THE STORY SO FAR....Before continuing it is worth re-iterating the main conclusion of the discussion so far. Namely that a form of evidence that can be used to support claims for everything and anything is effectively evidence for nothing at all. Evidence is the means by which we divide truth from untruth and accuracy from errancy. If the false is as equally well supported by a given form of evidence as is the truth then the term evidence is obviously unwarranted and blatantly being misused. Non-empirical evidence fits this bill in every sense imaginable. Non-empirical evidence is as pointlessly unreliable with regard to drawing conclusions as it is conceivably possible to be.
No refutation has even been attempted by Iano regarding this very key point.
Instead Iano simply implies that we somehow magically differentiate between all of the possible and equally well supported potential claims of non-empirical evidence (the existence of you, me, Iano, Thor, Apollo, Santa, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny and God are a few choice examples). No method of distinguishing between reliable non-empirical “evidence” (what a bizarre concept) and unreliable non-empirical evidence is suggested. According to Iano we simply
know which non-empirical "evidence" to believe and which to not.
Despite these very obvious flaws in his theory Iano still insists that non-empirical evidence should be acknowledged and accepted as a valid form of evidence with regard to drawing conclusions about the world. In fact he goes even further than this and suggests that we all rely on non-empirical evidence in our day to day lives.
Tellingly, and despite many requests to do so, he is completely unable to provide us with a specific example of non-empirical evidence or a definite example of a conclusion borne of such evidence. Draw your own conclusions.
IANO'S CURRENT POSITIONIano disregards all of the above and continues to assert that he knows his wife exists by means of non-empirical "evidence". He also asserts that such evidence can equally and validly be applied to the existence of God.
Is there any value in this claim at all?
If non-empirical evidence does not exist does the 'empirical only' alternative require us to go around seeking independently verified corroborating evidence for the existence of our loved ones before we can legitimately accept that they exist? These are the questions I will attempt to address.
AIMIn this post I will attempt to debunk what remains of Iano's disintegrating argument in favour of non-empirical evidence and refute his unsupported assertion that the everyday assumptions that we all make all of the time are somehow poignant examples of our reliance on such evidence.
There is a huge difference between the standards of ”evidence’ that we apply to the mundane, ordinary and everyday as compared to the exacting standards of evidence required of scientific enquiry.
The wider aim of this post is to explore these differences and expose Iano’s ongoing tactic of selectively conflating and confusing the two to evade any meaningful standards of evidence being applied to his flawed theistic position.
STANDARDS OF EVIDENCEDo we apply the same standards of evidence to every situation and every conclusion we make? No, quite obviously we do not. The questions that we therefore need to consider instead are -
1) What determines the standards of evidence that we apply in different contexts?
2) Are these differing standards of evidence contextually justified?
3) Do these differing context based standards of evidence result in reliable and valid conclusions?
4) Does any form of non-empirical “evidence” (whatever this may be) play any part at all in our conclusions?
In order to explore the different standards of evidence applied to different situations let us consider a (hopefully) un-contentious (and rather silly) example.
Example 1 Mundane MoggyToday my little boy told me he had seen a cat in the street outside our house earlier this morning. I “know” that a cat was outside my house today because he told me so. Yes he could be lying. Yes he could be delusional. These are possibilities. But as far as I am concerned there was indeed a cat outside my house this morning and to all intents and purposes this is a fact. The standards of evidence which I demand for this ”fact’ are very low. Why? Because this claim is so mundane, un-extraordinary and everyday that frankly the alternative explanations are even less likely than the claim itself. I don’t consciously think through the probabilities. I just unquestioningly accept the claim as a fact.
I am effectively assuming the truth of this particular and specific instance based on a long history of empirical evidence that tells me that cats are a common feature of my street and that my son is not a pathological liar.
This is an example of an everyday assumption borne out of, and supported by, a long history of empirical evidence that make questioning or requiring further evidence of such a ”truth’ the exception rather than the rule.
Example 2 Moggy MayhemToday my little boy told me that he had seen “thousands” of cats in the street outside our house earlier this morning. “Really? Did you count them?” I asked. “Yes daddy I did” he said, “There were fifteen thousand four hundred and twenty two cats”.
“Hmmm. Are the cats still there?”
“No daddy they've all gone home”
“Did they make a mess outside?” I ask.
“No daddy. Cats are very clean. You know that!”
“Did anyone else see the cats?”
“No daddy. Just me. Why? Don’t you believe me?”
“Of course I do. But next time you see
that many cats I would like to take a photo of them because it is kind of unusual to see that many cats. Will you let me know straight away next time?”
“OK daddy. I will. Can I have biscuit?............” etc.
Generally speaking thousands of rampant moggies do not spontaneously converge on a single street in Britain. Without any corroborating empirical evidence of such an unlikely event I am going to dismiss this claim as a result of the healthy imagination of a small child. Would you do differently?
Example 3 Millionaire MoggyToday my little boy told me he had seen a cat in the street outside our house earlier this morning. Co-incidentally they have just announced on the radio that a one million pound prize will be given to the first person today to spot a cat in the local area.
