Kassiana

ybnormal:
Yeah, right! Xians have exhibited such a fine respect for man's laws while helping to hide the thousands involved with the child molesting priests over the past half century. Yeah, we should feel free to just turn the whole of our justice system over to the fine catholics and their other xians cohorts in this country.

Kass:
Uh, YB, the original question was directed at theists, which includes believers in Shinto, Paganism, Islam, etc. Your rant about Christians really doesn't apply to the starting quote here.

Christians also came up with the idea of universal salvation, worked for social justice for years, and started hospitals. Going to credit the good ones with their good while you're busy bashing the bad ones for badness?

GunnerJ

While I'm not to fond of the way the OP stated things, I'm going to offer a defense.

Exactly. She is a reliable witness. Notice the difference between the situation you mention and a trial, where you may never have even met the person making an accusation. (And where, in this situation, it was specifically stated that the witness was of poor or questionable reliability.)

Seebs, are you claiming that your religious beliefs are less serious to you than a murder accusation? If so, I will commend you for your clear-headedness, but I think it was clear that the OP was assuming the stance of most religionists; that their supernatural claims are many times more serious that a murder.

But, are you further claiming that your religious beliefs are about as serious in their implications for you as your wife telling you she saw one of your friends at the supermarket?

A counter question such as this relies on a very flawed understanding of what constitutes a mundane explaination versus an extrodinary one. An extrodinary claim is not merely one that falls outside of an individual's experience, it is one that is simply implausible and inconsistant with an individual's experience about how the world works.

I'm sure you can tell the difference between "I was in another country" as an alabi even if you've never traveled abroad, and "I was on the moon" as an alabi. And I'm also certain you can tell the difference between that last alabi and "I was dead for three days while the crime took place, but magically came back to life the Sunday after the crime" as an alabi.

(EDIT) Further, it should be stated that an extrodinary claim is not to be dissmissed out of hand, it simply requires a great deal of evidence to be taken seriously.

Problematically for this reply, happyboy claimed that religious belief and critical thinking don't mix, not religious people and critical thought.

Cap'n Jack

Can we trust religious jurors? Oh hold on its the same thing.

seebs

Ahh, but her say-so wouldn't be, in my mind, proof of criminal guilt, without some kind of evidence beyond what she says.

My standards of proof for criminal law are different from the ones I use for other things.

"more serious" is not the only determinant of the standards of proof. Many mathematical results are of no importance whatsoever, but to accept one, I will require a formal proof. Scientific results, I generally want good evidence and reproducibility.

The standard, at least in the U.S., for criminal guilt, is a very high standard indeed, intentionally set that way to minimize the chance of innocent people being convicted. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high standard in my mind.

I would say that my religious beliefs are things I believe to be true, but I would not say I have seen them proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". I would say I have seen it shown beyond a reasonable doubt that I will never see a *real* proof either way, and as such, I have decided to accept a lower standard of proof, and levels of evidence that I would not use to convict people of crimes.

Partially as a result of this, I am opposed to the legislation of moral standards I derive from my religious beliefs. I will support only laws that I think are necessary for a functioning society.

No, they're much more serious - however, they are also about a kind of thing in which evidence is harder to come by.

Consider, if you will, moral claims. I have never heard of plausible *evidence* for a moral claim, of the sort of "killing is evil". What would "evidence" for such a thing look like? We hooked someone up to an evilometer, then had him murder someone, and look, he was three point two millidevils worse?

Indeed. It was intentionally a little off, just as I feel the OP's characterization of theists was a little off. Most theists I know are well aware that the world normally follows predictable and consistent rules, and that things normally produce evidence. If we didn't think this, why would we refer to exceptions as "miracles" rather than "oh, gosh, look, another divine healing".

Agreed. I'm sure most theists can. I think the OP's allegation is based, once again, on the idea that religious people are not aware that the normal day-to-day functioning of the world is fairly consistent.

Sure - but since "extraordinary" is an almost entirely subjective descriptor, that hardly helps.

To make a point that hurts both our cases, consider Joe Fundie who considers "some people are born gay" an extraordinary claim. Nearly anything can be turned into an "extraordinary claim" by someone with a dogmatic belief system. I've met pseudo-objectivists who will not accept any explanation of behavior that includes altruism; they want to know what you think you were getting for doing something, and will *not believe* any explanation that doesn't answer that question.

I am aware of that. However, the habits of critical thinking, it seems to me, are very hard to break. Most of the religious people I know are quite fond of critical thinking, and use it extensively when considering claims made about religion. I admit that not all of them do, but enough do that I think it's pretty clear that religious belief can coexist just fine with critical thinking.

GunnerJ

I think you missunderstood me. I was claiming that she is a reliable witness not for a murder trial, but for the many things you claim to take your wife's word at face value for. There's a problem with replying as you did that I will point out later.

Pardon me, allow me to clarify: you admit that you hold your religious beliefs to a lower standard of proof than a murder accusation. From this, can we imply that the consequences of your religious claims being true are less serious than those of a murder conviction, which you seem to take seriously, based on your statement that you would believe claims by your wife about her day because "believing her does not pose a high risk of an innocent person being locked up for a crime he didn't commit"?

But why? This is the veiled question of the OP: Why do you hold your religious beliefs to a lower standard of proof than that of a murder trial? Are your religious beliefs less serious in their implications? Are you lowering your standard for your religious beliefs just because you want to believe them? You are aware that if no evidence can be found one way or another, the principle of the burden of proof suggests that the negative claim is the more logical one. Are you trying to escape this in lowering your standards for religious claims?

