• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you believe in without having any evidence of?

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Is there anything that you believe while at the same time knowing that you have no basis for believing it other than being told by someone else that it was so?

As Jay said, there's a conflation here between "evidence for" and "basis for", but I'll assume you have roughly the same thing in mind for both terms. If I understand you, you're asking if there are some beliefs for which our only evidence for their truth is that someone we generally trust says it's so. In other words, you're asking if we hold beliefs on the basis of trusted testimony.

My answer is yes. I believe that evil will not have the last word, that God will put things to rights. Nothing in the created order gives me unambiguous evidence to that effect, and you might say that the empirical evidence points in the opposite direction. So be it. I still believe, based on the testimony of scripture that God will indeed put things to rights.

I believe that God is a tri-unity (trinity). I believe this based on scripture as interpreted by the Fathers and other doctors as accepted in church tradition. In other words, I believe this on the authority of church tradition. No amount of mental gymnastics makes the trinity a necessary conclusion, so it's not a position that could be arrived at via reason alone. And certainly there's no empirical evidence for it. But the church says it's so, and I think the church got this right.

I believe that my best friend is currently residing in Japan. I've never been to Japan. I've never seen any photos of my friend near a Japanese site. Besides, such photos could be photo-shopped, so even if I had them I don't know I could trust them. But I know I can trust my friend. Our years of friendship have given me confidence in his character. He tells me that he lives in Japan, and although I have no direct evidence that it's so, empirical or otherwise, I believe it's so.

I believe that there are actual people who stand behind the postings on this site. I've never met any of you, but I'm fully persuaded that the postings on the site are not put there by some kind of supercomputer. I have SOME evidence that y'all are real, but it's certainly not fool-proof. I presume that a modern computer could make the sorts of posts I see here. But I simply know (and therefore believe) otherwise.

I believe that acetaminophen relieves pain. The science that justifies this claim is utterly beyond me, but guys in white lab coats say it's true, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. So I believe it as an operating assumption that if I have a headache, acetaminophen would be a decent remedy.

Examples could be multiplied perhaps ad infinitum, but these are sufficient, I think, to prove the point. People who say that they don't believe anything unless it has been proved to them (or they themselves have proved it) are merely parroting some sort of ideology, probably to present themselves as intellectually independent. Such "independence" is actually intellectually irresponsible.
 

blackout

Violet.
"personally evidenced" is much different than "proved".

Neither is "suspending disbelief" the same as "believing".
 
Last edited:

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
"personally evidenced" is much different than "proved".

Neither is "suspending disbelief" the same as "believing".

Would you admit that you in fact DO believe lots of things solely on the basis of testimony? For example, if a good friend you've lost touch with called you up and said that she'd moved back to town, you wouldn't "suspend disbelief". You'd automatically believe her. You wouldn't demand proof or wait for your friend to be "personally evidenced" to you. You'd take her word for it and immediately act on that belief. You'd make arrangements to meet, inquire about her circumstances, etc.

Besides this imaginary scenario, there are plenty of things you believe right now that you believe only because other people you trust have told you so. And yes, your belief is more than a suspension of disbelief (as if you walk around in a constant state of disbelief until proven/personally evidenced otherwise!). Much of what you believe about magick is informed by the testimony of others. You may wish to deny this, but I at least won't believe you for a New York minute. Certainly SOME of what you believe about magick is a direct result of your own experience or experiment. But some of it is informed by what you have learned through others' experience and testimony. The only reason you could possibly deny any of this is because of some personal ideology that for some reason rages against it.
 

needle

Member
The pyramid structures of The Soviet Unions are Triune or shall we say Tri-Unities.They are all Mafias(The Establishments)organised for criminal activity and crime, against the righteous and the just. They are run by Master Godfathers, and their servants/Sons,are also known as Mafioso. You can identify them, by how they have conned good people to front for their churches etc. And by how they have broken each and everyone of the ten commandments.
 

blackout

Violet.
Would you admit that you in fact DO believe lots of things solely on the basis of testimony? For example, if a good friend you've lost touch with called you up and said that she'd moved back to town, you wouldn't "suspend disbelief". You'd automatically believe her. You wouldn't demand proof or wait for your friend to be "personally evidenced" to you. You'd take her word for it and immediately act on that belief. You'd make arrangements to meet, inquire about her circumstances, etc.

I would afford that friend the benefit of the doubt,
assuming I had not evidenced reason
to seriously question his/her honesty/veracity in the past.

I never demand proof of people.
(as anyone can evidence by my posts)

If I liked the person and wanted to see them,
I would attempt to make arrangements.
sure. and why not?

Besides this imaginary scenario, there are plenty of things you believe right now that you believe only because other people you trust have told you so. And yes, your belief is more than a suspension of disbelief (as if you walk around in a constant state of disbelief until proven/personally evidenced otherwise!). Much of what you believe about magick is informed by the testimony of others. You may wish to deny this, but I at least won't believe you for a New York minute. Certainly SOME of what you believe about magick is a direct result of your own experience or experiment. But some of it is informed by what you have learned through others' experience and testimony. The only reason you could possibly deny any of this is because of some personal ideology that for some reason rages against it.

