Subjective Evidence Vs Human Invention

After the Atheism Vs Deism topic: Message 329And the IPU Logical Argument thread: Message 247I am not sure if anyone has much appetite for this discussion. That would be perfectly understandable. Nobody should be judged for not taking part (We all have real lives to get back to)But I am going to propose it and see what happens......************************************************************THE PROPOSAL
Any concept for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible should be considered to be the product of human invention.The rationale for concluding that such concepts are not the product of human invention seems to be a belief in the validity of something called "subjective evidence".I dispute the validity of "subjective evidence" as being anything distinguishable from a random guess.Where any wholly un-evidenced concept is proposed I conclude that the conclusion of human invention (i.e. the claim is a false human construct) trumps "subjective evidence" (i.e. the claim that indicates something objectively real actually exists) on the basis of the following two arguments:*******************************************************HUMAN INVENTION
Is the fact of humanity's ability to invent false concepts any less evidenced than the fact of life's ability to evolve?Although I am obviously suggesting that the two are comparable in evidential terms I am genuinely open to reconsideration of this. On the face of it the claim seems extraordinary, even to me, but I cannot think of a reason why it is not both true and applicable to this argument.Feel free to enlighten me.*********************************************************SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
Every verifiable example of subjective evidence that I have seen has actually been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.The validity granted to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence (e.g. courtroom eye witness testimony) seems to have been extrapolated back to zero evidence to arrive at the flawed concept of "subjective evidence".The problem with this is that in the case of no objective evidence at all the subjective interpretation of objective evidence becomes an interpretation of nothing at all.The interpretation of nothing at all is identical to a random guess.If we are to to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then it needs to be demonstrated that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in evidential terms, that we can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses.If this cannot be achieved with respect to verifiable examples then there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is any more reliable when applied to unverifiable conclusions such as gods or any other concepts that are derived from wholly subjective experience.If there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is better than a random guess when applied to unverifiable conclusions then any conclusion derived from "subjective evidence" alone is itself no better than a random guess.Thus, unless anybody can demonstrate otherwise, in any evidential terms, beliefs based on "subjective evidence alone" are invalidated.**********************************************************THE DEBATE
Is a claim devoid of any objective supporting evidence at all (e.g. the existence of a deity) a valid concept?Should we even consider the possibility that it objectively exists on the basis of "subjective evidence" alone?Or is the concept in question almost certainly the product of human invention no more worthy of our consideration than any other conceivable un-evidenced entity that one can imagine?If promoted I suppose faith and belief is the place. If promoted then although I have compared the evidence of the human ability to invent with the evidence of life’s ability to evolve I do not want this to be a discussion on the evidence for evolution. In this thread evolution should be taken as an evidenced fact with which to compare my human invention proposal.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add links to previous threads from which this one is derived.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Straggler, OK, that fits with what I am learning in the free online MIT biology course. Before DNA was understood, ideas were floated, first that base pairs paired with themselves A-A T-T G-G C-C. It turned out that the correct idea evaded them because of an incorrect textbook representation of G, even though they had data that the ratio of A/T and G/C were about equal to one. So until the confirming evidence is in, everything exists in the realm of human invention/imagination by definition.That does not mean that the reality of the matter does not exist apart from human ideas/inventions. It means that it is not confirmed/disproved until the evidence is in. I don't think this necessarily follows.The problem is the existence of reality apart from human awareness of it, whether or not the ideas/imaginations are correct or not, and whether those ideas/imaginations are due to subjective evidence or even to no evidence at all.
Unless of course you are merely talking about someone's reasons for their personal beliefs.Another problem I see with this is that what is subjective evidence for one person can be objective evidence and even personal knowledge for a different person.
Fred tells Tom that Mary is a great f___. Fred knows whereof he speaks, but Tom does not know whether he is lying. Mary is apparently unwilling to offer Tom an opportunity to confirm Fred's claim and she is silent about a possible liaison with Fred. OK.I'd feel better about your following statements if you replaced man's ability "to invent false concepts" with his ability "to invent concepts", without which science could not progress.

