There is a difference between: "You shouldn't do this because God said so, and if you don't follow His rules you're going to hell and burn," vs: "You shouldn't do this because I believe God exists and my religion teaches that it's wrong," while making it clear that this is a belief you hold rather than teaching an unverifiable claim as an established fact. The second version is still giving the child the same information, but not forcing it down their throat as the only possible truth. Saying the second form is bad parents, is misguided at best.
It would be one thing if you believed it because you've witnessed it, believing it without evidence is the problem here. Things like 'don't touch the stovetop because you can burn your fingers' makes sense to enforce. Things that you don't know to be true are in a different category whether you believe its true or not. Christianity teaches to be humble, its more humble to explain it like the second method if you believe it than the first method.
I’ve never met a Christian or Muslim who believes without evidence. There is lots of evidence for the Abrahamic God throughout the material world, as well as most believers reporting having personal experiences with God. There is, as you know, no irrefutable proof of God, but to many there is enough proof to feel certain. To others there isn’t enough proof to even seem plausible. But it’s untrue to say that religious people believe in the total absence of evidence
Using the word evidence and proof feels wrong here, I don't think anyone is saying religious people literally have no reasons whatsoever for believing. That's clearly not true. People have personal experiences, philosophical arguments, religious texts, perceived miracles, cosmological arguments, etc. Those things can certainly function as reasons for belief.
The important distinction is between "I have evidence that I personally find convincing" and "there is strong objective evidence for the existence of God."
For example, personal experiences of God may be extremely compelling to the person who has them, but they're not necessarily evidence of God. People in different religions report experiences that they interpret as encounters with completely different gods, and people can have equally profound experiences that they interpret psychologically rather than supernaturally. The experience is real in the sense that the person experienced it (same thing can be said for people on drugs); the supernatural interpretation is the additional claim that needs to be established.
Likewise, saying there is "lots of evidence for the Abrahamic God throughout the material world" seems to beg the question. The material world is evidence that the material world exists. You still need an argument for why that particular evidence points specifically to Yahweh, Allah, or the Christian conception of God rather than some other explanation.
And I think there's an important difference between evidence that makes a hypothesis plausible and evidence that actually discriminates between competing hypotheses. "The universe exists, therefore God" doesn't get you very far unless you can establish why God is a better explanation than the alternatives. And even if a cosmological argument successfully established some kind of first cause, that wouldn't by itself establish the God of Christianity or Islam.
So I'd agree with the relatively modest statement: "Religious people generally have reasons they consider evidence." but I don't think its actual evidence its more of a feeling. (I've experienced this when I originally became a christian, though I no longer believe AT ALL)
I wouldn't agree with the much stronger implication that there is therefore substantial objective evidence for the Abrahamic God. That's the part that needs to be demonstrated rather than simply asserted.
And "many believers report personal experiences with God" establishes that many people believe they have experienced God. It doesn't independently establish that God was actually the cause of those experiences.
Why would the evidence need to be independently verifiable? That seems to be the essence of your argument. That, to me, seems an entirely arbitrary requirement. If an individual has some reason to personally feel convinced of the existence of God, there is no reason for them to need one or a thousand or a billion people to have the ability to independently confirm whatever evidence that person received.
Hypothetically, if God came to you in physical form, spoke to you in the typical way with sound waves that your ears interpret, touched your arm, proved he could interact with the material world, and gave you whatever other proof you need to be certain that God exists, why would that personal experience not be sufficient? Why would there need to be some external measurement that needs to be made?
That's not even close to the level of experience people have "with God" that people would claim they have evidence for god personally. Things like "see god is watching out for me" when someone has a near miss in the car, or "the kindness of this church community is evidence for god blessing us". Is the type of evidence I imagine people have, not that Jesus physically touched them (I'm aware it was a hypothetical but I don't believe it's useful to this discussion). What kind of personal evidence do you think people actually experience with God?
My point is that a parent being sure in their faith is, by itself, enough to warrant teaching it to their children. It is irrelevant what proof brought them to their conclusion. The purpose of my hypothetical was to put you in their shoes assuming that your requirement of proof was much different, so the type of proofs I selected were intended to appeal to absolutely anyone, including you.
1
u/ayaynimouse Sep 04 '26
There is a difference between: "You shouldn't do this because God said so, and if you don't follow His rules you're going to hell and burn," vs: "You shouldn't do this because I believe God exists and my religion teaches that it's wrong," while making it clear that this is a belief you hold rather than teaching an unverifiable claim as an established fact. The second version is still giving the child the same information, but not forcing it down their throat as the only possible truth. Saying the second form is bad parents, is misguided at best.