The following exchange is from a public atheist group on Facebook. Toward the end of the exchange I imply that I am an atheist; I have been told on numerous occasions that as a Christian I am an atheist because there are all sorts of gods I do not believe in, hence my wording.
Chris Bolt: Hi Suzane,
I am not completely sure how I was able to see this conversation, and I certainly do not have the time to join in and continue a discussion, but I did notice upon skimming the thread that you continue to make a claim to the effect of E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.”
But I find claim E odd, and I wonder, what evidence have you provided in support of E?
Suzane Watkinson: @Chris: What claim did I make? I think you are confused about what you are reading.
Chris Bolt: ”Suzane Watkinson @Chris: What claim did I make? I think you are confused about what you are reading.”
Hi Suzane, thank you for your response. I am not confused about what I am reading. You ask what claim you made. I quoted you as making the following claim, which I am calling claim E.
E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.”
You have stated something similar more than once in this thread.
But I find claim E odd, and I wonder, what evidence have you provided in support of E?
Thanks!
Suzane Watkinson: @Chris: Do you contend that evidence was provided?
Chris Bolt: Suzane,
You asked, “@Chris: Do you contend that evidence was provided?”
No. I am asking you what evidence you have provided for your claim E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.”
What evidence have you provided in support of E? That is my question. I am not contending that you have offered evidence in support of E, and I am not assuming that you have not, though I did not see any offered. So, what evidence do you provide in support of your claim E?
Suzane Watkinson: @Chris: Perhaps you are confused about the concept of a proof.
Laura Grow: @Chris, you have to provide evidence to back up a claim because, without it, anything and everything can be true. Hey, my cat can talk, I don’t need evidence, but it is true because I say it is. Can you see where that becomes problematic?
Laura Grow: @Suzane, you know you aren’t going to get very far in a conversation when someone says, “provide evidence that I have to provide evidence to back up what I say”. I can’t even believe that the statement sounds reasonable to anyone on any level.
Chris Bolt: Suzane,
Thank you again for the response. I am not confused about the concept of a proof. Rather, I am asking you for the evidence which supports your following claim:
Claim E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.”
Perhaps I have been unclear. If I am to accept the truth of E, then I must have evidence upon which to accept the truth of E. Could you provide your evidence for E? Thanks.
Laura,
You wrote, “you have to provide evidence to back up a claim.” This is a restatement of E. I am asking for the basis upon which E should be accepted.
You wrote, “because, without it, anything and everything can be true.” However, this does not follow. Truth is not contingent upon evidence. For example, the truth or falsehood of my owning a pet dragon does not depend upon whether or not you, or anyone else, has evidence for said truth. Or, suppose I claim to have seen a jaguar in the woods near my house, and suppose this claim is true. The fact that you lack evidence for believing that claim does not mean that I did not actually see a jaguar, or that there was not actually a jaguar there. You are confusing our reason for believing some claim with the claim actually being true. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I do not want to misrepresent you.
To restate the question for Laura, consider claim L: “you have to provide evidence to back up a claim.” What is the evidence you provide to back up this claim (L)? It is not that “without it, anything and everything can be true,” for the reasons explained above. Further, even without the reasons given above, the aforementioned response would constitute an argument from consequences and as such is fallacious.
Thanks!
Chris Bolt: Laura,
I just noticed your comment to Suzane:
“@Suzane, you know you aren’t going to get very far in a conversation when someone says, ‘provide evidence that I have to provide evidence to back up what I say’. I can’t even believe that the statement sounds reasonable to anyone on any level.”
It is odd that you find the question unreasonable, as it is in accord with claim E. In other words, it was Suzane who is demanding evidence for every claim, hence I am asking for the evidence whereby we are to accept that claim, E.
I hope this clarifies things. It is perfectly reasonable, given your own contention.
Thanks!
Suzane Watkinson: @Chris: its a side track, start a new thread.