This conversation is derived from a conversation myself and RAZD were having.This related to deities which are inherently irrefutable (I would argue by design - even if unconsciously) and also wholly lacking in any evidential foundation.There is no evidential reason to think deities even a possibility never mind an actuality.But I agree that such things cannot be proven or disproven. That has never been an issue. No argument there from me.The point then - which I have made previously elsewhere - would be that in the absence of any evidential foundational reason to think the concept might even be a possibility plucking one unevidenced concept from the near infinite myriad of possible unevidenced concepts on the basis of "subjective evidence" is no better than a random guess.The likelihood of such a guess being actually true is akin the likelihood of a nomadic hunter gatherer from the dawn of humanity suddenly being struck with the concept of quantum mechanics.Philosophically possible.But not particularly anything to worry about in practical terms.

I was wrong.In the OP of this thread I suggested that a conclusion drawn wholly on the basis of "subjective evidence" was equiavalent to randomly guessing. This is untrue. "Subjective evidence" is not random guessing at all. It is a form of very directed guessing. Very biased guessing. But still no more reliable in terms of eventual conclusion than simply just guessing.By taking ones preconceptions and desires as evidence for the truth of ones preconceptions and desires we are unleashing a form of self amplifying confirmation bias gone mad. Belief itself becomes evidence for the truth of that which is believed to be true. Desire itself becomes evidence for the truth of that which is desired to be true. There can be little doubt that this self justifying form of circular thinking is exceptionally powerful. Resulting in the absolute conviction that things for which there is no rational reason to even think possible are actually true.There is no difference between any one wholly unevidenced human belief and any other except the strength of desire for that belief to be true and the ability of this form of confirmation bias run riot to take hold. Deistic concepts of gods are no different. They are merely the logical conclusion to the god of the gaps mentality so prevalent amongst our theistic friends. In effect the ultimate un-knowable of the ultimate gap borne primarily from the need to immunise the results of ones confirmation bias from the possibility of refutation.There is a difference between creationists who claim that their beliefs are evidenced by the word of God and deists who claim that their beliefs are evidenced by means of "subjective evidence". Creationsist take the object of their self amplifying confirmation bias and embrace it ("I believe my bible therefore my bible is evidence that my beliefs are true"). Deists rationalise their wholly equivalent self amplifying confirmation bias and attempt to deny that this is what they are doing ("I believe what I believe and this belief is therefore evidence that what I believe is true").So there is indeed a difference between the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and every other godly or deistic entity ever invented and advocated as truth by man.Nobody yet has ever desired or needed the Immaterial Pink Unicorn to be true.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So is there such a thing as "subjective evidence" that is distinct and seperate from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence?Or not?Are feelings that "god" exists evidence of god or gods actually objectively existing in any way at all?Or not?I say not.It also seems that those who advocate the use of "subjective evidence" are unable to distinguish the sort of evidence required to conclude god(s) objectively existing from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence and past objective experience" that we all, quite legitimately use, to make our everyday conclusions about the world.The two are not the same. No matter how much the theists or "evidence" based deists may wish them to be.

That is the real meat and potatoes of it all, right? Lets look at the BIG picture. You and I are both in a debate forum where people discuss scientific and faith topics. You have chosen to place your topic in Faith/Belief. Yet you strive vigorously to prove to anyone and everyone involved that irrational faith (by definition) is not really faith at all. If an interviewer could sit down with me and then with you and develop a story of our lives and of all of the experiences we have had, all of the people we have known, and all of the influences surrounding our upbringing, there would be definite unique stories comparing and contrasting our lives. You base much of your belief on evidence, whereas I do not. There is no right or wrong when an individuals belief is examined. That's my opinion, of course, and it can well be challenged.Were an independent observer to examine each of our lives, however, and were seeking to do a psychological profile, certain questions would be asked.1) What is your motivation for participating in the debates associated here at EvC?2) When examining your own faith, do you conclude that no matter how strong your beliefs, you could be wrong?3) As to your beliefs, why do you believe that your belief is valid?Answering that last question, I am satisfied with my beliefs because they provide me with a level of peace, tranquility, and sanity. I am not prone to doubting and challenging them largely because it would increase my levels of discomfort and would not be good for my health.How about you? What motivation do you have for challenging my beliefs and stirring up my comfort zones? Is it altruistic? Does it give you a sense of peace and tranquility?

