2007-02-05 09:40:44 · 10 answers · asked by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ann, you're right, though it was directed more towards asserting the existence of god without evidence rather than any assertion sans-evidence.
2007-02-05 09:47:23 · update #1
Yes, that's a wise statement.
Think about it this way. Let's say I have a box that's completely sealed. I could say there's an apple inside it. However, unless I give a reason to think there's an apple inside it, you could just as much say that there's no apple in it. Actually, the question of whether the apple exists in there or not is really silly to even think about until there is some evidence one way or the other.
2007-02-05 09:43:39 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is truth in this statement. In science, for example, an assertion is never made without evidence. If there is no evidence, it is considered an "idea" or more often, a "hypothesis". It is certainly not presented as fact. The scientist's job is to formulate a hypothesis and then set about proving it wrong, in other words, doubt is the default, and objective evidence must support the hypothesis before it will even be accepted as theory. Once it becomes a theory, it has already met the standard of providing predictable results that can be duplicated by anyone. Anything asserted (claimed as factual) without evidence to back it up would not only be dismissed, but ridiculed, and justifiably so, because the burden of evidence rests with the person making the claim, not the one who does not believe it.
2007-02-05 10:01:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you live by the sword you die by the sword! - so, yes I would say so.
One has to be careful about the definition of "evidence". What can be asserted without scientific evidence like a mathematical theorum (I know you're not thinking in terms of this but bear with me) does not need scientific evidence to dismiss it. However it was probably put forward with mathematical evidence and so would need mathematical counter-evidence for it to be put aside.
So (back to the actual point) a metaphysical statement may have good reasons for being put forward that are not scientific. You would not need to put forward scientific evidence but you would need to counter argue the "good reasons".
That is assuming there are any. There are many assertions made that have absolutely no reason at all to accept them. These can be dismissed without further thought.
2007-02-05 09:48:43 · answer #3 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw that quote in "The End of Faith." I can't remember who is given credit for it. Since reading it, I have quoted it many times.
My answer - yes, there is 100% truth in that statement.
I guess maybe the only exception would be if you trust someone making the claim and they have nothing to gain from your believing them, such as a trivial fact. But this could be considered "evidence" (of character, maybe?)
2007-02-05 10:21:23 · answer #4 · answered by Tiktaalik 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oOo i like that.
very much truth in that. infact, i like that statement a lot. sadly, some people dont really understand what evidence is.
2007-02-05 09:43:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not dismissed as in "I know it's not there." You can justifiably have no opinion on it.
2007-02-05 09:53:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
makes sense
2007-02-05 09:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Maka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to me agnosticism is the logical choice and i don't care what anybody else says
2007-02-05 09:54:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep.
2007-02-05 09:42:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well why dont you check about 30minutes back, this question was just asked. can't we have at least 1hr between repeats?
2007-02-05 09:44:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