Tom Capuder#Theists:
Some of you think the evidence for #evolution is insufficient.
Where’s sufficient evidence for a #god
____________________
an #atheist vs #faith
myrmepropagandistI'm confused why anyone would want "evidence" for God. Isn't faith supposed to be an evidence-free activity?
Exactly, which is a good reason to oppose it.
For instance, in the case of evolution vs. creationism, evidence favors one side, and nothing but imagination is responsible for the other.
Faith is pretending to know things you don't know. And that's never a good basis for decision-making.
Evidence free activities have value. They can help us to understand how our ancestors may have seen the world. They can allow one to experiences a sense of mystery and feel a real connection to the religious traditions of the past.
It's just important to remember that they are "evidence free" and won't be able to really tell you anything useful in the empirical sense.
Why is it necessary to use evidence-free methods to understand how ancestors saw the world? We have enough evidence in writings and archeology to make informed judgements about ancestors' behavior.
I often experience "a sense of mystery" when I contemplate the world and universe. There's nothing wrong with not yet having answers to mysteries. It isn't advisable, however, to provide pat, soothing, imaginary "answers."
We've learned so much as a species that it's no longer necessary to revere religious traditions of the past, none of which have any place in the real world of today, IMO. They should be assigned to the dustheap of discarded mythologies.
One of the biggest benefits to recognizing and keeping evidence free activities a part of human culture is the simple fact that if you eliminate them someone will re-invent them off to the side and they'll come back without the protective wrapper of awareness that they are evidence free.
"It feels like I'm gaining knowledge about the truths of the universe, this has been hidden from us!"
Now blind faith is back and and causing problems.
People have constantly invented, reinvented, and adapted "evidence free activities," and no doubt would continue to do so.
There's no protective wrapper for theists. Believers generally think they have evidence for their beliefs (of course, it's not good, credible evidence, but mainly personal "revelation," anecdotes, or ancient books of fables.) It's only those outside a belief system who have the protective wrapper.
All "evidence free activities" are blind faith by definition.
So if I go to church and enjoy the music and the social life, and the mythology, but don't literally believe in the religion it's "blind faith" --
If I tell a ghost story and while I'm telling the story ghosts seem like they are real, but they obviously aren't that's just part of enjoying the story ... that's blind faith?
[sorry, didn't address this when I first posted it]
If you enjoy the music etc. but don't believe, that's not blind faith. If you believe the doctrine, you can only believe it with blind faith.
If you enjoy a ghost story and you know it isn't real, that's not blind faith. If you believe that ghosts exist, that's blind faith.
Please don't twist my words.