Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

---

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

These are all good questions. First, I want to say yes; we’re all at risk of inherent biases effecting our standards of evidence for any given claim. I think there is a latent danger of our subconscious processing nudging us to accept claims and assumptions a priori, for emotional reasons rather than well-evidenced ones. Because of this, it’s important that we constantly challenge the claims we’re most certain of. This is the only way to self-correct for bias.

What evidence would it take for me to be convinced a god exists?  I honestly don’t know.  It would probably have to be scientific in nature.  In the case of Cosby, we know (or can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt) of several facts surrounding the claim that increase the likelihood of it being true.  We know:

1. Bill Cosby exists.
2. He was/is a wealthy, influential, and well-respected celebrity 
3. There is a clear pattern of men with such status preying on vulnerable women
4. The women offering testimony exist, and we can interview them.

Note that we don’t have to take any of the above on faith or assumption, because there is a plethora of actual evidence to support each of the numbered. Additionally “Bill Cosby is a rapist”, is a mundane claim in the sense that it does not require I accept any propositions that violate established, scientific principles describing our physical universe.  

Now, let’s look at the various supernatural claims of Christianity, including but not limited to: an Omni-god exists outside of space and time, he created the universe, Jesus was the son of god and also god, Mary was impregnated by god absent intercourse, Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life, heaven and hell exist, angels exist, souls exist, and Jesus performed miracles. What facts do we know beyond reasonable doubt about any of these claims?  We know:

1.The claims are contained in a book called the Bible that was catalogued thousands of years ago.
2. The Bible contains the alleged testimony of people who lived during that time period and supposedly witnessed these supernatural events     (though we have no way to question these witnesses, if they existed at all, because they’re long since dead.)
3. We know a great number of humans believe these claims are true.
4. We know Christians worship and pray to the god they believe in.
5. We know Christians believe they have a personal relationship with god.

In the Bill Cosby example, the numbered facts are pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of the claim being true.  In the case of the numbered facts regarding Christianity, they are merely reassertions of the claims themselves. Additionally (and most importantly), accepting these claims requires assumptions that violate what can be demonstrated about the known laws of the universe for no other reason than the sake of the claims themselves.

These two scenarios aren’t even in the same stratosphere in terms of likelihood.  So my personal, subjective evidentiary standard for the Bill Cosby claims is far lower than for Christian claims.  I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is a rapist.  I’m not yet convinced that god exists.

---

Thank you for your response Lady,

On the subject of biases; I wanted to make a comment first of my opinion.   I agree, that we all have biases, and sometimes they can be difficult to spot or get past.  We look at the world through our past experience and our individual world view.  In my view, the matter of evidence is a logical problem.  We apply reason and principles in a systematic and consistent way.   This is what the field in philosophy called epistemology is all about.  Much like algebra, you can create generic principles, which stand on their own, and then you work to the details of any particular case to apply those principles.  And as it is an issue of logic, given certain premises and using these principles and reasons, the conclusion will follow from the premises.  You can apply the principles learned from other situations and apply them to something unfamiliar and expect a reasonable outcome (unless there is some reason not to such as a category error).  There are disagreements among philosophers concerning epistemology, but these are on what the principles should be (for gaining knowledge), not that different conclusions follow the same reasoning for different things.

This is a little difficult to me, because in my view, you seem to be talking about persuasion, and not reasoning from the evidence.  Perhaps your standards are higher, and I have no problem with that, if they are applied consistently.  With subjective and moving standards which aren't even defined, I think it is difficult to tell if you are biased or reasonable in your conclusions.   They cannot be evaluated and comparisons can't be made, because it is not defined.  If I'm honest, (and I'm not trying to be harsh) it sounds more like a feeling to me, that is un-falsifiable.   It can't be tested to see if it is sound or not.  As well with such a subjective scale, it seems hard to evaluate or criticize anyone for not believing evidence.  The jurors may have loved Cosby, and simply raised the bar for the evidence, not because it wasn't sufficient for knowledge, but because they have difficulty believing that this nice man from TV could do such things.  They may be swayed by the evidence or they may not.  It has nothing to do with the evidence or what should follow from that evidence.  And this same principle could easily be applied to any other type of evidence as well.  I admit, that sometimes there are a lot of variables, and it may not be a neat little formula, but I think we should strive to be logically consistent. 

Towards your lists;  Bill Cosby exists.   I agree, I don't think that solipsism is rational and that we are perceiving a real person outside of ourselves.  He is wealthy and influential;  again I agree.  Some men of such status prey on vulnerable women.  I agree again, but none of these things give us any knowledge that it would follow that he had raped these women as claimed.  The women exists (again I think this as uncontroversial as it is unimportant.  I actually only know of these women from what I have heard on the news.   We can interview them?   I don't think that it is reasonable that everyone be able to interview them personally.   I also don't think it is necessary.  I think it is enough that they where vetted and their claims tested.  This is also a problem in concerns of historical evidence.   Does our knowledge of the past get a little bit smaller every time someone dies?  Do we erase events that happened years ago, where we can no longer interview the witnesses?  I don't believe that history becomes mere stories as the last witness who can testify passes away.

As to claims of the Bible (in particular the new testament)  In another thread, I talked with someone about what I see as the difference between claims and evidence.  A claim to me, is the conclusion.  For example the claim that we evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution from common species.  The evidence would be the information and reasons which support this claim (and any evidence against it).  This evidence may be shared through testimony.  That is knowledge may be shared, which points to the claim or conclusion.  Even in further education I would expect that much of the evidence would be shared through testimony and the knowledge gathered by others.  I don't think that we need to go around the globe and re-dig things up, nor would I expect to.  In the Bible i would say that there are claims, and there is also evidence.   The testimony of those who shared what they saw and experienced.   The history that followed it.   This can't just be compared to some fictional story.   The followers of Christ appear right after in the time and place, for which they take their name.  Don't confuse the claims from the evidence and reasons for those claims.     Look at what they say they saw, is their corroborating evidence.  How did they act afterwards?   Was their claims self serving or embarrassing?  How did they act in the face of persecution?  There are a number of ways that we can test evidence and testimony.   One other thing I wanted to touch on, before a final statement I would disagree, that most of the Bible violates any immutable law of nature.  For one, the laws of nature are not a set of rules, that must be followed. It is the ways that the things which make up the universe behave.  If they behave differently, that just means that some other cause must be in play.  Gravity will cause the glass I dropped off my desk to fall and the impact cause it to shatter.   If I am quick enough to stop  it and lift it back up onto the table.  I didn't violate the law of gravity.   The law of gravity was acting the same as it always does.   The difference is I was able and chose to intervene.  Another cause was introduced.

Lastly I want to talk about something which seems circular to me.  You seem to be indicating that the evidence is not sufficient because you don't believe that it is possible already.   But the reason you appear to give that you don't believe it; is that there is not enough evidence.  Despite the it's catchy phrasing there is no epistemological rational for the motto of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Why if it is logical and and reasonable wouldn't the same knowledge follow for one thing which is similar to another (without further reason not to). Do you think that our beliefs and what we know should be based on good evidence and rational? Again it seem circular to measure the evidence to a belief in a claim, but then how much you need to measure is based on how much you believe the claim. Of course you will never reach the end conclusion you are traveling in an infinite circle.