I'm very glad to hear this. You must understand, though, that the OP was aimed at religionists who DO take their beliefs seriously enough to try and legislate based on them. As such, they should be called to answer why we should take their religious claims seriously if they are not willing to subject them to the same standards as a murder accusation.

The problem is, the OP is asking why you don't hold the same standard of proof for religious claims as for a murder conviction. Your answer, that you take most things your wife says at face value, seems to imply that your religious beliefs have as much gravity, in terms of consequences in your life, as your wife telling you about things that happened in her day.

You say that the evidence for your beliefs is "harder to come by." Is this to imply that there is evidence for it? After you claimed that there's no proof one way or another?

I'm pretty sure you and I can both agree this is a ridiculous straw man. I think you're capable of realizing other types of evidence besides that which can be found from the analysis of electrical devices.

One evidence for the immorality of murder is the negative effects it has on society, on the psychology of the victim's loved ones, and on the victims themselves.

Unfortunately, this is the entire point of the OP: why do religionists accept certain claims at a very low standard of proof, while keeping a high standard for most other claims? This wouldn't be an interesting question, accept that most religionists ask that their religious claims be taken at least as seriously, or more seriously, than a murder accusation, to the point of asking us to base laws on them.

On the surface, yes... but I'm willing to give the benefit of the dobt here and speculate that the deeper meaning was to find out why religionists compartmentalize their thoughts so, instead of applying the same standards to all their beliefs.

I'm sorry, but, "helps" what? I was merely letting you know that should someone present me with an extrodinary claim, I wouldn't simply "dismiss" it as you claimed a skeptic would, I would ask for the evidence to support such a claim.

Well seebs, I hate to say it, but this is, to me, an extrodinary claim, firstly because it has been my experience that critical thinking destroys the logic used to support religious beliefs, and because you have previously admitted that you, yourself, deliberately lower the standard of proof for religious claims, rather than applying the same rigorous critical methods to them as you would other claims (at least this is how I interpreted your statements, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Can you provide some evidence that critical thinking skills, such as those needed to accurately analyze a murder accusation, are used by many religionists to evaluate their beliefs?

Amie

you just sound like some pissed off, bitter non believer...

seebs

My point is only that different things suggest different standards. There is a socially defined standard for criminal guilt which imposes a very high standard of evidence.

I do not accept the "principle of burden of proof". I think that the burden of proof means that, if you want to change someone's mind, you have to convince that person. That's it. That's all the burden of proof there ever is. Whatever I believe now has no burden of proof to me; only active evidence against it is reason to change my mind.

Because they're very different kinds of claims; also see below on the general problem of moral claims.

It seems that way, but the intent is just to show that I have no problem with different standards (not necessarily lower or higher; merely different) in different fields of inquiry.

Yes. I have personal experiences, as do many of my friends, which we take as evidence in favor of our religious beliefs. It's not proof; if it were, I'd have knowledge, not faith.

In many cases, in a murder investigation, there isn't enough evidence to convict - but the accused is in fact guilty. When forming opinions, I use standards of proof that are in general more flexible - but at the same time, I'm much more willing to change my opinions than the average jail is to let someone out when new evidence arises.

All you've done is assert that harm is bad. Why? There's no evidence; you just happen to believe this. I have yet to see anyone offer evidence in favor of the *premises* of a moral system.

We make 'em up. We feel that way. We talk about it at length. Philosophy is subject to discourse, not evidence. There is no "proof".

Someone can say "yeah, the negative effects you see are what this world needs", and what can you say? You can disagree. You can call him "crazy". But you can't offer *EVIDENCE* that he's wrong.

Everyone who has ever wanted a law passed has done so based on beliefs about "how the world should be", for which there is no evidence.

Probably for much the same reason I have different standards for mathematics and science. Philosophy is another branch of thought, and one in which I am inclined to accept "good arguments" with neither evidence nor proof, because in the end, all I have is my gut instincts.

And yet, the level of evidence required may be beyond that we would expect to see for actual events in the real world - in which case, we probably won't get it.

I don't lower or raise it. It's a different standard entirely, just like my other standards are all different.

In science, I want repeatability. In history, I want corroboration, but can accept a lack of repeatability (or indeed control groups). In mathematics, I want proof, and all the "evidence" in the world won't convince me. In philosophy and morals, I want convincing arguments, but I'm well aware that "convincing" is largely a question of emotional response and instinct, so I understand that my results are inevitably tentative and subject to reconsideration.

I don't know what constitutes "many", and "religionists" is a sorta weird word. I can observe that I debate theology with many of my friends, both in meatspace and over on ChristianForums, and most of them seem very interested in trying to reason and learn about their beliefs.

In the end, though, the basic element is most often "belief in God" which is, for me at least, pretty much down to primary experience. Trying to convince me there's no God is about like trying to convince me I have no free will. I have an experience for which that is the best name; any debate will, at most, convince me that my understanding of mechanisms is flawed.

ybnormal

Well, Kass, this may be one of those pot-kettle moments don't you think? You do go on about we Pagans immediately before chiding me for going on about xians. (are you saying that xians ain't theists?) And xians are pretty much in charge of our judicial system, and xians make up some 80+% of the potential jury pool, so I figure my post was as on topic as one regarding Pagans, what with their potential in any given jury pool. Otherwise, I don't know how xian hospitals are on topic either.

Peace!

wildernesse

I was unaware that our judicial system was currently run by atheists or other non-believers. Thank you for informing me of this, I will no longer stress about my law school app--as a theist, you certainly won't feel free to turn over any control of the system to me.

--tibac

ybnormal

[error]