Chris Bolt: Hi Suzane,
Please note that the asterisks below are for clarification; they are not intended to change the tone of my response. I have enjoyed the discussion and its rather civil tone.
Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with you that this is a “side track.” First, it looks suspicious that you are only now stating that my question is a “side track.” Second, I quoted *your words* (claim E) from *this thread* in my question, so my question is either *on track* (along with your words) or *you* introduced the “side track.” Third, my question pertains to a topic that is *logically prior* to your demand for evidence (E), since my question pertains to the evidence one needs to accept E by virtue of E.
Laura was perhaps on the right track with her defense of L, however she needed to state her claims in terms of beliefs as opposed to the actual truth of a matter. Still, her argument would need to be either further modified or rejected as it does not follow from not having evidence *for* the acceptance of a belief that anything could be believed. First, this would still be fallacious as explained above (argumentum ad consequentiam). Second, there are still good reasons and evidence for *not* believing particular claims, hence it does not follow from the rejection of L that anything and everything might then be believed. So the attempt at supporting L through the modified argument above does not get us any closer to satisfying the burden of evidence that E and L produce.
That having been said, this is your group and I respect your authority to run it as you please, hence this is my last comment at this time. As I mentioned when I jumped in, I do not have the time right now to continue, and so will not be starting another thread. I thank you for your brief interaction and hope that you will consider my question further in the future. As atheists, we should remain every bit as critical of our own beliefs and ideas as we are of those who disagree with us. It makes atheists look unreasonable and even foolish when we are unable to answer, or refuse to answer, a very straightforward and simple question concerning our own demands for evidence and the like.
Comments
37 responses to “Fundamentalist Atheism and the Refusal to Answer Simple Questions”
Claim E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.” should be restated as “the more evidence one has supporting a claim, the more likely it is to be true”. Evidence supporting this claim is simply correlative. Different examples arriving at the same conclusion thus increasing the likely hood of it being true. You cannot arrive at objective truth, whatever that may be, but can arrive at statistical likelihood.
I guess I don’t exactly understand what point you are trying to make. Some atheist groups are ignorant and lack proper argumentation skills….. of course, but the same can be said of any group. Also, fundamentalist atheism? Do you realize the linguistic problem with this phrase?
Chris,
I think you are just playing games with this. Your statement (“If I am to accept the truth of E, then I must have evidence upon which to accept the truth of E. Could you provide your evidence for E?”) only goes to verify E so the proposition answers its self. We could look at it a bit differently.
E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.”
Since you provided the completion of the fragmented statement E (“If I am to accept the truth”) we really need to look at E as “you have to provide evidence to back up your claim for me to accept its truth”. Now lets look at how silly this looks when we consider what you are actually saying.
[Chris] “must have evidence to accept the truth” that [Chris] “has to provide evidence” for [Suzane] “to accept the truth”.
This just seems absurd to me.
Thanks
“Claim E: ‘you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.’ should be restated as ‘the more evidence one has supporting a claim, the more likely it is to be true’.”
That is not a restatement of the claim, it is a different claim, and one I do not have time to address right now.
“You cannot arrive at objective truth, whatever that may be, but can arrive at statistical likelihood.”
I see, so it is not objectively true, but only subjectively true, that we can “arrive at statistical likelihood.” Likewise, nothing else you have written is objectively true, but is only subjectively true. Finally, the claim “You cannot arrive at objective truth” is itself not objectively true, but only subjectively true. So according to your own absurd claim, I need not pay any attention to what you have to say. None of it is objectively true. You are just emoting.
“I guess I don’t exactly understand what point you are trying to make.”
You need to read the post more carefully, because I concluded, “[W]e should remain every bit as critical of our own beliefs and ideas as we are of those who disagree with us. It makes atheists look unreasonable and even foolish when we are unable to answer, or refuse to answer, a very straightforward and simple question concerning our own demands for evidence and the like.”