No. You are absolutely %100 wrong.
But I somehow doubt you are willing to afford me the benefit of the doubt.
(it rather seems you have some "rage" against the concept);)

Magick revealed itself to me, and taught me (at the) Source (level).
A personal three month long epiphany.
I have tried out less than a handful (ie. less than 5)
of the techniques/exercises of others,
to evidence (or not) their transformational effect/affect(s).
This is called personal experimentation.

Besides the Carlos Casteneda books I read over 20 years ago,
I have never once read a book on Magick or Sorcery. never.

Suspension of Disbelief (as I came up with the phrase for myself)
is a (necessary) TECHNIQUE of my Magick....
And as my whole life is in fact a majik...
I use it very deliberately for my own reasons,
even in daily & personal affairs.

I believe completey...
without believing at all.

It is indeed a paradox.
 
Last edited:

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"personally evidenced" is much different than "proved".

Neither is "suspending disbelief" the same as "believing".

There are different kinds of knowledge and different ways we learn the different kinds of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is learned through the scientific process. It can be "proved." Knowledge of one's love of a spouse is a different kinds. It would be difficult to prove scientifically as it is personal and subjective. There is also spiritual knowledge that people learn from the Holy Spirit. It doesn't require a suspension of disbelief. It is as True as the scientific knowledge - just learned a different way.
 

blackout

Violet.
The thread is about belief, not knowledge.

The vast majority of people
believe many many things they do not know for themselves.
They also believe what they evidence...
as well as believing what they evidence
through the lense/filter of what they believe they already know.

There is also (inner) Source in-formation (ie Wholly Spirit).
But then that "mystic experience" loses it's transcendence
in the translation.... as we try to label the ineffable.

But what has the experience to do with belief?
(besides what you "believe" happened to you.)

I rather prefer to just kind of "go with the (my own) flow"
than busy myself "believing things" or not.

I prefer experiencing things. Self evidencing.

Belief/dis-belief/no-belief are formation things.

I myself do not believe many, if not most, of the things
that most people believe. I just don't.
Not sayin' anyone else should be like me either.
 
Last edited:

autonomous1one1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What do you believe in without having any evidence of?
Is there anything that you believe while at the same time knowing that you have no basis for believing it other than being told by someone else that it was so?

....the basis of trusted testimony.

...God is a tri-unity (trinity). I believe this based on scripture ...the Fathers and other doctors ...church tradition. In other words, I believe this on the authority of church tradition. ..

I believe that my best friend is currently residing in Japan. ..

I believe that there are actual people who stand behind the postings on this site. .. some kind of supercomputer. I have SOME evidence that y'all are real, but it's certainly not fool-proof. I presume that a modern computer could make the sorts of posts I see here. But I simply know (and therefore believe) otherwise.

I believe that acetaminophen relieves pain. The science that justifies this claim is utterly beyond me, but guys in white lab coats say it's true, ..

...People who say that they don't believe anything unless it has been proved to them (or they themselves have proved it) are merely parroting some sort of ideology, probably to present themselves as intellectually independent. Such "independence" is actually intellectually irresponsible.
Greetings Dunemeister. You always make good points which are respected imo. I am examining my ego for irresponsibilities and parroting but know for sure from my own observations that these are not the case for Willamena and UV.:) There seems to be a difference in interpretation pf the OP: tomspug indicated 'no other basis' and 'no evidence for.' From my perspective on this, trusted testimony is additional basis and each example you have mentioned has some other basis than just being told. Perhaps my response is trite compared to what Tom intended, and if so he has my apology. But, let me explain.

Trinity - your acceptance is based on your predetermination of the authority and respect for the church, a well-founded additional basis of many years in the development probably.

Best friend in Japan - 'best friend' is the additional basis for you knew that friend was trustworthy and have a history of friendship to develop that view.

People versus supercomputer - were you actually told by someone that the postings were by people. If not, you make my case for you developed that belief based upon your own thoughts from some other basis (whatever it is). It is a reasonable belief, the computer hasn't been invented that could generate the responses of some of our RFers from artificial intelligence although my own postings seem to be artificial intelligence sometimes. :D

Acetomenophen - Here, you have plenty of supporting 'other evidence.' You mention science and the men in white coats. You also know that it is on the market for pain relief so it is a reasonable belief. You know it has been proven safe. But, if a stranger came up to you on the street and said here is a pill for pain, would you take it without some other basis?

Perhaps you were not even addressing my post above for it was addressing 'other basis' and 'evidence' for belief- not proof. Just wanted to show some rationale that may not be irresponsible parroting of the ego.

Regards,
a..1
 
Last edited:

whereismynotecard

Treasure Hunter
I don't believe anything 100% I think that some things are probably true, but I wouldn't bet my life on anything. For example, I'm fairly sure that I was born on August 4th, 1989, but it's possible that someone wrote the wrong date on my birth certificate and my mom lied to me.

I think that beverage is red, but maybe my vision is different than everyone else's, and maybe red isn't really red, and everyone was lying to me about that too.

