But your support for that argument is that people have emotional experiences that they attribute to unseen spirit without any other foundation. Emotional experiences are not faith; the attribution in the absence of evidence is faith, and in the case of religion, it is always blind. The key here is the attribution, not the experience. You can have experiences without faith. Once you attribute that experience to unfalsifiable entities, you have crossed over into blind faith.
Is there anything beyond personal upbringing that causes a person to assign the experiences to one deity rather than another?
Okay, so we have this experience that needs explanation. Let’s say it’s an extraordinary medical recovery, or a sudden rescue from dire circumstances, or a rapturous emotional experience.
One one hand we have possible explanations: medical science is inexact and every body heals differently; the sudden rescue was a coincidence or lucky break; the emotional experience was a chemical reaction in the brain. (As an aside, none of these explanations preclude the hand of Providence either).
We also have other, “religious” explanations: my family prayed for healing; God is protecting me; God loves me.
There’s no evidence contrary to these latter hypotheses. There’s the appearance of cause and effect. The results “fit” with what we’ve come to expect based on previous religious experience.
It’s faith. Maybe it’s self-deception. It’s certainly not provable and, in fact, unfalsifiable. I don’t think that makes it blind.
But it sounds like we’re not working with the same definition of “blind” faith, I think that’s the disconnect.
Not usually, although some people do end up being drawn to a religion they weren’t raised in. But that’s not really relevant; I’m not arguing about the objective truth of various disparate religions; only whether faith in any religion is necessarily “blind” faith.
But we are not talking about faith in any religion-I can see where some might see some sort of supernatural aspect to certain experiences. It is when we get to the assignation of experiences to particular religions that blind faith steps in, I think.
That is the very definition of blind faith.
That appears to be the case. I don’t see any difference between that which is self-deception, unprovable or unfalsifiable, and blind faith.
Reluctantly agreeing with you. It is a commonplace declaration in these threads that there is “no evidence” for religious claims. But, in fact, there is: people who report having had religious revelations. That is evidence.
It’s crummy evidence, because no one else can examine it. It can’t be independently verified. It is indistinguishable, in all practical ways, from error. Many people have had waking dreams, or hypnagogic hallucinations, or simply seen a trivial optical illusion.
But if someone declares that he has met Jesus personally, and engaged in dialogue with him, well, as little weight as we may wish to assign to this, we can’t, in justice, assign it zero weight.
Where (IMO) this turns into “blind” faith is when the person experiencing the revelation refuses to accept any possibility that it was, in fact, some form of error. When he says, “No, there is no chance at all I fell asleep,” then he is being as unfair as we would be if we said, “Of course you were asleep; that’s certain.”
No, it is not, at least by any commonly held definition of evidence. They had an experience of some sort; any attribution to religion is completely subjective.
It is entirely unjust to do otherwise. Falsifiable evidence is the only thing that separates fact from fantasy. If you give any weight at all to unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, the whole scientific method falls apart, and it is all just one guy’s story against another, nothing can be proved, because we don’t dare challenge sincerely held religious beliefs.
We’re using words differently. I already acknowledge that subjective evidence is of little value scientifically; it can’t be assessed or repeated or verified.
It is still “evidence.” It would be admitted as testimony in a court of law.
I saw an owl yesterday. By your rules, that isn’t “evidence,” since no independent confirmation can exist. But by the rules of law, it certainly is evidence. And by the rules of everyday conversation, it’s fairly good evidence: I did see an owl yesterday, and anyone would have to be quite a churl to say otherwise!
Different fields of knowledge have different rules. You can’t demand that all fields of knowledge follow scientific rules. (And, likewise, other fields of knowledge cannot claim to be scientific in their procedures and conclusions.)
Thanks Trinopus, that’s what I was trying to say. Witness testimony is evidence. It can be poor evidence, but it’s not no evidence.
I can’t help but find it interesting that virtually every time Czarcasm starts a thread regarding religion/theism/God, it devolves into a discussion of the definition of “evidence”.
No, it’s more a case of some posters trying to devolve the definition of “evidence” until it means absolutely everything, making it worth absolutely nothing.
A court of law might accept that you saw an owl. They would not accept it if you claimed to see a glowing blue owl that spoke Swahili. Do you know why?
Just to be clear, if it came across as my saying it was your fault that happened, that’s not what I meant.
I understood-just thought I’d add to your post.
But if billions of people saw a glowing blue owl that spoke Swahili, they probably wouldn’t believe you but they’d have a harder time dismissing it.
In formal scientific terms, if I say, “I saw an owl yesterday,” the response is, “That statement is operational nonsense.” i.e., no way to falsify it.
The same is true, in scientific terms, of the statement you provided. No possible way to falsify it: it is, formally, nonsense.
As to why one is more likely than the other, sure, we get into the depths of confirmation theory, and the quirks thereof. For instance, if someone claims, “All crows are black,” then not only is every black crow a confirming instance…so is every blue Chevy, every red candy, and every white rabbit…
(Also…do y’all remember the old “Grue” paradox? This link re-phrases it to depend on the year 2100 AD, but, in the original, it referred to the year 2000. What’s really fun is that the year 2000 came and went, and a bunch of things didn’t change color!)
So…yeah…I know why X and Y and Z is less likely than X…
I also know that I saw an owl yesterday…
I don’t consider it admirable. But I find it quite enviable. I highly value the pursuit of knowledge and truth. But as I age, I realize that my lack of religion has made my life sadder and emptier than it would otherwise be. Mass deception actually has social benefits. We aren’t androids, after all.
Still, it’s not admirable. But I can understand it.
Thanks for that link, Trinopolis, I think it’s very interesting and applicable to what we’re talking about.
From your link:
Just like in the “grue paradox,” the evidence that the believer has is consistent with their hyposthesis that God exists. Other explanations for this “evidence” are only more likely if you start with the assumption that God doesn’t exist, which is the point at issue.