“Some atheist groups are ignorant and lack proper argumentation skills….. of course,”
I am glad you saw that the group in the post is ignorant and lacks proper argumentation skills. Neither of these is necessarily bad in and of itself, but coupled with the arrogant claims and the mockery that characterizes this group, it is an extremely dangerous, silly thing that should be exposed.
“…but the same can be said of any group.”
It cannot be said of the group that is not ignorant and does not lack proper argumentation skills! It also cannot be said of other groups *for the same reasons.* For example, atheists are doomed to ignorance on some level because of their refusal to think God’s thoughts after Him. They likewise must in the nature of the case lack proper argumentation at some level because of their refusal, again, to think God’s thoughts after Him. Christians, on the other hand, have both knowledge and argumentation available to them within the context of the Christian worldview. You have demonstrated, via your comment about objective truth, that you are to be grouped with the unbelievers in the post. Finally, what is it with unbelievers always jumping to point out that they’re “not like those other unbelievers,” and how many instances of the poverty of fundamentalist atheist reasoning need I point out before atheists just admit that they are incapable of defending their view? Many are incapable of even *attempting* to do so.
“Also, fundamentalist atheism?”
Yes.
“Do you realize the linguistic problem with this phrase?”
No, and I suspect you do not either.
I appreciate that you read the post and took the time to comment, but try to think more carefully about what you are saying next time.
“I think you are just playing games with this.”
Well, you think wrong. What I point out in the thread is a basic philosophical observation. You may think that philosophy is just a game, but I disagree.
“Your statement (‘If I am to accept the truth of E, then I must have evidence upon which to accept the truth of E. Could you provide your evidence for E?’) only goes to verify E so the proposition answers its self.”
My statement does not *verify* E, it *assumes* E. I am calling that assumption into question by virtue of E (as E dictates I must!). I do not know what it means for a proposition to answer itself. Perhaps you mean that E is self-evident, but that would be a false claim.
“We could look at it a bit differently.
E: ‘you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.’
Since you provided the completion of the fragmented statement E (‘If I am to accept the truth’) we really need to look at E as ‘you have to provide evidence to back up your claim for me to accept its truth’.”
I do not see any relevant difference, but we can go with J: One has to provide evidence to back up one’s claim for someone else to accept its truth. J makes no difference to the point I highlighted in the post above.
“Now lets look at how silly this looks when we consider what you are actually saying.
[Chris] ‘must have evidence to accept the truth’ that [Chris] ‘has to provide evidence’ for [Suzane] ‘to accept the truth’.”
What I was actually saying is what is in the post above. I am only trying to be consistent with Suzane’s claim.
“This just seems absurd to me.”
Why?
Just a reminder, since this is a popular thread and the Admins will likely be yelling at me in a few minutes, see the Site Rules in the tabs at the top of the site.
“While we do allow comments on posts, we no longer allow nor will engage in debate through comments as well feel this detracts from our stated mission above. Comments are moderated, and any comments that we feel cross the line from genuine questions to an attempt to debate will simply not pass through moderation. For those interested in debating the merits of Presuppositional/Covenantal apologetics, the existence of God, etc. we offer an IRC channel that is open to the public.”
Thanks.
I wonder where you got this log, it is very much incomplete.
Chris Bolt arrived well into the second conversation I was having with some one and seemed completely oblivious to the other persons request that it be a dialogue. I think ordinary manners should dictate that one should at least familiarize oneself with what went before in a long conversation before one changes the topic. He also does not realize I did not start the conversation, nor am I the owner of the page he is speaking on. He also refused to start a new conversation on the nature of evidence.
I do wonder tho, does he think we are to believe everything we are told with no evidence what so ever ?
when reading the exchange that was linked to on Facebook i noticed that Suzane claimed to have read Plantinga’s work, but this matter of what was referred to as “E” is one of the primary discussions in Plantinga’s work, so Suzane is mistaken, did not understand what she read, or lying about having read Plantinga.
