Without getting into any major detail(s) concerning any specific situation or idea, I would like to attempt to discuss the importance and/or value of evidence. Obviously, in order to have evidence there must be a reason for it to be in consideration. That requires the need to show something as reasonable or provable.

Do we not automatically use this concept in all that we come to believe or think that we know?

Not necessarily . Some people believe and even live on faith.

Are you saying that there is no evidence required for faith? Surely the Bible is evidence for that? The teachings from the mentor(s) of s/he who has faith? The things in daily life that those with faith attribute to a confirmation from 'God'?

Those things qualify as evidence don't they?

Yes you are corrct. Without initial evidence faith never developes.But doesn't belief in evidence require some amount of faith. And Im not necessarily talking about religion.

What i mean is ...don't you have to have faith in the evidence you are observing? Who is to say the evidence is real? It starts and ends with faith.

faith requires no evidence not one iota...faith is merely an utterance of a thought and have no substance beyond the mind of the beholder it is what we referred to as hope or wishful thinking...this is why when faith is used as evidence it is no longer faith ..it becomes magic and the person becomes God

I'm not sure in what way you are thinking of "evidence".

For example, suppose you're feeling down and someone suggests that you go take a walk by the river and you'll feel better.

Well, before you go for the walk you have no "evidence" for anything. If you accept the suggestion you just take it on faith.

Then after you come back from the walk you decide on the results whether or not it was a worthy thing to do. So often times the evidence can only become obvious after faith. Without faith you'll never do what's required to experience the evidence.

So sometimes the evidence requires doing. It doesn't necessarily come first. If you always wait for evidence before you make a decision you may never experience the evidence. So sometimes faith must come before the evidence.

the value of evidence depends on how you define evidence. i define two types of evidence, physical evidence and testimonial evidence. physical evidence that can be tested to show repeatable and predictable results is evidence that i consider valuable. testimony cannot be tested as such so i consider such evidence nebulous at best. testimony is allowed in a court of law but does not fly as evidence in science. outside of these uses of evidence i consider what others call evidence of no value at all.

then what initial evidence led to the christian faith?



belief in anything requires faith. but evidence is not believed, it's observed, tested, experimented on to support or invalidate a theory. what evidence was observed to establish the christian faith in genesis?

anything that can be observed is known to exist. it's real. it's true that when i read about an experiment on evidence i do not know that the evidence or the experience actually happened. i must rely on the credibility of the experimenter. what i read is his testimony. that is why i say that testimonial evidence is nebulous. the credibility of the testifier becomes an issue. but even if i completely trust the experimenter in this case, i don't "believe" that what he said is fact. to do that i would have to put faith in him, the evidence and his experiment. but i don't extend that faith, i simple consider his writings to be credible and his experience and conclusions that he came to are plausible. science doesn't believe anything. that's why scientists continually test theories to make sure they remain credible and feasible as new evidence can be observed and tested.

Well, there are huge debates in various field as to what constitutes evidence.

From my prespective and experience in the social sciences, there are huge conflicts of around this.

Overall, most believe that evidence is important to determine if something is effective.

So, let's go off on a tangent for a minute....

It has been documented that religious beliefs or spirtuality is linked to better health outcomes for chronic and crisis medical issues. How do you measure this? How do you define religion/spirtuality as to capture what it is to gather evidence?

Off the tangent...

So.... okay.... I find a penny on the sidewalk. I pick it up and say it's a lucky penny. After finding the penny, I have a good day and continue to have a good day as long as the penny is with me. I have evidence right? I have outcomes... I find a good parking spot. I get a card in the mail from a family member I haven't heard from in a while. I bump into someone who strikes some interest in me and askes me out on a date. I get a good grade on a paper. This is all caused by the penny, yes? no?

Now if I dig a little further. If I test my belief of lucky penny. Am I going to find other factors? Confounds?

Or am I going to stick to my story that having a lucky penny is all I need to have a good day.

Have I ignored any other factors? Maybe I worked really hard on the paper that I got a good grade on. Maybe because I had on a new pair of shoes that boosted my confidence and that was appealing to my date. Maybe my family member was looking through a photo album and saw a picture of me and decided to sent me a card.


And now to wrap up my long winded babble... and try to answer the OPs question...



Yes and no. Some of my beliefs are based off of experience. However, when they are challenged or presented with a contradictory idea, I will listen and consider it. However, it probably will not stop there, more in likely I am going to seek out 'evidence', research it! I think that this is normal to do. However, through education, I have learned how to research it, how to look at differing viewpoints, and determine what I feel is the 'best' evidence to adopt.

Granted there are those that seek out evidence to support their claims, and may or may not, examine the counterpoints/views. Or may dismiss contradictory knowledge.

And now as I became long winded again... I don't know how to wrap this up.

But to say, I think that most people will search for evidence, but whether or not it is valid is another discussion.

The end

(open to any form of discussion on my post )

What about experience? Does that count as evidence?

All I was saying is that if the experience is required as evidence then the evidence may never come if faith is not first employed.

In other words, if you are waiting for 'evidence' before making a decision on how to act, then you'll never perform the actions required to gain the experience. But the experience may ultiamtely be the only 'evidence' possible.