I believe that I have a brain in my head, but I've never seen it, and if it later turns out that no one really has brains, I won't be entirely surprised.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
That birthday thing reminded me of my mother's situation. She has always believed she was born in 1940, but after my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my mother found out she was actually born in 1941. It seems my mother's mother lied about her age to get her into kindergarten a year early and kept up the lie. ;)
 

whereismynotecard

Treasure Hunter
That birthday thing reminded me of my mother's situation. She has always believed she was born in 1940, but after my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my mother found out she was actually born in 1941. It seems my mother's mother lied about her age to get her into kindergarten a year early and kept up the lie. ;)

See? And I wouldn't be surprised to find out a similar situation about myself. :D
 

kai

ragamuffin
Is there anything that you believe while at the same time knowing that you have no basis for believing it other than being told by someone else that it was so?


that more money would make me a happy Kai
 

tomspug

Absorbant
Well, a couple of people have been wondering why I posted this. I think there are a lot of things people take for granted in their beliefs that should be called into question. The more we question our assumptions, in general, the better.

For example, is it possible to believe something without evidence while being consciously aware of the fact that there is no evidence? What is the actual impact of the word of someone you trust on your beliefs? Does your belief actually have a source other than the word of someone else?

The last question especially I believe is important. What good is a belief if it is not formed by our very own words? Christians, for example, like to say that they believe things, but in my experience I have found that they have their heads buried in the Bible, spouting off those words without having the ability to interpret it from their own perspective and experience.

But, of course, this doesn't just apply to religion alone, but belief in general. Science, for example, was only interesting to me when I saw it in action myself, especially nature. I would read about it, then immediately want to witness it myself. Is that not the same as if you read in the Bible about the nature of love and wanted to know whether or not it was true? When your mind processes an idea, it immediately develops interest (depending on the needs of the individual) in that idea, demanding more input. Now if you are a Christian and you're religion is limited to your Sunday School alone, of what value could it possibly be to you?

I think that the value of which we attribute an idea is evidenced by our pursuit of it.

If you think about it that way, I think we can agree that many atheists attribute more value to the idea of God than a lot of Christians. At least they looked!
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Well, a couple of people have been wondering why I posted this. I think there are a lot of things people take for granted in their beliefs that should be called into question. The more we question our assumptions, in general, the better.

For example, is it possible to believe something without evidence while being consciously aware of the fact that there is no evidence? What is the actual impact of the word of someone you trust on your beliefs? Does your belief actually have a source other than the word of someone else?

The last question especially I believe is important. What good is a belief if it is not formed by our very own words? Christians, for example, like to say that they believe things, but in my experience I have found that they have their heads buried in the Bible, spouting off those words without having the ability to interpret it from their own perspective and experience.

But, of course, this doesn't just apply to religion alone, but belief in general. Science, for example, was only interesting to me when I saw it in action myself, especially nature. I would read about it, then immediately want to witness it myself. Is that not the same as if you read in the Bible about the nature of love and wanted to know whether or not it was true? When your mind processes an idea, it immediately develops interest (depending on the needs of the individual) in that idea, demanding more input. Now if you are a Christian and you're religion is limited to your Sunday School alone, of what value could it possibly be to you?

I think that the value of which we attribute an idea is evidenced by our pursuit of it.

If you think about it that way, I think we can agree that many atheists attribute more value to the idea of God than a lot of Christians. At least they looked!
I agree that we should question what we believe about God, but I think that is secondary to how we relate to God. The meat is more important than the shell, but we should honor the shell, also.

I disagree with the very last sentence. Some atheists, of course, do seriously look into the question of God's existence, but most are too busy with criticizing the idea of God and church that they overlook the ideal and experiential reality they point to.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I disagree with the very last sentence. Some atheists, of course, do seriously look into the question of God's existence, but most are too busy with criticizing the idea of God and church that they overlook the ideal and experiential reality they point to.

Not that it should be a surprise to anyone, but I completely disagree with your summation (and generalization) of the thought process and inquisitiveness of atheists as a group.

In my experience, the vast majority of non-theists arrived at that position after a long and thorough search for answers in the realm of theology.

I believe that that is what Tom is saying (although I may be wrong about that) in the final statement in his post.

You generalize about non-believers in an attempt to make them seem less informed. You do so in an effort to somehow give your conclusions about God a stronger feel of credibility.

Your maneuver is quite transparent, but I doubt that anyone expects more.


PS - is my batting average still 1.000?
 

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
I believe in the existence of TVOR, even though I personally have yet to see him for physical evidence......;)
 

autonomous1one1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, a couple of people have been wondering why I posted this. I think there are a lot of things people take for granted in their beliefs that should be called into question. The more we question our assumptions, in general, the better........ At least they looked!
Greetings Tomspug. Thanks for responding to the questions raised. :bow: I bow to your wisdom. My own approach many years ago was to put a hold on all acquired (or given beliefs) and seek understanding from the ground up. This has led to understanding of a whole new reality. But you may not be suggesting a reexamination to this degree??

Regards,
a..1
 
Top