Absence of Evidence..............

In the absence of empirical evidence what conclusions can we justifiably draw?Example 1
In the absence of any physical evidence for or against the existence of the soul we should grant these two opposing points of view equal merit with regard to ethical questions in medical research. Both viewpoints are based on personal prejudice and philosophical assumptions rather than actual physical evidence. Both are equally valid.
Right?Example 2
In the absence of any physical evidence in favour of miracles we should treat historical analyses of Jesus that assume the miraculous as equally valid to those that do not assume the miraculous to have occurred. Both viewpoints are based on personal prejudice and philosophical assumptions rather than actual physical evidence. Both are equally valid.
Right?Example 3
In the absence of any physical evidence for the existence of God we should obviously treat the probability of the existence of God as 50/50. Any other conclusion in either direction is the result of personal prejudice, philosophical bias or faith based belief.
Right?Example 4
In the absence of any physical evidence for the Hindu God Vishnu we should obviously treat the existence of Vishnu as 50/50. Any other conclusion in either direction is the result of personal prejudice, philosophical bias or faith based belief.
Right?Example 5
In the absence of any physical evidence against the claim that ”sub quantised transdimensional energy fluxes can boost ones aura and enhance ones metaphysical being’ we should regularly take a ”quanta flux booster pill’ (copyright Straggler 2008 - available soon in all good pharmacies, watch this space) in order to ensure a healthy and well balanced aura. In the absence of any physical evidence for or against this claim denial of it’s validity is the result of ant-spritual prejudice and 'empirical-only' philosophical bias.
Right?Discussion
A recurring theme here at EvC is the concept that ”Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Those of a theistic bent tend to selectively use this argument in application to their own unfounded beliefs whilst dismissing any equivalent claims to things that they find as equally ridiculous as I find their claims of the supernatural.Should not the default position, i.e. the position in the absence of any evidence always be disbelief rather than belief?In practice is not the default position for everyone disbelief rather than belief almost all of the time? Exceptions are then made, by some, with regard to the extraordinary claims of religion and other aspects of the supernatural which are deemed ”untestable’.Is not empirical evidence the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made? The only form of evidence that can ultimately establish the truth or otherwise of any given claim? The only form of evidence that actually warrants the term “evidence”?Questions
If you are religious at all, is there any area apart from your religious beliefs where you would be willing to believe in something without empirical evidence of some kind? Why should we believe in, or make concessions to, anything for which there is no physical evidence?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between "examples" and between apparent paragraphs (there was a line break) later in the message.

Thread copied to the Absence of Evidence.............. thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.