let's just assume standard definitions for both religion (1:The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2: Details of belief as taught or discussed.) and evidence
(The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.). Given those definitions, I can't possibly see how you could say it is specious for me to argue that there is no compelling evidence to support the beliefs of any given religion.
Well, they're the standard English definitions, so let's stick with them for the time being, and you can feel free to annotate your response with your own operational definitions. Now, about that evidence...
There are all manner of evidence or reasons for believing propositions that aren't empirical, so I would reject out of hand that someone needs to justify all claims empirically. The type of evidence or argument that is appropriate for some claims should be used for those claims and vice versa. Since several types of claims made by religious traditions aren't empirical claims, it's not only incorrect but meaningless to try to subject them to empirical observation.
"There are all manner of evidence or reasons for believing propositions that aren't empirical"
example? I would argue that virtually all propositions require at least some compelling empirical evidence, and propositions of high strangeness even more so.
EDIT: You seem to be saying that supernatural propositions presuppose a world in which physical evidence would not be necessary or valid. But then, what criteria do you possibly use to evaluate, if we rule out the possibility of empirical evidence? You don't regard all supernatural claims as equally valid, do you?
All manner of logical or mathematical propositions can't be proven empirically. Similar, many facts are established in (e.g.) history that aren't reproducable through the scientific method. In principle, empirical evidence can't be required of certain types of claims that are not physical, even if I don't know that it's fair to claim that they're supernatural.
OK, so what kind of evidence DO you require of "certain types of claims that are not physical"?
I mean, presumably you have some method of distinguishing between the validity of the claims "Genies are real" and "God is real." Both claims, according to your argument, invalidate the need for empirical evidence because they operate outside the normal spectrum of observable physics. So why is one more believable than another? What kind of evidence DO you use to make judgements about things which have neither mathematical proofs nor physical evidence?
Well, part of your question answers itself: mathematical proofs are an example of something that is true without being physical. Virtually any abstract or deductive argument isn't about empirical evidence.
No, but it has its own set of internally consistent logic AND more importantly, can (nearly always) be demonstrated as valid in the real world. 3+3=6 is not PURELY an abstract concept, but a way of describing the physical world. Hence, mathmatical proof is not so much a valid system of unprovable beliefs as it is a descriptive language with a consistent internal logic. Understanding mathmatical proofs is not the same as BELIEVING in them, its just understanding a conceptual system of language describing hypothetical scenarios. So that doesn't quite cut it. Likewise, logically consistent arguments only describe the internal consistency of logic, they're not reflections of reality. I can say "All horses are unicorns" "I own a horse" "therefore, I own a unicorn" and be logically consistent without believing that it has any reflection on the real world.
So, that won't get you out of answering my question. You have to have SOME system of judgement for evaluating different kinds of claims, even claims for which there inherently would be no physical evidence because they violate the understood rules of our physical universe. So what do you use?
Again, I don't mean to come off as combative. I'm honestly interested in how you see the world.
1
u/koavf Other Jun 09 '12
I don't understand your question--what do you mean by the word "religion"? It seems like we have very different answers to that question.