I think you think I am railing against something that I am not. There is no right or wrong.But there is evidential and logical consistency. You seem not to care too much about that with regard to your beliefs. Percy has sort of said the same thing about his beliefs. Fine. No argument from me there then. Be inconsistent. Believe what you want.I think I would feel internally conflicted in the same position but if you find comfort rather than conflict in that situation then who the hell am I to tell you what you should or should not feel or should or should not believe? Then you are lucky. And I have no problem at all with your beliefs or the fact that you believe. Despite what you may think. If you tell me that your religious beliefs are logically and evidentially consistent then I will disagree. Given that this is a debate forum I will set out to show you why I think you are wrong. You (and others) can assess those arguments and take those arguments into account or not as you choose. Given that this is a debate forum you can also counter argue if you think my own reasoning is at fault.But if you don't want your comfort zone to be challenged why are you debating with people who obviously disagree with your position? If you don't want your comfort zone disrupted I would suggest that you don't debate with people who disagree with you........ Altruistic.... Probably not. Peace and tranquility.... Not really that either.It helps me to understand my own thinking and that of others. It teaches me a lot sometimes. I find it intellectually challenging and I guess I enjoy it.Is that so bad.......?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a little bit. After reading more of what you have to say in these forums, I conclude that you base your faith largely and specifically on rationality, logic, and reality. This is all well and good, of course, but the question still remains: Why do you seek to challenge other peoples (often less logical) faiths and beliefs? You DO realize that your truth will never be more objectively valid than my truth, since we are talking about Faith and Belief. Belief can not be quantified, in my opinion.As for the whole confirmation bias thing, I agree with you that that is what usually occurs in anyone's chosen belief paradigm. My response: "So What"? Humans are strange animals. For the same reason that were you and I playing chess, I would never desire your move to be better than my move! Same here. That's why I hang out here. Also, I actually feel more comfortable talking with people who disagree with and challenge me rather than the sheeple that I often encounter at Christian forums. I used to come here to try and defend my faith, but I have found that it need not be defended and, in fact, should be challenged. For me, logic has never changed my beliefs that much. I freely and readily admit that they are often illogical.

Phew! I must admit that I did wonder why you had suddenly leapt on me from out of nowhere!! Well that is the impression I like to give....... I also like to think that I acknowledge, and even embrace, my human failings. Take the whole "human invention" argument in this thread. Isn't the human capacity for creation, imagination and invention bloody amazing?It just has the downside of making unevidenced judgements of "truth" particularly prone to unreliability, bias and error.BUT I wouldn't change that for the world!!!!!!!! Surely that question applies to the whole of the EvC debate site? Not just me..........?Why do any of us ever challenge other people's faiths and beliefs? The nature of evidence, reliability of evidence, objectivity, subjectivity, belief, faith and knowledge are things which humanity has been contemplating for some time now. Epistomology I believe is the official term.I think it fair to say that the broad conclusion of that contemplation is that some "truths" are indeed more objectively valid than others...............I might be am in danger of challenging your comfort zone if I continue here? Maybe not. But evidentially justified belief can be differentiated from faith. To some degree at least. Seriously re the IPU - If we intentionally set out to create an IPU mythology and imposed that mythology on some unsuspecting experimental culture of humans, threw in a holy book and set of circular logic into the mix and then stirred it up for a few hundred years - Wouldn't you expect genuine believers of the IPU to emerge? As are everyone's to some extent - Yes even mine I guess the aim is to recognise that fact and then, as those inconsistencies become apparent, either learn to accept or seek to rectify each of those individual inconsistencies as you see fit.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.