Re: [lojban] krici (was: Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 02:33 PM 03/20/2001 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Using the common English definition of "evidence" (sense data or
> >information), there is never any belief without evidence.
> >
> >Using the technical epistemological definition of "evidence"
> >(propositions), which includes subliminal "obvious facts", there is never
> >any belief without evidence.
>
> That is an odd definition of evidence to me; "obvious facts" are NOT
> evidence.  By my understanding, the supernatural BY DEFINITION is that
> which does not manifest "natural" evidence of its existence.  Belief in God
> or in angels seems to require belief.

> Furthermore, abstract principles do not manifest sensorially.  That "all
> men are created equal" could be treated as an assumption if it were
> negotiable, but for someone who considers it a basic truth of the universe,
> it is a belief, and I don't see what "evidence" applies to this belief.


It's negotiable when discussing with somebody that disagrees, no?

When people say "all men are created equal", they mean that people
should ideally be treated equally under the law, without concern for their
social rank. As as ideal, this is a type of desire. This is a creed, but
it is not a statement about reality. Therefore, no evidence is applicable; the
concept of evidence for such a statement is meaningless.

But people have evidence that makes them follow one creed or another.
People observe life, and draw conclusions on the ideal state of humanity,
and how it can be achieved. These are very controversial, not because
there's insufficient evidence but because there is too much evidence.
Enough to support contradicting creeds!



> I strongly associate my definition of belief with the word "faith", and as
> commonly used means that you hold your beliefs even in the face of apparent
> evidence that contradicts that belief.


But this assumes there is an initial block of evidence to start with.
Beliefs really don't spring up in the mind self-created. There's a lack of
skepticism and critical thought, not evidence.

I defy you to produce a religious person that claims there is no evidence
for their religion. They'll point to the Sun, plant leaves, and crying
babies for their evidence! The following paragraph can given as evidence
of God's wise design:




-----
"The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed
with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups
strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give
man something with which to compare himself; and he had created
man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.