What is Reasonable Evidence?
What is "reasonable evidence," though? Is there any way to define the concept in a manner that is independent of the position a person is attempting to prove? What would make evidence "reasonable" and how do you differentiate between cases where a person is being unreasonable for not accepting it and being reasonable because your evidence isn't actually so good in the first place?
Mystery of Iniquity writes:
What difference does evidence make to things we believe anyway? Philosophers and theologians tell us that in order to engage in true debate, we must base our conclusions on sound evidence. But what is “sound” evidence? Reasonable evidence to some is hardly reasonable evidence to others.
All you have to do is follow the debates here on the Internet to know that no one accepts another’s evidence unless they experience it for themselves, yet they still claim they can convince others of the propositions they put their faith in. Hardly anyone is convinced by debate, so why do we engage in it? In fact, more hurt feelings and vicious responses are generated by Christian/Christian and Christian/Atheist debate than any other discourse.
The writer here is making good points that should be taken seriously. Still, I think it's possible to break out of one's subjective perspective to get a better handle on what should qualify as "reasonable evidence" for their position — and thus to see whether their position really is reasonable in the first place. I don't think it's always easy, and I won't claim that it's always successful, but I think that people should try.
It's important, I believe, to pay closer attention to the insight, alluded to above, that what is "reasonable evidence to some is hardly reasonable evidence to others." We all think we have reasonable evidence for our positions that others won't accept even as we deny the presence of reasonable evidence for others' positions. Instead of just focusing on our own predicament, however, we should stop to look at the situation others are facing.
Specifically, we should look more closely at the flaws we have identified in others' arguments and think about what sorts of arguments and evidence would force us to take their claims more seriously. When we are doing this, we are not being biased in favor of our own pet theories — we are being as critical as we can, perhaps even too critical. This, then, is what we should try to turn back around against our pet theories. We should demand the same standards from ourselves that we require of others; we should criticize the same flaws in ourselves that we criticize in others.
So, what is reasonable evidence for our position? It's evidence that we would accept for a position we don't already believe and perhaps are even a bit hostile towards — if we can't muster that much evidence on behalf of our claims, then we don't have enough yet. This doesn't mean our claims are wrong, or even that the evidence we have thus far is not fair, but if we want to convince others we should have enough that would convince ourselves if we were them.
Comments
I guess the reason I reject the ressurection story is because I do not believe that a dead biological organism can be restored to life. But, my mind is open! Get a toad that’s been on the freeway for 3 days and raise it from the dead. If this can be demonstrated to me, Then I will become a believer. That’s all I ask. Just…Show me. Is this an unreasoable position to take?
Try this for a definition: “reasonable evidence” for any religious/faith-type concept or philosophy (there are gods, there are no gods, this god exists but not that one, etc) is any evidence that, if it had gone the other way, would’ve caused you to abandon your present philosophy/belief and embrace a philosophy/belief that you currently oppose. If one is not sincerely prepared to abandon one’s beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, or how self-evident, then the whole concept of “reasonable evidence” is just sophistry; figure out what you want to believe, then define as “reasonable” that which supports it.
I was prepared to accept and endorse atheism if the results of a particular “metaphysical test” during a crisis had gone in the direction natural order & the laws of probability demanded. But I was forced by the above principle to abandon atheism when the evidence showed that the particular deity, whom I had challenged to prove him/her/itself, had responded by standing the laws of probability and causality on their collective noggins. Atheism was a more rational, more easily defended viewpoint, but I will not be a hypocrite. The evidence went the opposite way I had “believed” it would go; very well, my world-view was flawed. The world-view, not the evidence, nor the standard of evidence, must be revised.
BTW, said deity was not part of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim pantheon, so the jury is still out on that lot.
In my experience, people don’t know as much about the laws of probability and statistics as they think they do.
“…said deity was not part of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim pantheon…”
Was it perhaps Crom, the God of Conan, the Barbarian?
“Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That’s what’s important! Valor pleases you, Crom… so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!” -Conan
Do you want to live forever?
Evidence is reasonable when it is understood within a context of ideas. It remains reasonable as long as it can stand up to challenges. No evidence is or will ever be infallible, because context always changes.
The blogger wrote:
“Philosophers and theologians tell us that in order to engage in true debate, we must base our conclusions on sound evidence. But what is “sound” evidence?”
What theologian ever said that!?
Having a strong interest in paganism, I would be VERY interested in which non-Judeo-Christian diety did answer the contributers prayer.
@ Sunder Addams: Which deity are you talking about / receiving communications from? Inquiring minds want to know.
“What theologian ever said that!?”
The one who felt that ’sound’ evidence involved the SOUND of a priest proslytising from the pulpit ….