Just wondering what people’s thoughts are on the above statement.
In other words, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I hear this stated often by non-believers and I’m just wondering what the arguments usually entail when this is discussed. I think Chris Hitchens argues this, but I was confused when I heard him asked if he believed this statement to be true and he said “not always”, so I’m just wondering what the arguments on this are.
I’d say …
If a statement (e.g. “There are faries at the bottom of the garden”) is made without evidence, it remains unproven.
It may, therefore, be dismissed as “meaningless” or “useless”, but it can’t be dismissed as “false”, unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
On the other hand, I guess you could decide to accept (or reject) the statement provisionally while you decided on the conditions under which non-observance of something could be considered as evidence for its non-existence, and undertook an investigation of the bottom of the garden.
In most practical situtations, however, we don’t need to present any evidence to support the statements that we make
Statements are usually accepted or rejected based on the credibility of the speaker.
If I phone a plumber and say my basement is flooded, I shouldn’t need to present any evidence in order for him to accept the truth of my statement.
I would like to know if there are any planets orbiting the star Zeta Reticuli. Let us suppose none have yet been discovered. (I have no idea whether this is really so.) Is this evidence that there are none? Surely not.
Now suppose that I would like to know if there are any fairies orbiting the star Zeta Reticuli. Surely this carries a different order of plausibility. Why?
(Presumably because there IS evidence for various theories of planetary formation, and the existence of planets in general is well established–unlike the situation with fairies.)
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. But it does make presence a lot more difficult to prove.
Absence means you didn’t look hard enough or good enough. Absence doesn’t prove anything.
Therefore we have the null hypothesis.
As an Absolute Epistemological statement, it is inaccurate.
However, since nothing can be proven to be Absolutely True since Sartre beat up Descartes:
If taking something as truth requires significant work on my part(following a set of rules, having a certain worldview, whatever), I will require significant evidence to consider it true. If I am to choose to act based on whether the thing is true or not, the topic sentence can be useful.
So, specific application: I’m an agnostic. I see an absence of evidence of any deities. I act as if there were none.
Regarding fairies, I don’t believe in fairies. Existence of fairies would alter my worldview a little, so it’s a little useful. But, there don’t seem to be any rules that people get killed for regarding them, so the topic sentence is not so useful.
Right on, spitzig!
Absence of evidence may mean you didn’t look hard enough, good enough or in the right places, or you don’t have the tools to “see” something, or the thing you are looking for doesn’t exist. Absence doesn’t PROVE anything, BUT if a person claims something exists, then we can look in a more focussed way for what they claim.
You claim there is a planet orbiting the star Zeta Reticuli? Well, we have good evidence for many planets orbiting many stars. We have ways of looking for them that have succeeded in the past.
You claim fairies are in your garden? People have made claims like this for years, and people have looked for them for years. The evidence for fairies so far is unconvincing. We can’t prove that no fairies exist, but the longer and harder we look, the more evidence we have that your claims of fairies are suspect.
In my life, I don’t work in absolutes. I’m not 100 percent certain that Jimi is not a fairy, but I’ll live my life as if he were a regular human bean like me.
NO ! No more then the Innocence of Absence is the Absence of Innocence.
All right, then. Suppose we are speaking about a planet orbiting, not Zeta Reticuli, but some star in another galaxy hundreds of thousands of light-years away–so far that we will likely never know whether such a planet exists.
Is our “absence of knowledge” of such a planet qualitatively different from our “absence of knowledge” of fairies orbiting the same star? I think that it is, since the concept of planets (but not fairies) has been shown to be factual and useful.
[quote=“Zla’od”]
Is our “absence of knowledge” of such a planet qualitatively different from our “absence of knowledge” of fairies orbiting the same star? I think that it is, since the concept of planets (but not fairies) has been shown to be factual and useful.[/quote]
For one thing, we may be able to assign a probability to the former possibility, based on what we know about stars and planets.
Believers don’t need evidence. Non-believers don’t care for the evidence. I am more interested in, ‘Presence of evidence is evidence of presence’.
People see light, reincarnations have been documented, people bleed, Moses and the burning bush, do they prove anything??? Ag ain, believers will believe and non-believers won’t.
