DiscussMormonism.com

This is a common position that gets expressed by atheists and other skeptically-minded people. It's also in line with the scientific approach to evidence and belief. Do you think that it's a valid viewpoint? Do feel there are times when belief shouldn't scale with the evidence? If so, at what times and for what reason?

And a theist could point to a number of things that are fundamental to our worldview that lack good evidence, such as the existence of the external world, other minds, you not being a brain in a vat type stuff.

Not always, but it should when unambiguous evidence is accessible and known. It should also be first parsed from the word as to what is considered evidence at what isn't.

If the phone rang and a police officer told me my wife has been arrested for killing children in a park with an axe and that he has evidence to prove it I wouldn't believe it because my wife's utter inability to do such a thing would be initially overriding evidence for me. Of course if I saw an undoctored and proved video of it happening evidence can reach a point of utter unasailability that one is forced to accept. Unfortunately evidence just isn't axiomatic all the time particularly with spiritual and religious beliefs and non. And that is evidential!

regards, mikwut

MrStakhanovite wrote:And a theist could point to a number of things that are fundamental to our worldview that lack good evidence, such as the existence of the external world, other minds, you not being a brain in a vat type stuff.

The Simon Belmont Bolero? a.k.a. the 'there is no spoon' gambit?

One of my favorite quotes:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind." ("The Ethics of Belief", William K. Clifford, 1877)

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... elief.html

I'd be interested to learn what Stak and others think of Clifford's famous essay.

I like William James famous reply to it as not so narrow minded.

mikwut

mikwut wrote:Not always, but it should when unambiguous evidence is accessible and known. It should also be first parsed from the word as to what is considered evidence at what isn't.

If the phone rang and a police officer told me my wife has been arrested for killing children in a park with an axe and that he has evidence to prove it I wouldn't believe it because my wife's utter inability to do such a thing would be initially overriding evidence for me. Of course if I saw an undoctored and proved video of it happening evidence can reach a point of utter unasailability that one is forced to accept. Unfortunately evidence just isn't axiomatic all the time particularly with spiritual and religious beliefs and non. And that is evidential!

regards, mikwut

Thanks for the thoughts, Mikwut. It does appear that in the case of the police officer, your belief level is scaling with the evidence. An allegation by a policeman is not nearly as strong as video evidence. I agree that it's not always cut and dried identifying what is and what is not evidence, and evidence of what for that matter.

Buffalo wrote:The Simon Belmont Bolero? a.k.a. the 'there is no spoon' gambit?

Yeah…No. If you are going to proportion all your beliefs (at least, important ones) to evidence, then you don’t have a strong belief in other minds or the external world. But you do. So something must be wrong with that idea.

Simon’s strategy was to use skepticism as some kind of leveling block (if X is sufficient for Y but X has no evidence, then Y has no evidence), but the track taken here is that I’m pointing out a gap between the proposition “ Belief should scale with evidence” and how things really work.

I agree with Stak. The scale of evidence is broader for theists than for today's scientistic "skeptics" like you Buffalo but Buffalo you have a broader concept of evidence than do classical philosophical skeptics. Everyone draws their lines of basic or brute.

mikwut

MrStakhanovite wrote:

Buffalo wrote:The Simon Belmont Bolero? a.k.a. the 'there is no spoon' gambit?

Yeah…No. If you are going to proportion all your beliefs (at least, important ones) to evidence, then you don’t have a strong belief in other minds or the external world. But you do. So something must be wrong with that idea.

Simon’s strategy was to use skepticism as some kind of leveling block (if X is sufficient for Y but X has no evidence, then Y has no evidence), but the track taken here is that I’m pointing out a gap between the proposition “ Belief should scale with evidence” and how things really work.

Evidence of the external world's existence is consistent, rational, predictable, reasonable and actionable.