“I wonder where you got this log, it is very much incomplete.”
Did you read the post? The very first line states, “The following exchange is from a public atheist group on Facebook.” The post includes every one of my comments and every response to those comments. The full exchange is here – https://www.facebook.com/#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=224115744308165&id=224084207644652 I am not hiding anything. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“Chris Bolt arrived well into the second conversation I was having with some one”
As the post implies, “I am not completely sure how I was able to see this conversation, and I certainly do not have the time to join in and continue a discussion, but I did notice upon skimming the thread…” The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“and seemed completely oblivious to the other persons request that it be a dialogue.”
I did not see anyone’s request that the discussion be a dialogue, and the number of people involved in the conversation certainly gave no indication that it was a dialogue, but evidenced the opposite. If one wants to have a one-on-one discussion, there may be better mediums than a Facebook *Group* (or Page). In any event, you did not complain about this during our exchange, nor did you complain about it when other atheists jumped in to the conversation. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“I think ordinary manners should dictate that one should at least familiarize oneself with what went before in a long conversation before one changes the topic.”
I explained that I skimmed the post, and pointed out that you continued to make the claim E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.” I was not changing the topic. You made the claim prior to my arrival. I have already explained this as recorded in the post above. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“He also does not realize I did not start the conversation,”
First, it is irrelevant who started the conversation. Second, where did I ever claim that you did or did not start the conversation? How do you know what I did or did not “realize” with respect to whomever started the conversation? I didn’t, and you don’t. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“…nor am I the owner of the page he is speaking on.”
I never said that you are, though I commented, “this is your group and I respect your authority to run it as you please.” I did assume you are a member and more specifically of the same subculture and mindset as the “owner” of the group, but again, none of this is relevant. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“He also refused to start a new conversation on the nature of evidence.”
Did you actually read the post? I wrote, “As I mentioned when I jumped in, I do not have the time right now to continue, and so will not be starting another thread.” The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
“I do wonder tho, does he think we are to believe everything we are told with no evidence what so ever ?”
No, and nothing I have said would lead a logical thinker to attribute that thought to me. The concern is irrelevant to providing evidence for E.
Now, since you decided to come way over here and comment on my turf, could you please stop dodging my question and provide evidence for E? Thanks!
Chris,
I think there is more than one answer to the question you put forth of E. Here are two that should suffice.
1) E is an expression of what Suzane requires to be convinced of argument A. If it is just the case that E is what Suzane requires then the evidence of E is that Suzane has stated E.
2) Your requirement that Suzane provide E to support E is self defeating since without E you could not require E of E.
Thanks
stating E is insufficient evidence for E unless E is self-evident, which it is not. i take it that “without E” means “without E being true” but whether or not E is true is actually irrelevant to what E requires of itself (evidence).
Hey Bolt,
The fact that evidential claims can only contain a statistical likelihood of truth does not necessitate that it is not true. Just because my claim might be subjective does not mean it is therefore false. I could be lucky, I could be determinately false, or my correlations could be, in fact, causal. Whatever it may be there is nothing preventing my subjective claims of truth from being objective claims of truth.
Your line of argumentation is even past your presupposing of the Christian worldview. It presupposes the understanding of true objectivity. You must first presuppose you are a conscious being, then presuppose there is objective reality. Only then can you make it to positing God to post facto justify the presuppositions already made.
The futility of presuppositional apologetics is unfathomable. Because you must necessitate God’s existence in order to explain your world view, instead of actual engaging in argumentation, decide a dismissive approach and remove all ground for argumentation. I find it odd that one who clearly holds reason and the craft of debate so highly they would remove all means to engage in this debate.
The key to any philosopher is realizing what they are presupposing, and usually it is to their downfall. There is no empirical claim that proves God’s existence. There is no rational claim that proves God’s existence. That is why the last bastion of hope for the believer is to cling to presuppositions, or bare assertions as I refer to them, in order to salvage a poor argument.
