Transworldly Depraved

One position taken by many contemporary theistic philosophers is to draw a distinction between public and private evidence for theistic belief. This distinction is related to another distinction often drawn between "knowing that a claim is true" and "being able to demonstrate that a claim is true". The idea is that rationally believing a proposition is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that the proposition is true.

A good example that brings out both distinctions is found in Hitchcock's North by Northwest when Cary Grant's character is photographed pulling a knife out of the victim's back. Surely it was rational for everyone to believe that Grant's character was guilty and yet not rational for Grant's character to believe he was guilty. Now suppose that the only public evidence that is ever forthcoming is the photograph. Now Grant's character would be rational in believing on the basis of his knowledge of what he was doing and what he did (ie. private evidence) that he did not kill the man and also not be capable of demonstrating it to anyone else.

The sorts of evidence theists usually appeal to in arguing for a god's existence include the fact that a complex physical universe exists, the fact that it is orderly in various ways, and facts about conscious beings such as ourselves. Most of these purported evidences are public in the sense that they are equally accessible to all normal human beings of at least average intelligence.

However, the theists mentioned at the beginning of the post also believe that God would not require people to believe in his existence on the basis of such arguments. Rather, their god would want a more personal relationship with human beings and that would include his directly presenting himself to them in experience. These direct experiences would not require an inference as in the case of typical arguments for God's existence. And such experiences are private.

So we have purported evidence dealing with observations of the physical world including testimony of religious experiences. These will include our public evidence. In addition, the theist would believe he has private evidence in his own purported direct experiences of his god.

Are there any theists here who reason along these lines and thus believe that both atheists and theists can be rational in accepting their positions?

Jerry Smith

Poor analogy. In the case of the analogy from N by NW, the Rationalist would correctly count the evidence as supporting the hypothesis that Grant committed the crime. However, the rationalist would also have to admit that, in absense of other 'public evidence', no firm conclusion could be drawn - further research would be needed. Of course, if Grant was innocent, his 'private evidence' would so indicate. However, short of being able to produce 'public evidence', he would still be acquitted by the Rationalist.

With Theism, you come to a different scenario. The 'public evidence' is plenty to convict at least the Christian God of non-existence, and if the 'private evidence' if it contravenes this public evidence, must represent either the extremely unlikely case of a fact that is strongly countermanded by the 'public evidence', or the more likely case of a misconstruction of subjective experience by the Theist.

Atheists, naturally, opt for the more likely conclusion - a misconscruction of subjective experience on the part of the Theist.

A side note: If you haven't watched this film classic, North by Northwest, I think it would be worth your time!!

Silent Dave

I would say that there is no such thing as private evidence, that evidence that cannot be objectively demonstrated and considered is not evidence at all. In the case of North By Northwest, a movie that I grew up with, Thornhill would be able, at least in principle, to demonstrate that he was innocent of the stabbing; he was standing next to the victim when the incident occured, and a bad guy threw the knife into his back from the other side of the room. A good forensicist would be able to determine, from the angle and what have you of the knife, that it was thrown rather than shoved into the guy's back.


H

Vorkosigan

It sounds like the distinction between "public evidence" and "private evidence" is really the difference between "reason" and "faith," respectively.

Michael

Transworldly Depraved

Jerry Smith:

You said:

I stipulated that no other evidence besides the photograph (and perhaps eyewitnesses) was forthcoming. I think that if one were to see someone pulling a knife out of someone's back one would be justified in believing they killed that person.

I doubt that everyone is always in a position to convince others of beliefs they are warranted in holding. Surely, there have been people imprisoned on the basis of strong public evidence who were nonetheless innocent.

In addition, there are plenty of mundane examples of private evidence. Consider memory. I might remember having a bagel for breakfast last Friday. There is no public evidence to support that I had a bagel for breakfast last Friday. But surely I am warranted in believing I did on the basis of my memory.

phaedrus

Umm, this is nitpicking on my side.
However, isnt the belief in "public evidence" also a matter of faith? Our faith in those who have gathered the evidence and methods used to gather the evidence and the absence of any bias while gathering the same?

Vorkosigan

Not unless you think the combination of standardized organization of information, intersubjective confirmation, arbitrary and agreed upon methods of representation, mathematical modeling, and empirical testing are acts of "faith." In which case, you've rendered the whole enterprise pretty pointless.

Sure, I have faith in science, just like I have faith in my parents or my wife. But that is a belief based on past experience, and justifed thereby. "Faith" as it is used in a religious sense means "unjustified by past experience, reason, or logic."

Transworldly Depraved

turtonm:

You said:

I doubt any reflective theist would permit you to simply define them as irrational. If you insist that the word faith must mean "unjustified by past experience, reason, or logic", then the reflective theist will probably say they do not have faith. But they would admit that they believe a god exists.

phaedrus

Faith in your parents and wife is based on privae evidence or public? And your faith in science is based on private evidence or public?

Ender

At it again, eh, Phaedrus? You're like an ex-junkie who encountered his first chance at a fix after a month in detox.

In the case anybody's interested in my pennies, the concept "private evidence" holds very little cash value in philosophy these days after Wittgenstein.

~WiGGiN~