This is certainly true in the context of many spiritual concepts as well as everyday life.

Typically when you go out on a date for the first time you're going out on the pure faith that you'll enjoy the date, and potentially enjoy being with your newfound partner. However, you can't have any 'evidence' for that until after you have experienced the date.

So dating is a faith-based process. The evidence can only be had from the experience. There's no other way to obtain it.

You can't even necessarily go by testimonials of other people. Someone else may have had a great date with someone, but when you go out with that same person you have a miserable time. You didn't get the evidence for that until after the experience.

Some evidence can only be had after an act of faith has been acted on. It's just not possible to obtain the evidence via any other method. Faith must come first, and then evidence will follow.

I just had to share this.......

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html

of course. i've always said that what i observe is the best evidence. but it still comes down to what i call evidence. if i observe physical evidence it's highly credible. if i observe testimony the credibility varies with the testimony and the testifier.



i suppose we need a thread which asks, "what is faith". i use the word as it relates to belief. one must have faith to believe something. belief doesn't happen in science. in science one postulates an hypothosis and then searches for evidence that might transform the hypothosis into a theory. but even a theory is not believed in when it comes to science. take newtons law of gravity. a law is the most accepted of all theories in science and yet after three centuries of science accepting newtons law as the gold standard, einstein showed that he was wrong.



not sure how i act has a thing to do with evidence but i say again, for a hypothosis to become a theory, evidence is required. how i act in the face of something is based on what i observe to be the situation. my experience that requires action leads to action that becomes another experience.



nope. i do not have faith in anything when i go on a date. i may listen to testimony from others whom i may find credible that suggests to me that it's plausible that the date will be enjoyable. i may have the experience of chatting on the phone that makes me think the date will likely be a fun date. i may have seen the person myself and decided that it's may be worth persuing a relationship. but nowhere in my process have i put faith in anything. i don't go out and buy a ring on my faith that this date will lead to marriage. you keep using the word faith which is fine for you. but i have faith in nothing. i believe nothing. so those words do not apply to my thought process.

The term faith, when used in this context, specifically applies to religious belief or any other belief held with a strong conviction that was originally accepted to be true without evidence. There are other common uses, but this is the one which I am speaking about.

It seems to me that you propose that faith itself is developed. I think that that confuses a few things, namely conviction and faith. I think it is more accurate to say that the conviction is being developed based upon the amount of confidence regarding an idea taken upon faith. So, in that sense, that which has been taken upon faith alone originally exists without evidence. It is accepting an idea/proposition as true for the sake of believing it. The growing strength of that conviction correlates to the amount times that the believer places doubt upon evidence to the contrary or finds evidence in support. So if this is true, and I believe that it has been shown as such, then faith exists without evidence, yet the strength of one's convictions regarding that which was taken upon faith requires evidence in some form or another to develop.

An idea/proposition that stands alone is always taken upon pure faith. Things like that would include who your parents are and what your name is, although those things can now be proven, so they need not be taken upon faith alone.

I can imagine real life scenarios in which the only "evidence" one has is an unsupported opinion about a concept/idea from a trusted source. If that constitutes the initial evidence to which you refer, then I would agree with #1.) above. However, that kind of evidence is insufficient to warrant grounds for conclusion in many, if not most cases. That is easily shown to be the case. I think that faith only applies to an idea which is accepted through uncontested means. Subsequently, when an idea is taken to be fact in this manner, and later on there arises evidence to the contrary, that is where trust in the original source becomes conviction in an idea or set of ideas. This could take precedence over the new information and in doing so, cast a shadow of doubt upon that new evidence without having established firm grounds to do so.

Developing that pattern of thinking could begin to establish a mental standard which is maintained throughout one's life, and can actually cause one to justifiably denounce any and all evidence which contradicts that which has been taken upon faith alone. So, in that sense, one's trust/confidence is in the source of the idea at first, and therefore that idea is originally taken upon faith. Only later does that transform into conviction regarding the idea itself rather than just trust in the source, and that is done through considering evidence regarding the notion, which could amount to flippantly dismissing such a thing simply because it conflicts.

So I would not agree to #2.) above.



Not necessarily. An idea is either provable or not, and that attribute is solely determined by the sufficiency of the evidence in support of it and the reviewers preconceptions regarding it. Evidence founded upon irrefutable fact(s) should be deemed as more reliable(and therefore more reasonable) than just an opinion to the contrary. Evidence can stand on it's own merit, according to one's ability to assess it with as little preconceived bias as possible. The amount of one's preconceived bias equates to the strength of one's conviction, and all conviction is not faith-based. That idea alone warrants further discussion in my opinion. I believe that all of this plays a role in daily life, specifically anytime one makes a value judgement of any kind.

So, I am not just talking about religious beliefs.

I don't know if we need a whole thread on it. But, yes, I can see that we think of "faith" in totally different ways. You seem to be using the distorted version of "faith" that has been abused by the Abrahamic Religions as they try to convince people that their dogma is the "Word of God". From my point of view that has nothing at all to do with faith. That's just a brainwashing scheme that abuses the concept of "Faith" in a lame attempt to hide the fact that what they are truly demanding is blind belief with "NO QUESTIONS ASKED".

