zero evidence of the existence of the Christian god, there is no need for science to account for it.

[Chuck Rightmire]

what the thread title asks.

Coming in late here, I would suggest (if it hasn't been said before) that any belief, whether reasonable or not, does not need to be evidentiary based. In other words, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs. But, beliefs to be considered reasonable and used to act against others (in politics or other fields) must be based on evidence that can be used to convince others. in other words, you can believe in a god all you want, but if you want to use what that god tells you to stop me from doing something, you really do need to be able to prove that god exists and has spoken to you. There has to be more evidence than just your word.
:devil1:

[adren@line]

Is it reasonable to believe something for which there is no evidence? I think not.

So my answer to the OP is, yes.

then there is no basis for morals, beleif in a consciousness, or anything that cannot be evidenced via the scientific method.
Anyone who applies the demand of "proof" to one thing to which it does not apply should do it for all.

And such a person who does this would essentially end up as a violent, sadistic psychopath.

[Minnesota Joe]

Of course. It is not an empirical belief. Even though it could be said that you can demonstrate it using truth tables, which involves observation.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable because it has a justification. Evidence (as in empirical or observational evidence) is only one type of justification.
Just try to demonstrate the law is wrong--that is the telling point! :D

The evidentialism to which the OP refers is shorthand for the less sexy sounding epistemic reasonism which includes logical laws and arguments. Evidence is one kind of good reason and it's easier to say too.

[Underseer]

then there is no basis for morals, beleif in a consciousness, or anything that cannot be evidenced via the scientific method.
Anyone who applies the demand of "proof" to one thing to which it does not apply should do it for all.

And such a person who does this would essentially end up as a violent, sadistic psychopath.

If your reasoning is sound, why aren't all atheists violent, sadistic psychopaths?

Not only are we not violent, sadistic psychopaths, but we go to prison at much lower rates than Christians do. Perhaps operating on the assumption that morality can only be achieved by believing things without proof is a bad way to construct a moral philosophy.

[adren@line]

If your reasoning is sound, why aren't all atheists violent, sadistic psychopaths?

Not only are we not violent, sadistic psychopaths, but we go to prison at much lower rates than Christians do. Perhaps operating on the assumption that morality can only be achieved by believing things without proof is a bad way to construct a moral philosophy.

this was in reference to strong atheists who demand scientific proof for things to which it does not apply

And I am not a Christian, so I could care less about that comparison. Hindu Americans (many of whom are theists) go to jail much less than atheists.

[Garrett]

~M~
hahahahahhahahahahahha. What a joke.
No, he's serious. He is here to lecture, not listen.

[apeman]

Given that there is zero evidence of the existence of the Christian god, there is no need for science to account for it.

well many Christians would disagree with you on that point.in the Christian religion it is believed that we nailed God to a cross within recorded history (how many religions can say that!). evidence is most definitely a possibility for or against the existence of Christ:D .if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that a Jesus Christ never existed as the bible says , then it would be reasonable to assume the bible got it all wrong.:cool:

[Tears In The Rain]

well many Christians would disagree with you on that point.in the Christian religion it is believed that we nailed God to a cross within recorded history (how many religions can say that!). evidence is most definitely a possibility for or against the existence of Christ:D .if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that a Jesus Christ never existed as the bible says , then it would be reasonable to assume the bible got it all wrong.:cool:

Even without said proof, it's reasonable to assume the Bible got it all wrong, since it got so much else wrong.