13 Sep '22 11:27>
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Was Hitchens right?
Was Hitchens right?
@fmf saidYes, I believe he was right. I would point out however that proclaiming something to be true or untrue is a long way from proving it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Was Hitchens right?
@mchill saidIf it's religious faith, perhaps its adherents don't need to be trying to prove it and should, instead, be spending their time doing good works so that their faith doesn't become dead.
Yes, I believe he was right. I would point out however that proclaiming something to be true or untrue is a long way from proving it.
@fmf saidDepends on how general you see it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Was Hitchens right?
@fmf saidChristianity is top-heavy with doctrines and dogmas, which was alien to both Greek paganism and the teachings of Jesus. Once you enter the arena of doctrines and dogmas, you are beholden to logical arguments and empirical proofs. A fatal step for a religion which was originally preached to illiterate fishermen, whores, and peasants, IMO.
If it's religious faith, perhaps its adherents don't need to be trying to prove it and should, instead, be spending their time doing good works so that their faith doesn't become dead.
@fmf saidI’d back this up with David Hume’s observation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Was Hitchens right?
@moonbus saidThis is an extraordinary claim: do you have any extraordinary evidence that it wasn't, in fact, Carl Sagan?
I’d back this up with David Hume’s observation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
@fmf saidSagan was quoting Hume, perhaps cryptomnesiacally.
This is an extraordinary claim: do you have any extraordinary evidence that it wasn't, in fact, Carl Sagan?
@moonbus saidPerhaps Hume foresaw what Sagan was going to say but didn't want to explain how that was so.
Sagan was quoting Hume, perhaps cryptomnesiacally.
@fmf saidI'm too lazy to look it up right now, but it'll be in Hume's Dialogs Concerning Religion. Hume wrote before Darwin, so he couldn't really resolve the dilemma typically posed by Creationists, either random chance or intelligent design. It wasn't until Darwin proposed a naturalistic mechanism which preserves complexity without intelligence that a third option became conceptually tenable.
Perhaps Hume foresaw what Sagan was going to say but didn't want to explain how that was so.
@fmf saidYes, of course he was/is right.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Was Hitchens right?
@moonbus saidSo hmm. For some of these claims, it's not that there's zero evidence, it's that the evidence is weak.
I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but it'll be in Hume's Dialogs Concerning Religion. Hume wrote before Darwin, so he couldn't really resolve the dilemma typically posed by Creationists, either random chance or intelligent design. It wasn't until Darwin proposed a naturalistic mechanism which preserves complexity without intelligence that a third option became conceptuall ...[text shortened]... that claims about supernatural causality without evidence may be dismissed without counter-evidence.
@bigdogg saidFMF's Razor
So hmm. For some of these claims, it's not that there's zero evidence, it's that the evidence is weak.
Can we still dismiss those without evidence?
@bigdogg saidSo long as someone is merely expressing an opinion, for example that the Earth is only 6,000 yrs old or that he feels saved in Jesus, providing only very weak evidence, I won't bother to rebut him. He is entitled to his opinions. But as soon as he steps over the line from expressing an opinion to claiming he has universally valid objective truth, with scant evidence, I am entitled to dismiss him as a crank, without counter-evidence. Of course, I may engage him if I wish with counter-evidence, but the burden of proof is upon him, not me, to provide better evidence.
So hmm. For some of these claims, it's not that there's zero evidence, it's that the evidence is weak.
Can we still dismiss those without evidence?
@moonbus saidYour last point is important. People do have a tendency to backfill reasoning and evidence, often without realizing they have done so. If you ask them how they came to that belief, they will present it in the 'acceptable' order - first evidence, then reason, then belief - even though that's not what really happened.
So long as someone is merely expressing an opinion, for example that the Earth is only 6,000 yrs old or that he feels saved in Jesus, providing only very weak evidence, I won't bother to rebut him. He is entitled to his opinions. But as soon as he steps over the line from expressing an opinion to claiming he has universally valid objective truth, with scant evidence, I ...[text shortened]... to do with the reasons one is likely to give if challenged later, after the beliefs have coalesced.