Leo, correct me if I'm wrong but....

The fact that so far the sun always HAS came up, being 'good reasons' as you say, being indication that it is continuing to do so - that it is more probable to do so tomorrow than not for instance - IS evidence. Is that not what evidence is?

EvF

I moved the post. But is it?

I wondered where it went after I posted lol.

Well,

1. Do you consider it more probable that the sun will rise tomorrow than not?

2. If you do, do you believe this because of 'reasons' or 'reasoning'?

3. If so, how is that not the definition of evidence? Something that indicates?

If you believe you have valid reasons for believing then how is that not evidence? Is that not what evidence is by definition?

EvF

other thread EV.

I'm lost as to what thread we're switching with, but is that evidence?

I thought I was describing a dictionary's definition?

The other thread that this matter to be discussed at, is called "Adrian and I disagree on faith" and it's in the philosophy forum.

EvF

Unless the atheist actually tested these scientific facts him/herself to make sure they are indeed factual, I would think that there has to be some small amount of faith from the atheist to put all trust in another scientist's work.

Take for example when we as the consumers willingly consume drugs that the pharmaceutical companies put out. We are putting our trust into their hands. We claim that everything they do is based on scientific study which produces factual results. But we ourselves, don't really know just how much of their work is legit until months later when the side effects aren't so rosy. The only factual thing about their research is that it yielded some negative effects. Maybe even too dangerous for human consumption.

(February 8, 2010 at 6:32 am)starbucks Wrote: Unless the atheist actually tested these scientific facts him/herself to make sure they are indeed factual, I would think that there has to be some small amount of faith from the atheist to put all trust in another scientist's work.

Take for example when we as the consumers willingly consume drugs that the pharmaceutical companies put out. We are putting our trust into their hands. We claim that everything they do is based on scientific study which produces factual results. But we ourselves, don't really know just how much of their work is legit until months later when the side effects aren't so rosy. The only factual thing about their research is that it yielded some negative effects. Maybe even too dangerous for human consumption.

When you turn on the light, you do not 'believe' in the act of the light bulb lighting - and if it does not light, it is not a paradigm shattering event. You have a rational expectation based on previous experiences backed up by your understanding, however flawed, of the situation.

For the same reasons, one consumes drugs prescribed by a physician with the expectation that the drug is tested by the FDA to be safe for humans, the physician knows what s/he is doing, etc,. That is the nature of informed consent and all other informed decisions. And there is capacity for error and unforeseen circumstances built into the system as you are, by the nature of the situation, making probabilistic decisions anyways.

Stop equivocating faith in the unproven and unverifiable with rational expectations that can be verified and proven under contextually related conditions.

An atheist doesn't even have to believe ANYTHING scientific at all - whether that's possible or not - to reject the God belief. Disbelief in God is just a matter of being unconvinced...... you don't have to know any science at all for that. Disbelief has got nothing to do with science per se. Disbelief has everything to do with simply not believing.

EvF

Isn't that what faith is? To place trust and confidence in a person based on some form of evidence that the person is competent? But still, we can't know with absolute certainty that they won't mess up. We need only enough evidence to win our trust.