Can you help me with a paradox?

Question

Before we start, I'd like to state that I am serious, and I'd like serious answers.

I get confused when people say "No evidence=no belief." Does this mean that these people only believe in things that they themselves have experienced? How can these people go on evidence that other people have experienced, but so easily brush off the thought of a higher being? Sure the idea of a higher being may not be common sense or logically proven, but what is the difference between believing in things I've learned in Chemistry (things I have learned, but have not actually experimented on myself) and things in the Qua'ran or Bible? There were many people that believed in the 'Plum pudding model' of an atom for a long time until it was disproved, so whats to say everything isn't the same, unless you find out yourself?

I never thought of that, Tony, but I think that is a whole different can of worms.

I would guess the release of chemicals would be the answer to yours, but I would have to read more into that.

I am not done with my job on earth, angelz. I'm not talking about all athiests, just the ones that say that they have to have evidence in order to believe.

I'm a Christian. I obviously worded this thing wrong to give the impression that I do not believe in God. I am saying that how can you so easily believe in something someone tells you, such as something in a History book or even a simple rumor, but not in the Bible.

Wonderful, BlueOctagon! That makes so much sense now. They want something that is testable, not something they have tested.

Saint the dead (hehe), the Bible is about a life-style, not about staying the same and never changing. Everything in the Bible is still relevant to my everyday life, even though I have a TV, cell phone, and this computer. It may not have these items in it, but it more about a relationship between people to people and people to God.

Answer 1

To me, the difference is that logically, the things in chemistry class 1.) make sense and 2.) are testable. I may not have performed the tests myself, but I could if I wanted to--and I would be able to reproduce the findings of the original experiment. The things in the Q'uran or the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever other text cannot be in any way empirically verified by anyone. "Feelings" don't constitute evidence; a person saying "I prayed and I felt this" isn't the same thing as someone explaining the mechanisms of an experiment and their results. Also, science doesn't claim to have access to ultimate truth--one of the basic points of science is that theories and hypotheses can change according to available evidence; there is no chemistry apologetics.

Theism isn't something that I "brushed off easily." It came from a rather intense bout of research, learning, introspection, and logical thought. Logically, there is no difference between believing in Santa Claus and believing in god/s--for me to say "Santa Claus clearly doesn't exist, but a god does," even though there is an equal lack of evidence for each is intellectually dishonest of me.

Thank you for a polite and sincere question.

Answer 2

You are mixing it up, a little, but it's an interesting topic nonetheless. People usually tend to believe what's been scientifically proven, but that's only about 40% of science. The other 60% is guesses and dances with dead chickens, but anyhow, it's still better than believing in what a goat-herder said 2 millennia ago. I mean, would you listen to a guy that claims to know everything and how to make your life better... But never even saw a cellphone? Kinda hard, right? Same here. I accept the fact that christianity was a great force trough history, sometimes good, sometimes not so good, but nowadays it's lagging two centuries behind reality. So, the main problem is that after two millennia, most of the things that could be said about it had been said... And there's not a lot of new topics. My point is, I guess, that even though science can be mistaken sometimes, it's still the best we have. Because it changes and adapts itself as we do, trough time.
While religions in general, and christianity in particular, are adamant in their convictions and not willing to change. In fact,they claim that their believers should change back to how people were years ago in order to get to the other life. Not very practical, if you ask me.
On the other hand, haven't you ever gazed at the sky, and saw all those stars... And think that each and every one of those stars has around half a dozen worlds circling it... And that, in some of those worlds there might be another lifeforms... I mean, c'mon, it's sheer crazyness to think that we are totally alone...

Answer 3

The primary difference is that people who do not believe in that higher being do not believe because it is not provable. Your example...i.e. chemistry although not specifically experienced by you can be proven scientifically to you if you are willing to listen to the answer. Unfortunately, God's existance is not provable although it is logical. Someone had to begin something at some time. It is as simple as that. You can't get something out of nothingness so it is only logical that a being, an intelligent life force that had no physical nature or substance had to begin it all. It really is the ONLY thing that makes sense because it had to be present before their was anything else. No ball of gas to cause the Big Bang, no anything. The Bible states that God described himself simply as I AM. Think about that and try to picture what it means.

Answer 4

This is a very thoughtful question, and I hope I can offer an equally thoughtful response.

You have hit on one of the penultimate questions in the philosophy of science -- can any scientific theory or law be truly taken at face value? And furthermore, what makes scientific theories or laws any more believable than religious beliefs?

But realize that while you may feel that trusting scientific ideas about how nature works without our direct observation may seem no more believable than say, the existence of god, we do have other ways of being convinced that those scientific ideas are valid ones.