I also enjoy how uncharitable you are with colloquial phrases, taking most sentences and equivocating from a common meaning into one that fits your agenda, its endearing really.
And yes, fundamentalist atheist is a contradictory phrase. Fundamentalism is strict adherence to a belief or ideology. Atheism is a negation of a belief and if understood properly, atheism is the result of the lack of convincing arguments. An atheist is only an atheist as long as there is no convincing argument to the contrary.
subjective truth has nothing to do with statistical likelihood or objective truth. the comment that subjective truth is objective truth is a blatant contradiction because the terms are opposites. Tyler’s whole comment can be dismissed since he thinks it is only subjectively true and it does not answer what C.L. Bolt was getting at in the post.
I will restate because clearly it hasn’t sunk in, the fact that my comment is subjective does not necessitate that the statement cannot be objectively true. Thinking that something subjective can suddenly be dismissed is fallacious reasoning.
Nowhere did I say that subjective truth IS objective truth. What I did say is that there is nothing contradictory about something subjectively known to also be objectively true. Please re-read and represent my arguments more carefully.
While I can claim that evidential claims based off of empirical data or axiomatic reasoning can approach a statistical likelihood of truth, you must fiat a multitude of presuppositions before you arrive at the Christian worldview and attain your “objective” knowledge. At least I understand my own presuppositions and how far my knowledge can extend.
And I am unsure of how my previous post did not properly address the comments by Bolt but considering you have a warped view or argumentation I can see how that is possible.
Tyler equated subjective and objective truth claims in the comment i responded to. he wants to take it back now that he has seen the error of his ways. note how he attempts to change the subject from that of the post to that of his own imagination regarding presuppositionalists.
>>> CHRIS BOLT: you continue to make a claim to the effect of E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.” But I find claim E odd, and I wonder, what evidence have you provided in support of E?
lol. This is hilarious. Is this the best you got? Chris Bolt. This proposition E is a fundamental principle of rationality. It is a form of “the principle of sufficient reason” as defined by Leibniz. To hold a belief you need a justification for it. No, you dont need justification to hold the belief that you need justification to hold a belief. Because this principle of sufficient evidence isnt something that we accept to be true, it is more like something we simply cannot choose to not accept to begin with! It is not an optional thing that we can choose to accept or not. It comes with the fabric of thinking itself. It is the rule of the game. You may say you dont want to play the game and you question the validity of that basic rule, then we are justified in dismissing you altogether. Because it is the game we play, among those people we call “rational people”. So we are justified in marking you as one not of rational people. That’s just what it is. Deal with it.
dios_mio is mistaken in saying that people must accept psr. there are many people who do not accept it. Michael Long is an atheist philosopher at goodnessovergod.blogspot.com who does not accept it. dios_mio did not make a persuasive case for accepting psr.
Who cares. If you want to come and tell me that you got this old book that has been revealed from God, then I am justified in asking for further reasons to accept what you say, instead just taking your word for it. This is the crux of the matter here. This is why ChrisBolt is posing this question about “justify principle E” to Suzane. Suzane did nothing but demand a reason from the Christian that she should consider the Bible anything more than an old book of legends and fables. And ChrisBolt says “who are you to demand reasons to accept a claim? can you prove that evidence is reuiqred to accept a claim?” Come on now. Is that what Christian apologetics has become? You make Thomas Aquinas turn in his grave. I dont think St.Paul would be very proud of you either. That is just dumb. And it is actually just showing how you just want to avoid the whole debate about evidence altogether. Why is that? It seems you are not very confident in your Bible and the truth of your religion. Why do you have to play such word games instead just tell us why this is true?
like many other atheists dios_mios resorts to name calling because he does not have the capacity for reasoned response. instead of satisfying the demands that E requires of itself or defending psr he dismisses crucial philosophical issues as word games.
