What types of beliefs require evidence?
How do we determine the difference?
2007-01-22 05:10:01 · 18 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
When you are told something by someone you trust, you do not need evidence, until what they told becomes suspect.
It's the old "innocent until proven guilty" phenomenom.
How do you trust a person? Wow! That could be the title of a new book.
Well, one of my old axioms may help (indirectly)
Professionally, we should judge a person based on their results.
Socially, we should judge a person based on their intentions.
Now, I imagine you were headed in a different direction with your question.
Ok, OK. How did I learn to trust Jesus?
Well, I trusted my parents. And, one day in church (I was 12 years old), the preacher said, "who wants to come up here and confess their mistakes, and be saved, so after they die, they will go to Heaven."
I looked at my parents, and they gave me a nod that it would be ok for me to go forward. I trusted them so I stood up and went forward.
Now, as I was walking toward the front of that big room full of people, I was very nervous. I started to turn back ....
Then, I didn't know about Pascal's Wager, but instinctively I used the principles.
I am sure you get the point.
2007-01-22 05:52:26 · answer #1 · answered by MrsOcultyThomas 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem with your question is that you are lumping everything into one category - "beliefs". There are 2 categories. Beliefs and Knowledge, or things we know. Any 'BELIEF' can be accepted without evidence since it is simply a belief. The things that we require evidence for are knowledge and facts. These are NOT beliefs but THINGS WE KNOW. Therefore, thats how you determine the difference.
2007-01-22 05:17:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Either a thing is an axiom and is accepted or it is a fact that requires evidence. That is, you hold it an axiom as true simply because it defines the rules of the game. For example, the axioms of Euclidean Geometry, for example, number exactly five... remove the parallel line axiom, and you don't have an inconsistent system, you just now have Hyperbolic Geometry. However, if someone asserts, "My hovercraft is full of eels," that's a fact, true or not, and you can demand evidence (such as seeing his cargo manifest to see if he has an abundance of eel deliveries to Japan or going to his hovercraft and seeing that he's converted it into an eel aquarium).
If something is a belief... it's unnecessary and should be discarded.
Axioms and facts are all that matter.
2007-01-22 05:16:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All beliefs are acceptable without evidence. That is why they are called beliefs. All religions believe there's is the right one, does that make all the others wrong? No.
Faith alone in your beliefs should be enough evidence for you.
Without faith though, I would say your beliefs will falter.
2007-01-22 05:24:32 · answer #4 · answered by Aunt Henny Penny 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should have evidence for Believing in a spiritual way but if you have evidence and you still don´t believe, out of pride and scepticism, this world will make you the most paranoid. Sometimes you have to put your guards down, think about the consequences, are they good or bad, make you better or worse, what is a good evidence in your mind and go from there.
2007-01-22 05:21:53 · answer #5 · answered by Coexistence 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
None. They all require evidence.
If I were to say to you that I know ghosts exist, you'd require proof wouldn't you? Of course you would.
Now, I DO know ghosts exist because I've experienced them many times but it happens so quickly that I have no proof.
I don't expect you to believe me just because I said it. So I just don't worry about it.
Unlike the religious who tend to think you don't need proof of anything and should just accept it because you were told to.
2007-01-22 05:15:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you start a new job and they tell you you'll get paid on Friday. I think you can accept that without asking for evidence.
2007-01-22 05:14:29 · answer #7 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally dont believe in accepting anything without some kind of evidence, that's blind faith. You should always do your own research on anything before you accept it as fact.
2007-01-22 05:23:42 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing needs to be accepted without evidence. It's basic philosophy-any proposition should be disbelieved when there is no proof to suggest that it is true.
2007-01-22 05:17:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nothing should be accepted without evidence.
Everything disseminated as fact needs proof.
Myths on the other hand don't need proof, just popularity.
2007-01-22 05:15:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