What makes evidence "good enough".

[1137]

Another member pointed out that theists present evidence for gods all the time, it's just not considered good enough for atheist and antitheists. I myself have seen many examples of this, and it reminds me of my more strictly agnostic days. For example, I believe there to be evidence that the human psyche cannot be entirely natural. There's nothing even remotely similar through most of nature, and the psyche allows us to question and even over ride nature. This is evidence in my perspective and that of many others. But when you present it in an item forum, you're met with "ha, it totally could be natural, your evidence isn't worth ****". It's could totally not be natural as well.

The same member pointed out is it not strictly atheists that do this, and it's not even just with religion. Christians ignore evidence for paganism, communists ignore evidence for capitalism, and so on. So what makes evidence worth considering?

 

[McBell]

My opinion....
What is accepted as evidence varies greatly not only by topic, but also by person.

People want to believe some things.
People do not want to believe some things.

People tend to set their standards for evidence based upon what they do and do not want to believe.
If they want to believe, they set their standards lower.
If they do not want to believe, they set their standards higher.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I've only seen evidence that humanity has a psyche that is more complicated than others'. This is not necessarily superior, since people can also run their minds ragged overthinking even the simplest things. My dogs have a psyche. They have different personalities, they are bothered/excited by different things, etc. They also don't, as far as I know, anyway, worry about money. They only care that there's no family drama they can pick up on and the food bowl's full, LOL.

 

[outhouse]

So what makes evidence worth considering?

Scientific methodology.

Something has to be observed and studied to determine what you are studying actually is.

If you provide imagination as evidence, you will not have observable evidence.


If its not natural its supernatural, and that is not evidence.

 

[outhouse]

My opinion....
What is accepted as evidence varies greatly not only by topic, but also by person.

People want to believe some things.
People do not want to believe some things.

People tend to set their standards for evidence based upon what they do and do not want to believe.
If they want to believe, they set their standards lower.
If they do not want to believe, they set their standards higher.

That is all true.

And with that, an unbiased standard of evidence provides us with something closer to he truth or the actual reality of the evidence at hand.


That's why I like the scientific explanation. Even theist scientist tend to follow the unbiased scientific path, not always but in general they do.

You get some apologist that try and pervert it. all YEC

 

[gnostic]

Evidences that are good enough, are the ones that can be verified, independently. And then find more.

The more evidences that are discovered and verified and tested, the more you can determine if something is true or false.

Don't forget evidences is not just about finding something to be true, it is just as important to find something to be false. Evidences can go against claims.

In science, every hypotheses are false, by default. Nothing is true until it can verified and tested.

If there are no evidences to support or refute a hypothesis, then the hypothesis remain false, and should be discarded.

I find religious folk that the "absence of evidences" mean something (eg god) is true, as absurd and circular thinking, because clearly they are allowing their faith and bias dictate what is true.

 

[Willamena]

So what makes evidence worth considering?

The only thing that makes evidence worth considering is truth, that is that it aligns with something you know.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think the more important question would be "Good enough for what?". A lot of times this kind of issue comes up, it's less about the validity of the evidence being presented and more about how much the evidence is being stretched to support a specific definitive conclusion. For example, if someone presents evidence that the universe must have a creator and goes one to imply that proves their specific religious beliefs are entirely correct.

 

[Willamena]

I think the more important question would be "Good enough for what?". A lot of times this kind of issue comes up, it's less about the validity of the evidence being presented and more about how much the evidence is being stretched to support a specific definitive conclusion. For example, if someone presents evidence that the universe must have a creator and goes one to imply that proves their specific religious beliefs are entirely correct.

Doesn't that reduce to "good enough for who"?

 

[McBell]

Doesn't that reduce to "good enough for who"?

Is that not exactly what is boils down to?

 

[Willamena]

Is that not exactly what is boils down to?

*shrug* What is "is"?

 

[George-ananda]

What makes evidence "good enough".

It really just comes down to our best objective judgement; just like a jury in a court case considers all the evidence for and against.

 

[sun rise]

....

The same member pointed out is it not strictly atheists that do this, and it's not even just with religion. Christians ignore evidence for paganism, communists ignore evidence for capitalism, and so on. So what makes evidence worth considering?

That's a complex question to me. Take medicine for example. We hear that coffee is bad for you, then it's good for you. Fats are bad then fats are good. Plate tectonics was poo-pooed in the beginning until time proved it correct. There are an endless supply of such uncertainties and incomplete knowledge in mundane areas. And beyond that, we know that confirmation bias means that people will look for evidence that confirms their biases - that's part of human nature.

So what can we say about religion and spirituality? To me, evidence is worth considering if it helps me become a better person.

 

[Quintessence]

So what makes evidence worth considering?

An open and inquisitive mind, particularly one interested in seeking truths rather than Truth.