You know what you are doing? You are only interested in making the discussion of whether the Bible is a revelation, or whether Jesus is the Messiah simply not possible or accessible anymore. You want to build this philosophical fortress around your faith, in a way that the atheist or the skeptic will be simply rejected and dismissed as failing to answer basic philosophical questions before he can even be qualified to discuss the tenets of your faith and question their validity.
This tells me only one thing. You are simply not confident in your religion or in your Bible. Otherwise why would you be so invested in securing it this way? Apparently you are simply not comfortable discussing things like the authorship of the Bible, and whether the things it tells are historical. You simply don’t want to go there. So you guys invented this neat trick where you can avoid the discussion of such important things by changing the topic. Permanently no less. The new topic is now the messy and bankrupt field of epistemology. Which ensures for you that the discussion will never come to the actual and relevant questions of the authorship, reliability and the historical accuracy of the Bible, and that is exactly what you want. So you can sleep at night, content and happy in your religion, feeling its aspirations to be the truth are unchallenged. Sorry but this must be the most cowardly form of apologetics ever invented.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” once said a wise man. Because they can take you for a ride with word games, and the real important and relevant issues will remain untouched.
dios_mio is terribly confused about the topic of the post which was not the Bible, its authorship, its historicity, Jesus as Messiah, or anything else even close to that. yet he believes that if he raises these topics on a post that does not pertain to them that I am not confident in my faith. exceedingly strange reasoning imo.
shadow, the topic of the post is all about how the presupper is again trying to divert the discussion from the Bible to epistemology. Suzane was asking a Christian about what evidence he has for his belief in the authority of the Bible (I presume), and Chris comes out of nowhere and starts questioning Suzane saying “can you justify your demand for evidence?” What kind of defence is this? What is he implying? That requiring evidence for beliefs is a dumb idea? I thought this principle was at the heart of whole human conversation.
I need to know. If the authority of the Bible is evident, and can be easily demonstrated, why is it that you presupp. type of people refuse to go there? Why do you want to smother the discussion in the details of epistemology? It looks like you are hiding something.
Yeah I get it. You want to show the atheist that without accepting the Bible he cannot even open his mouth, because his epistemology won’t add up, and he will be self contradicting. So you just want to say that “either accept the Bible without questioning., or just shut up”. I call this the apologetics of the lazy. Because this way you don’t really have to discuss all the messy details of the Bible, its authorship, history, logic, archaeology, and the like. You win by default, because hey, epistemology! Nobody’s buying it. Not even you. And you know it.
apparently dios_mio thinks that the topic of how one knows that God exists is something other than an epistemological discussion, but it is not. he still believes that the demand for evidence and psr are at the beginning of such discussions but still has not told us why they should be as requested in previous comments. instead of just answering the logically prior questions of the nature of evidence, why it is necessary, and when it is necessary, dios_mio lashes out in frustration at the presuppositionalist in a childish way.
>>> CHRIS BOLT: To restate the question for Laura, consider claim L: “you have to provide evidence to back up a claim.” What is the evidence you provide to back up this claim (L)? It is not that “without it, anything and everything can be true,” for the reasons explained above. Further, even without the reasons given above, the aforementioned response would constitute an argument from consequences and as such is fallacious.
Laura has a valid point. She actually meant to say “without that principle then anything and everything can be ACCEPTED to be true.” Which undermines any human prospect of understanding our environment. You are only misrepresenting her. Even your examples of pet dragon or jaguar show clearly that it is very human to simply require some good reason to accept something we hear. Because in your examples themselves you tell someone else about your pet dragon or your garage jaguar and the other person is confused and wonders if that can be true, because such reports are much different than “I had cereal this morning”. So the person who hears your story about your pet dragon or jaguar in your garage would feel the story is rather bizarre and unless he is a child or just a dumb gullible person he will inevitably have the feeling that perhaps the one reporting this story must have got something wrong in his own way of acquiring this information, or is just being deceptive on purpose. Either way, the principle of requiring a good reason is at work here, not because it is something we conciously choose to operate on unless we have learned from experience to be more skeptical of certain cultural stories, but rather because it is just the framework of human conversation and social activity in general. Nobody will demand proof for your assertion that you had cereals this morning, because there is no reason to doubt you may be lying about this, if it is in just casual chat that is, and not for instance in a court testimony that “during the time of murder I was at home, having cereal”.
