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.
If I handed you a shoebox and claimed that there was a $100 bill inside it, how would you prove that there wasn't?
You would prove it with the absence of evidence that there is a bill in the box. If you looked in the box and saw no evidence of a bill, then you would conclude that there wasn't one in there. But would that prove that there was no bill in the box? No, because you could have simply overlooked it. Or maybe it was dark, or maybe the bill was hidden under a piece of cardboard in the bottom of the box that you were unaware of.
The point is that you can use the absence of evidence to suggest absence, but that you can't be sure of absence simply by the lack of evidence.
In the absence of empirical evidence what conclusions can we justifiably draw?
Justifiably? Nothing.
Should not the default position, i.e. the position in the absence of any evidence always be disbelief rather than belief?
Any evidence? Sure.
But what about non-empirical "evidence"?
Is not empirical evidence the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made?
It is the only
reliable one.
The only form of evidence that can ultimately establish the truth or otherwise of any given claim?
How can we know?
The only form of evidence that actually warrants the term “evidence”?
Not in my opinion. But "evidence" usually means empirical and using "evidence" to describe non-empirical 'evidence' usually clouds issues.
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?
UFO's, ghosts, ESP, love, Global Warming (zing!).
Why should we believe in, or make concessions to, anything for which there is no physical evidence?
Because there might be more out there that positivism could be totally blind to.
WRT your examples, I'd say they are all wrong.
™ Version 4.2