For example, I can't say that I've ever seen an electron moving through a wire when I flip the light switch on in my kitchen. I can say, however, that according to our current understanding of electromagentic field theory, the result of the light bulb coming on as a result of my flipping the switch does seem to confirm that the theory works. Consequently, my confidence that electrons DO move through wires seems completely rational and justified.

Religious superstitions, like beliefs in the existence of gods, however, do not make any such predictions about things that we can measure. As a result, we can never verify if the religious belief is a good one or not. (Incidentally, this inability of ours to verify if a religious belief is a good one has allowed religion to stay so influential in people's lives. If it were actually possible to "test" for the existence of god, we would likely have abandoned belief in that idea a long time ago.)

In the end, we can say this: Our scientific understanding of the world allows us to make rational predictions about how things work. When those predictions come true, they verify for us that the theory or law is a good one, and that it can be trusted for the time being.

Religion, however, can never be tested. Consequently, we should be very skeptical of just blindly trusting the claims it makes. Furthermore, there is nothing in nature that requires us to invoke the existence of god in order to understand how nature works. We don't need god to explain rainbows, gravity, or even the origin of life. Consequently, appealing to religion as a means of explaining nature is completely unnecessary.

Cheers.

Answer 5

There's evidence all around us in what is good in life, not just in the joys we feel but in the awesome creation itself. Personal evidence of God working in our lives can only be experienced by each individual. Reading and meditating on the scriptures can open up our hearts to feel a deep gratitude and love for our Creator. Unfortunately, many have the attitude that "seeing is believing" but fail to really see Him in a spiritual way. They cannot see Him as a God of power and justice.They look on the negative side and try to justify their disbelief by what is wrong in the world, therefore saying there is no God. They give credit to the creation rather than the Creator when trying to explain how life evolved.

Answer 6

For me it's a combination. I have seen nothing that requires anything supernatural to exist to explain it. I have seen many things that used to be explained with a supernatural explanation until a realistic explanation was found, such as with illness being caused by microscopic organisms instead of by demons. I have seen no substantial empirial evidence of the supernatural. I have often seen fraudulent practices passed off as evidence for supernatural things.

I also believe that the supernatural and the natural could not exist in the same universe, because if the supernatural interacted with the natural, then the natural would no longer be following the laws of physics and therefore would be a form of supernatural itself. For me it just comes down to whether I want to believe the natural exists at all, due to the mutually exclusive thing.

Answer 7

For you personally; if some told you about Jesus Christ as He is meantioned in the Bible, and tells you about the death, resurrection and importance of knowing this. Then that is really all you need to know about Christ. It's up God to decide whether you, dead in Christ (not knowing Christ), will be giving the revelation of belief. No one can make anybody belive the words of the Bible or that salvation by faith allone will give you entrance to Heaven. You probably don't even want to read what I've typed, but that is how the truth looks to a dead man, a dead man can't be reborn by himself, God has to make it happen. You have to believe before you can repent (why repent if you don't believe?).

Answer 8

I am an atheist who often uses the no evidence = no belief quote. Chemistry is provable. You can replicate the experiments and come up with the same results.

So let me define what evidence is and what it isn't. Evidence as I use it means it must satisfy being objective (not subjective hearsay), validatable (testable to see if the same results are achieved), and verifiable (different people will come up with the same interpretation of the results).

So, when Joe comes to me and claims he "experienced" god last night, and I ask him for EVIDENCE, he tells me of his feelings of awe and how he was humbled. Do you think Joe provided what is defined as EVIDENCE?

Now, let's move on to chemistry class. When your professor shows you a chemistry equation, and you question it and ask for evidence....he tells you to meet him in lab, and presto, you can do the experiment yourself to see if that equation works!

Of the two examples above, which are you more likely to believe or disbelieve?

Answer 9

I don't believe in god not because there's no evidence. I don't believe in him because I simply don't believe. I don't believe that a higher being that's lived since the beginning of time would condemn people to hell simply for not believing in him. I don't believe that a higher being would wipe people's memories when they get to heaven so they can't remember anything of their earthly life, taking away the memories of everyone they've ever loved. I don't believe that a higher being wouldn't allow sweet and fluffy kittens and puppies into heaven just because he says they have no soul. And i don't believe that a higher being would let serial child rapists, murderers, and torturists into heaven just because they repented and asked for forgiveness even though they may have killed 100+ people.

In short, I'm happier being an atheist.

Answer 10

no one should think they know so much as to state most any thing as fact.it shows ego and stupidity to think you are that wise.just because your senses dont detect some thing does not make it unreal.fish would say there is no outer world if that was the case.or just around the pond,at least deep dwelling fish