I rush out of the house with my camera demanding of my son that he tell me exactly where and when he saw the cat in question and wondering whether or not the CCTV tapes for the neighbourhood might be available upon request. “Did you really see the cat? Are you sure? Was anyone else there?” I ask as we run down the stairs in hot pursuit of objective evidence in favour of the aforementioned claimed cat sighting.
The above examples are intended to show that the issue here is not one of empirical or non-empirical evidence per se. Rather it is an issue of context and reliability.
The more unbelievable the claim the higher the standards of evidence we require to support the claim.
The greater the impact of a 'fact' the greater the evidence we require to support that conclusion.
Putting the issue of scientific evidence aside for one moment I think that there are two factors that define the standards of evidence that we require in everyday life.
1) The believability of a claim. How likely or improbable is that which is being claimed?
2) The significance of a claim. How important is the truth of a claim? What impact will the truth (or otherwise) of the claim being made have?
Taking these into account it should be obvious to all that different standards of evidence are indeed contextually justified. It also needs to be appreciated that when assessing the 'believability' of a very un-extraordinary and unimportant claim we do this against the background of a great wealth of empirical experience which can make our judgements and assumptions regarding the specific case in hand highly reliable
SCIENCE - THE SPECIAL CASEWhat are the standards of evidence imposed by scientific methods of investigation and how do these compare with those of day to day life?
Science is the search for objective truth. As such generalised assumptions borne of experience, no matter how seemingly reliable, are considered no substitute for hard empirical, case specific, testable evidence.
Science does not assume conclusions. Science tests conclusions. In this respect the standards of evidence imposed by the methods of science dwarf anything that we might use in our daily lives or the examples above.
In terms of believability and importance, science effectively treats the conclusions borne of every claim with scepticism and significance.
It is not realistic or practical for us to apply these standards of evidence to everyday life but it is these standards of evidence that differentiate science from other, less reliable, forms of investigation.
THE MUNDANITY OF EXISTENCEAn ongoing theme of this debate has been Iano’s insistence that he knows that his wife exists by means of non-empirical, rather than empirical, evidence.
Is there any truth in this claim at all?
Do we really continually require evidence (whether empirical or non-empirical) of that which we are, to all practical intents and purposes, certain of?
At what point in day to day life does assumption rather than ”evidence’ become the norm?
Is the basis of any such assumption empirical at root?
Can we realistically be expected, or required, to apply the same standards of evidence to the mundane, ordinary or unimportant as we do the outrageously unbelievable or deeply significant?
Far be it from me to declare existence as mundane and ordinary . .. but in this context that is exactly what it is.
From the moment we are born we are bombarded with empirical evidence that there is a common reality inhabited by other people who are also part of this common reality. The things we see are seen and verified by other people. The things we hear are heard and verified by other people. The things we can touch can be touched by other people. The other people that we interact with undergo interactions independent of us with other people. The existence of other independent beings is so much part of our mundane, ordinary, everyday experience that we do not question each specific case. We do not require evidence, either empirical or non-empirical, beyond our own subjective perception that each individual we chance across actually exists. The genuine existence of each individual is a perfectly valid case specific assumption borne of, and validated by, a lifetime of empirical experience.
Given a reason to doubt this assumption we might well consider such “evidence” less flippantly (Anyone seen the film about John Nash - ”A Beautiful Mind’?). Fortunately most of us will never experience seeing and hearing things and people that nobody else can see and hear.
If we did experience such things regularly no amount of non-empirical “evidence” would change the fact that we were considered by everybody else to be completely mad and in desperate need of psychiatric help.
IANO'S FOLLYIano would have us apply the same standard of “evidence” that we superficially apply to the mundane examples of everyday life to the existence of God.
He would have us apply the knowledge we gain through continual and historical experience of the empirically ordinary to the non-empirical and fantastic.
He feigns indignation and protests at the supposed unfairness and philosophical bias on our part when we refuse this. He objects when we impose higher standards of evidence for his very obviously not trivial or mundane claims of the existence of an omniscient omnipotent creator. Despite the fact that this is one of the most important, arguably improbable, and controversial claims it is possible for anyone to make.
Most outrageously of all he then goes on to claim that the assumptions he insists we make about his God should be considered as equally valid and equally as reliable as the conclusions of science. Conclusions which are based on the most exacting standards of evidence it is practically feasible to impose.
Iano would ask us to treat his claims for the existence of God as we would treat a child’s claims of seeing a cat in the street.
He would then insist that we equate this, in terms of validity, with the empirically tested conclusions of science.
Any fool can see that this is a wholly unjustified attempt at legitimising an indefensible faith based position.
CONCLUSIONNon-empirical "evidence" is so pointlessly unreliable as to be useless. By conflating and confusing the everyday and perfectly valid empirically borne assumptions that we all make in our everyday lives with “evidence” Iano has attempted to claim the existence of non-empirical “evidence”. This folly has been comprehensively debunked.
Furthermore the assertion that we should willingly equate the lowly standards of “evidence” that we require for specific cases of the everyday and familiar, to the controversial and spectacular (i.e. God) has been utterly refuted.
The tired argument that Iano has been making at EvC for as long as I have been a member here has finally been shown to be that which it is - Yet another failed attempt to legitimise blind faith based belief by falsely equating it with the knowledge and understanding gained through proper scientific investigation.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Remove bizzarre characters inserted in place of punctuation since site downtime.
™ Version 4.2