Now many modern day so-called "Christians" will argue that this is not at all what modern Christainity is about. That may well be true. However, back in its heyday that's precisely what it was all about. You could easily find a sword stick in chest if you so much as dared to question the Holy Scriptures. So, IMHO, that kind of blind belief has nothing to do with "faith". That whole religious thing just used "faith" as a pretense to hide their blatant brainwashing schemes.

After all, you shouldn't need to be threated to be cursed or killed by the community if you simply have no "faith" in something. That was clearly an abuse of the term just to hide what was really going on.

I see "faith" as something totally different. True "faith" may or may not pan out. That's why it's "faith". If you actually believed it was going to be true then you wouldn't need to have any "faith" at all. Why bother having faith in something you actually believe to be true?



Well, precisely what are you referring to? Scientific theories?

I was just addressing the concept in general as it has to do with the human condition. I wouldn't even attempt to try to come up with a 'theory' for love. For one thing I think any such "theory" would be utterly useless anyway.

Also, when it comes to spiritual things for me there's a mixture of 'faith' and 'belief'.

For example, in my spiritual practices I perform rituals that some people call "casting magick spells", although I'm quite sure that terminology does not mean anything near the same thing to you as it does to me. In fact, I'm not crazy about the word 'spells' myself. That's just a common word that people use. I prefer to think of it as the orchestration of "spiritual energies". Where "spiritual energies" itself is a very abstract term that could indeed refer to physical energies. I don't bother to try to analyize spells scientifically. There is simply too much of an emotional and psychic elment to them that they simply aren't within the reach of our extremely feeble knowledge of science in this day and age. We just aren't advanced far enough yet to bring these complex concepts into the realm of science.

In any case, when I perform ritual "magick" as it's called, I don't expect 100% results every time. That would be utterly foolish of me. It would be just as foolish of me to think that my ritual "magick" is going to work 100% of the time as it would be for a quarterback to expect to make a successful play 100% of the time in a football game. He knows what he's doing. He has an entire team working with him in sychronicity. If they work well they perform "magically". If they work poorly they fail a lot.

So spiritual magick is like playing football. It's a hit and miss type of thing. It depends on a lot of factors, some of which are beyond the control of the magi. You just have to have faith and do the best you can't.

But in this sense "faith" is not at all the same as "belief". If you believed that you were going to succeed every time then you wouldn't need to have any "faith" at all.

Football players play on "faith" not on "belief".

However, now if you want to talk about "theories". In my spirituality there are things that I do "believe".

For example, I believe that I am this universe. Or at least a facet of it. Therefore I am at least as eternal as this universe. And potentially even more eternal than this unvierse because, for all we know, this universe doesn't even have a genuine "physical" existence at all. What we think of as a "physcical" universe may be something else entirely.

However, it's obvious to me that I am this universe. The evidence is self-evident as far as I'm concerned. For you to suggest to me that I'm something other than this universe would be something I would need 'evidence' to even consider. First off, you'd have to give me reasons to consider that something other than this universe even exists. Then you'd have to suggest why it is that you believe I am that instead of this.

In other words, I completely accept the wisdom of the ancient mystics who say, "Tat Tvam Asi" ("You are That"). As far as I'm concerned there is no "evidence" that I could be anything else. So why should I bother considering something that there is no evidence for? I am a manifestation this universe, and therefore I am this universe. It's just self-evident.

So I basically "believe" that as being self-evident. Although I also recognize that we don't even have a clue what this universe actually is, so that doesn't help much from a scientific point of view. However from a spiritual point of view it is quite enlightening. Whatever this universe is, "I am That".

That's a self-evident given, no faith required.

no that's not even close to what i said about faith. one more time. i relate faith to belief. any belief whether it be belief in a god or belief in evolution or belief in spirits. i have no faith in anything therefore i believe nothing. jeez man, will you ever just read my words and quit with the "you seem to be" crap?



how you see faith or how christians see faith or how anybody spiritual sees faith is of no consequence to me. how i see faith is the basis for my answering questions about faith. you can disagree all you want but that does not change how i view faith. indeed, based on your many posts when you disagree with me i tend to feel that disagreement in itself suggests that i'm on the right track. our thought processes have nothing at all in common.





for crying out loud. for the umpteenth time, i only refer to scientific theories. there is no othe "theory" that i would call a theory. do i have to post hawking yet again? he calls a theory as well as anybody i've heard. jeez again man.



of course which explains why i have faith in nothing. believe nothing. we keep circling back to this same point.



once again. i see it that believe requires faith and i understand that you see it differently. but why are we talking about faith anyway? is the topic of this discussion not "evidence"? i began this exchange with you that your reference to faith would merit a thread of it's own. you disagreed so here we are, talking about faith and belief where the topic is neither.

I am asking that posters please stay on topic. If you are interested in discussing faith, please start another thread. This thread is called Evidence and you should be discussing the importance or value of evidence.

Site Mod
Pam

Evidence is rarely 100% objective.