Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all]
Progressive Religion and the Standards of EvidenceThere is, in fact, a very serious problem with holding a belief that isn't supported by any good evidence, even if it isn't contradicted by any. If your belief isn't supported by any evidence, how do you choose among the millions and millions of possible beliefs you could come up with that also aren't supported by evidence but aren't contradicted by it? How do you even choose between the hundreds and hundreds of commonly- held religious beliefs that actually exist?
And if you don't have any basis for making that choice -- other than the demonstrably biased, easily fooled, heavily- weighted- in- favor- of- believing- what- you're- predisposed- to- believe form of guesswork known as "intuition" or "faith" -- then why on earth would you base your entire life philosophy around that choice?
Would you base your choices, your ethics, the meaning of your life, your assumptions about what happens when we die, on a belief in any other hypothesis for which you had absolutely no evidence, simply because you didn't think there was any evidence contradicting it? Would you base your life on a belief in the cosmic graffiti artist or the invisible pink unicorn, simply because they haven't yet been conclusively disproven?
And if not, then why is God an exception?
If your default theory has to keep shifting and slipping and mutating to accommodate new evidence contradicting it... AND if the consistent historical pattern of your default theory has been a long, relentless process of it being chipped away... AND if you don't have any solid evidence to support even the most core part of your default theory... then perhaps you should look at discarding your theory.
It is not the case that your default theory can be anything, as long as you are willing to hear contrary evidence. That's not a logical, rational, or evidence- based way of thinking. In the absence of any good evidence supporting any particular hypothesis, the rational hypothesis is the null hypothesis. And in the case of religion, the null hypothesis is atheism.
You can't just say, like Criswell at the end of Plan 9 from Outer Space, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" That's not an argument -- and it's not a foundation for a life philosophy.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/06/can-you-prove-it-didnt-happen-progressive-religion-and-the-standards-of-evidence.html
Old but good essay on the intellectual dishonesty of the "can you prove it didn't happen" canard.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
171 replies, 34523 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So when Person A claims Bigfoot exists, and Person B claims that there's no good evidence...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#5
If human thought is inadequate for dealing with proof and comparision of supernatural claims...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#9
No, ignoring the special pleading of those who need special pleading for their supernatural...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#35
"You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate"
rug
Jan 2015
#63
It appears obvious that honest and rational discourse is impossible with him.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#84
I think all people of average or better intelligence who believe religious dogma .....
tradewinds
Jan 2015
#101
ok. i hope no one alerts on it and if they do I hope it is not hidden on my account.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#114
Then tell me exactly how you confirm one supernatural phenomenon but would reject another
Orrex
Jan 2015
#134
Sure I can but if you are trying to prove that I am delusional or irrational, then I have no
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#142
Nothing in this discussion indicates that you're willing to do so (edited for typo)
Orrex
Jan 2015
#150
Since I have answered the question and you have nothing else I wish you a pleasant evening.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#161
Let's start with evidence that a supreme supernatural being is required to exist at all.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#18
You and Orrex both have demonstarted how it is impossible to have an honest and rational
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#83
Of all the monkey-shit-flinging fights we've had, I think *this* was the one that finally got
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#85
Lol. I'm not. I'm simply speaking in generalities about no one in particular.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#92
OR, sometimes the issue is something you don't want to address, because it invalidates
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#119
It is a means to examine one class of actual material evidence that could establish that there must
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#125
If you're referring to cour comments to me, it takes two to have an honest discussion.
rug
Jan 2015
#93
The premise is not about proving or disproving God. It's about a logical fallacy.
DetlefK
Jan 2015
#30
It seems there are about 40 replies I can't see. Somebody must have had an upset.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#45
Why don't you rebut the argument in your last pararagraph instead of characterizing it?
rug
Jan 2015
#29
As I can't see 116 of those replies I can only guess at the hot mess.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#151