On a more practical level, we'll tend to consider pieces of information that match up with the stories we like to tell and the meaningfulness we like to find in the world around us. I suppose that's a fancy way of referring to "confirmation bias," but it sounds so dirty to use that phrase. It is sometimes said that "knowledge is power." What is sometimes not considered is that power cuts both ways. Having knowledge gives the one who knows power by virtue of having that knowledge. However, by the same token, the knowledge then has power over the knower by influencing how they see the world. That is not a trivial thing, and many of us would do well to be more mindful of the company we keep. In that sense, the evidence worth considering is that which is not toxic to you. And if you find something toxic, it is perhaps worth asking ourselves why that is the case. Often it is a reflection of our personal values.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what makes evidence worth considering?

Among other factors:

- How personal the evidence itself is in nature.

- How personal the idea that one is attempting to support or disprove is.

In that respect, the idea of "God" is very disadvantaged. Unless one takes considerable effort to explain which parameters are being used to delimit the range of conceptions of "God" that is deemed acceptable for argument purposes, evidence is simply irrelevant. God-conceptions are extremely personal and therefore evidence is rarely of any true significance either way.

- How much significance is perceived for supporting or challenging the idea. It is not at all unusual for people to summarily disregard evidence or its lack of quality simply because they lack the psychological structure to do otherwise.


One thing to keep in mind is that most debates do not actually involve the possibility of one party convincing the other, but are instead a game where two or more people take turns at convincing themselves that they have Good Reasons for keeping their own stances.

True argumentation debates are unusual in religion (even Dharmic religion) and in politics, mainly because they can have so much consequence and people tend to seek a sense of security and certainty. What we call debates is more often than not a superficial lookalike with a very different goal, a ritual for impressing allies and expressing allegiance to oneself or to perceived tribe brothers.

 

[columbus]

Doesn't that reduce to "good enough for who"?

It is more important to consider "what". What is the question and how important is it?
I have eggs in my fridge. This is not important to anybody else. So you probably believe me, with a strong degree of certainty.
Also, the motivation of the person making the claim. I have no reason to mislead you or myself about a common claim about eggs. Most of us have eggs in the fridge.

One major reason I accept the claims made by sciency folk, over religious folk, is because I understand and trust their motivation. Science is all about describing reality, to the best of human ability. Religion is about being right, even when you don't know what you are talking about. Religion is about what people want to believe. Science is about what is true.
That is why science and religion will never come together. Once something is demonstrated as true, it stops being religious faith and moves into the magisterium of Science.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

It is more important to consider "what". What is the question and how important is it?
I have eggs in my fridge. This is not important to anybody else. So you probably believe me, with a strong degree of certainty.
Also, the motivation of the person making the claim. I have no reason to mislead you or myself about a common claim about eggs. Most of us have eggs in the fridge.

One major reason I accept the claims made by sciency folk, over religious folk, is because I understand and trust their motivation. Science is all about describing reality, to the best of human ability. Religion is about being right, even when you don't know what you are talking about. Religion is about what people want to believe. Science is about what is true.
That is why science and religion will never come together. Once something is demonstrated as true, it stops being religious faith and moves into the magisterium of Science.
Tom

But what I mean is that "good enough for what" reduces to "good enough for who," because we each will have our own uses and interests when it comes to each of us. As you say, we each place our own importance on the eggs in our fridge.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Another member pointed out that theists present evidence for gods all the time, it's just not considered good enough for atheist and antitheists. I myself have seen many examples of this, and it reminds me of my more strictly agnostic days. For example, I believe there to be evidence that the human psyche cannot be entirely natural. There's nothing even remotely similar through most of nature, and the psyche allows us to question and even over ride nature. This is evidence in my perspective and that of many others. But when you present it in an item forum, you're met with "ha, it totally could be natural, your evidence isn't worth ****". It's could totally not be natural as well.

The same member pointed out is it not strictly atheists that do this, and it's not even just with religion. Christians ignore evidence for paganism, communists ignore evidence for capitalism, and so on. So what makes evidence worth considering?

No it is just that what theist often call "evidence" is simply not evidence.

 

[allfoak]

Evidently, the source of evidence is not evident.

 

[Thief]

Another member pointed out that theists present evidence for gods all the time, it's just not considered good enough for atheist and antitheists. I myself have seen many examples of this, and it reminds me of my more strictly agnostic days. For example, I believe there to be evidence that the human psyche cannot be entirely natural. There's nothing even remotely similar through most of nature, and the psyche allows us to question and even over ride nature. This is evidence in my perspective and that of many others. But when you present it in an item forum, you're met with "ha, it totally could be natural, your evidence isn't worth ****". It's could totally not be natural as well.

The same member pointed out is it not strictly atheists that do this, and it's not even just with religion. Christians ignore evidence for paganism, communists ignore evidence for capitalism, and so on. So what makes evidence worth considering?

in my opinion.....ignorance prevails.
there are 7billion+ copies of a learning device
there is no mystery to life....we are here to learn.

without belief in the next life all reasoning reverts to the mystery.
no resolve.....and Man has no purpose.

many participants here ignore the obvious.
I suspect they don't want to be held to their lack of faith.