Laura apparently thought that the truth of a matter is contingent on the evidence one has for a claim concerning that matter, which is bogus. dios_mio missed the point of the paragraph in question and his belief that Laura was misrepresented does not fly since Laura was actually quoted.
As per the need of evidence for the need of evidence- pick up nearly any episteomology text; I’d suggest the classic “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant as exemplifying the need for precise evidence and reasoning to know something and the limits of that knowledge. As to the bit about the animal in the forest claim, personal testimony can be evidence so long as other testimony does not contradict it and the claim is credible in and of itself. It is by no means iron-clad proof of any claim, but it is a beginning for proving one and thereby a form of evidence.
Laura apparently thought that the truth of a matter is contingent on the evidence one has for a claim concerning that matter, which is bogus. Derek missed the point of the paragraph in question since it is not about testimony. the paragraph is about the absurdity of the idea that truth is contingent upon evidence. i have read Kant but his epistemology is flawed and outdated. newer epistemology books discuss the very same topics raised in this post.
while the atheists did not answer the question here maybe the presuppositionalists could comment now whether they would accept E and why.
@shadow – interesting line of argumentation you have going on here. Consider Suzane’s assertion:
“E: “you have to provide evidence to back up your claims.””
I see a couple things going on here. First, “E” is itself a claim. If “E” is true, then Suzane should be willing to offer evidence to support the truth of E, as E is a universal and self-referencing assertion. “You have to provide evidence to back up your claims” is itself a claim. If it is a claim, and you have to provide evidence to back up your claims, then where is the evidence supporting *this* claim? If Suzane doesn’t offer such evidence, then it seems she wants us to make an exception for this claim of hers. Of course, she might appeal to the claim that it is common to expect evidence in support of a claim (but that is just another claim); she might appeal to this as a “self-evident” claim (which it isn’t); or, she might actually offer the evidence demanded by the claim itself. I am hoping for the last of the three.
Second, the real meat of the claim is found in the word “have”. As in, you *HAVE* to provide evidence to back up your claims. I think most presuppositionalists would agree with this, with the caveat that evidence is never understood/interpreted/accepted outside of a set of controlling presuppositions. The question is – why? On what possible basis could someone – anyone – make a normative claim about what someone *has* to do? From the Christian’s presuppositions, the answer is simple – we demand evidence in support of claims (as we are doing with the claim “E” above) because we understand the following about ourselves and the world around us:
a) Truth is to be valued
b) Mankind is not omniscient
c) Mankind is fallible (prone to mistakes) and even dishonest (prone to mislead)
d) God has provided a means for us to learn about his creation, despite our lack of omniscience, fallibility, and dishonesty
e) Evaluating evidence (within the proper set of presuppositions) is how we learn about God’s creation
So yes, I accept E, and for good reason.
BK
I disagree with “claim E”. You do not *have* to provide evidence to back up all claims. There are mundane claims that do not necessitate evidence. Think of how little we would accomplish in life if we required evidence for *every* claim.
In fact, no claims *require* evidence, however your claims may not be taken seriously unless you have evidence to back them up. That is because it is through evidence that we gain knowledge and a deeper understanding of the universe. And it is our knowledge of the universe that allows humans to survive and thrive on this planet. This is why we have good reason to greatly value evidence. However, there is no *necessity* for someone to back up their claims with evidence.
like the other atheists who comment on this post Nicholas tries to divert attention away from the atheist failure to answer the question posed to them by saying that he disagrees with E. disagreeing with E simply renders Nicholas incapable of responding on behalf of the atheists in the post who do agree with E. someone might restate the claims Nicholas makes as:
1.) claims will not be taken seriously without evidence to back them up
and
2.) evidence is a necessary condition of knowledge
Nicholas would need to say why 1 should be taken seriously and how 2 is known.