Faith and beliefs are independent of evidence.
Ah, but Faith itself is a form of evidence.
I love how this is rendered by the KJV
If nothing else, those of faith see that the pattern of the Universe fits the explanation.
Faith is a form of evidence, but not very convincing to someone who doesn’t either have a very high opinion of the believer’s judgement or already have faith themselves. Try saying “it must be true because I believe it in a court of law.”
I’ve always found it interesting that the existence of “miracles” doesn’t actually do anything toward proving the existence of a deity other than (possibly) lending credence to the source of the miracle.
Reincarnations(assuming they actually happen) say nothing about deities or the existence of any other type of afterlife(Heaven, Hell). It also doesn’t say that reincarnations works for everyone.
Sorry, but people bleeding or seeing light in ways similar to the ways people do in religious stories doesn’t even say anything about an afterlife, much less a deity.
Moses and his bush??? Doesn’t pretty every religion have a story about a guy talking to something that doesn’t usually talk? This, TO ME, is either evidence of a common psychology or common experiences among cultures. Maybe God shows up as talking animals or plants to lots of people. Maybe people take hallucinogens.
I think discussing miracles in a religion too much detracts from (what I consider to be) the intended focus of the religion. How does it matter to MY LIFE whether Jesus resurrected Lazarus? I think what is important are the teachings Jesus taught. There’s a Zen saying about “focusing on the finger pointing at the moon”.
However, beliefs are VERY often dependent upon evidence. I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow. Not only because I have experienced a pattern of it rising on a regular basis, but also because I know a little about cosmology. I believe my girlfriend loves me because of the things she says and does.
Interesting point and well put.
There is another wrinkle in the issue of evidence:
How do you know that what is reported is true?
The early Christians answered that one by dying rather than recanting their observations: that what they saw Jesus do, actually did happen.
Someone once pointed out to me that no one dies for what they know to be a lie. So, it is the willingness to stake their lives on these claims, and the lack of any possible social or monetary benefit for making these claims, that lends credence to the claims by early Christians - passed down over the past two thousand years.
But all of that is rather inconsequential. I find that most people who require hard evidence, lack the capacity for real faith.
Soldiers do it all the time.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]
Someone once pointed out to me that no one dies for what they know to be a lie. So, it is the willingness to stake their lives on these claims, and the lack of any possible social or monetary benefit for making these claims, that lends credence to the claims by early Christians - passed down over the past two thousand years.
But all of that is rather inconsequential. I find that most people who require hard evidence, lack the capacity for real faith.[/quote]
The strength of a person’s belief has nothing to do with the validity of their claims. You can truly believe with all your heart but that doesn’t necessarily make it true. People die or kill for their beliefs all the time. That doesn’t make their belief system true.
If you believe in a god, and also believe that some people lack the capacity for real faith then wouldn’t that be god’s fault. If you believe that god made people then any lack that they have is not their fault. It’s actually a bit insulting to claim that people who don’t believe in your god are somehow lacking.
When you speak of “capacity for faith”, is that general faith or specific faith? Most people who have faith, are pretty specific about it. Specific to a religion(Christianity, Islam, whatever*). Also, more specific to a sect/denomination-Baptist, Catholic, Sunni, Shiite whatever. They tend not to have faith in competitors to their religion.
*Not all religions are so exclusive. Some religions are fine with members being in other religions also. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Universalist Unitarianism.
Gilgamesh wrote:
“Hello, I’m Elder Smith, and this is Elder Jones. We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…have you heard of our church? Oh, no reason. Don’t worry, we’re not trying to convert you, because we think you’re great just the way you are. In fact, none of us need to go to church at all. Why yes, I guess that DOES mean you can go back to sleep. Have a nice day!”
[quote=“Zla’od”]Gilgamesh wrote:
“Hello, I’m Elder Smith, and this is Elder Jones. We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…have you heard of our church? Oh, no reason. Don’t worry, we’re not trying to convert you, because we think you’re great just the way you are. In fact, none of us need to go to church at all. Why yes, I guess that DOES mean you can go back to sleep. Have a nice day!”[/quote]
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re writing about here. Care to explain a bit more?
Most religious outreach presumes what you already do or believe to fall short of the ideal.