Why is Evidence Important?

When discussing spiritualism, philosophy or religion it doesn’t take long to encounter the apparent impasse of “but concept X might be right”, where the concept is not falsifiable. Most of us with an empirical bent are content to ditch these ideas, because the lacking or counter evidence is often compelling enough. But I want to look at what happens when we don’t, and why a belief contrary to evidence is a no-win risk. To take a belief in something contrary to (or without) evidence is the colloquial (and less misleading) definition of the word ‘faith’. The “risk” we’re talking about can also be hugely variable; it could be as little as some of our time or as much as the welfare of a nation. Either way, I’m going to assume there is something lost by believing in a falsehood, as in reality there nearly always is.

So. We have our belief that is neither provable nor disprovable, as all persistent faiths necessarily are. We have no substantial supporting evidence for this faith, perhaps even evidence against it, but ultimately it is not disprovable. It might be true, the adherents stubbornly insist, and What (as a Liberty University student once fatefully asked Richard Dawkins) if you’re wrong?

Continue reading

Logical Take on Theism

The essence of my argument is that God does not exist, and that this can be proved from a logical perspective. It can also be argued that, while the logical perspective is often denounced as inadequate for ‘spiritual’ questioning, it is nevertheless the only truly objective measure of truth. Everything my senses tell me could well be a lie; but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt as I have no real reason to suspect so, and to distrust them is not going to gain me anything.

Likewise, the reasoning of fundamental logic (if A /= B, B cannot equal A) might well be false when talking about God. Yet I have no reasons to suppose, while describing all the workings of the universe*, they are wrong about this one particular issue. Continue reading