I’m not responding on behalf of the atheists in the post and furthermore you’ve mispresented what I’ve stated.
1) I stated claims *may* (might) not be taken seriously if one does not have evidence to back them up. I did not state that claims *will* not be taken seriously without evidence to back them up. Big difference there.
2) I never stated evidence was a necessary condition of knowledge. I stated we gain knowledge through evidence. There may be other means by which we gain knowledge besides evidence.
If you have another means other than evidence by which we may gain knowledge of the universe, by all means please share it with us. Thank you.
Nicholas missed my previous comment that he cannot respond on behalf of the atheists in the post because he disagrees with E while they do not. his comments do not pertain to the post. Nicholas does not think that a claim requires evidence to be taken seriously and does not think that evidence is necessary for knowledge so he will have no difficulty taking the claim of the Christian’s knowledge of God seriously.
The problem is you are over-generalizing. Not all claims are to be treated equally. If someone walks into the room and screams, “The house is on fire! Get out!” one doesn’t ask them for evidence to back up this claim. If one is a reasonable person and values their life, one would take the claim seriously and immediately vacate the house.
Or if someone makes the mundane claim that they are sitting on a chair, you have no reason to doubt this claim and there is nothing extraordinary about it so rather than wasting your time asking for evidence of this claim, you accept it and move on.
So clearly, one does not require evidence for every type of claim in order for that claim to be accepted as true. However, how does one handle existence claims, where the existence of something is in question? I think most people would agree that the best way to handle existence claims is by looking for evidence. If I claim x exists, then there should be evidence for the existence of x. If you have a better method of testing for the existence of things then I would be interested in hearing about it. But remember that in order for your method to be effective it must be able to reliably distinguish between what exists in reality and what is merely imaginary.
Regarding your statement about me having no problem taking Christian’s knowledge of God seriously… I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. There is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God and for this reason I do not accept the claim that the Christian God exists in any literal sense.
Nicholas continues to dig his hole deeper and demonstrates yet again that otherwise bright people are precluded from thinking critically when they fill their minds with atheistic drivel. on october 17 Nicholas told us that “there is no *necessity* for someone to back up their claims with evidence” but now wants to say that “there should be evidence for the existence of x,” etc. he requires evidence for belief in the existence of God and apparently thinks he knows everything, boasting that there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God. will Nicholas provide evidence for his claim that there exists no evidence for God? will Nicholas provide evidence for his now much softer claim that some claims require evidence? he will likely special plead, and do so while missing what i have repeatedly pointed out; he disagrees with the atheists in the post and so does not have anything of relevance to add to the comment thread.
There comes a point when it simply is pointless to continue carrying on a conversation. When the subject of conversation turns to evidence of the non-existence of evidence, one has reached that point.
as predicted Nicholas engages in special pleading, requiring that the theist provide evidence for claims while Nicholas makes sweeping, negative universal claims such as there being no evidence for the existence of God and refusing to provide any evidence (loosely conceived – support, reasoning, etc.) for his ridiculous claim. he likewise provides nothing in support of his softer claim that some claims require evidence. perhaps he finally sees that his comments do not pertain to the post, since he admits he does not agree with the atheists there anyway.
[…] Apparently Joe buys into the idea that only evidence matters, that everyone uses evidence to support everything, and even that every claim must be supported with evidence. But if every claim must be supported by evidence, then the claim, “every claim must be supported with evidence” must also be supported with evidence. However, atheists are typically exceedingly hesitant to provide such evidence or even to tell us what it might look like. Instead, they attempt to change the topic. (See for example this post.) […]