A recent discussion with an atheist friend gave me the inspiration for this topic. To avoid making this really long-winded, I'll summarize the important part of the conversation...
To be honest, I really didn't know how to respond to that other than by repeating what I already said.
What do you think of his statement that beliefs based on personal experience or anecdotal evidence are "unreasonable"? How would you respond to someone who questioned why you believe what you believe when you don't (and can't) know with complete certainty whether you're really right or not?
Him: Theism is not a reasonable position because there is no objective evidence to support it. There is no good reason to simply believe in any god or gods without proof that they actually exist.
Me: People in the pagan community talk about this issue all the time when we question whether we're really communicating with deities or hearing voices in our heads or just talking to ourselves. Polytheists usually acknowledge that we have no objective evidence that these deities exist, but our personal subjective experiences indicate that they do (or at least might) exist. That is all the evidence we need to support our beliefs.
Him: Anecdotal evidence is worthless in science and law, so why would you base your worldview on it? Those personal experiences you had probably have a psychological or physiological basis, and you just said you're aware that that might be the case, so why wouldn't you just accept the most reasonable conclusion instead of stretching to say "maybe it was a god"?
Me: My subjective experiences have influenced many different aspects of my worldview, so why should my religion be exempt to that? I think the more important question is why objective evidence is superior to subjective evidence in this situation. The only people who require objective evidence to accept my beliefs as valid are people other than me - and I have no desire or obligation to try to convert anyone, so why should I ever be concerned about producing evidence to support my beliefs?
Him: Well, why would you want to believe something that you don't know is true? It is completely stupid to believe that something is true without good evidence to support it, and anecdotal evidence is just not strong enough to support the claim that any god(s) exists.
Me: People in the pagan community talk about this issue all the time when we question whether we're really communicating with deities or hearing voices in our heads or just talking to ourselves. Polytheists usually acknowledge that we have no objective evidence that these deities exist, but our personal subjective experiences indicate that they do (or at least might) exist. That is all the evidence we need to support our beliefs.
Him: Anecdotal evidence is worthless in science and law, so why would you base your worldview on it? Those personal experiences you had probably have a psychological or physiological basis, and you just said you're aware that that might be the case, so why wouldn't you just accept the most reasonable conclusion instead of stretching to say "maybe it was a god"?
Me: My subjective experiences have influenced many different aspects of my worldview, so why should my religion be exempt to that? I think the more important question is why objective evidence is superior to subjective evidence in this situation. The only people who require objective evidence to accept my beliefs as valid are people other than me - and I have no desire or obligation to try to convert anyone, so why should I ever be concerned about producing evidence to support my beliefs?
Him: Well, why would you want to believe something that you don't know is true? It is completely stupid to believe that something is true without good evidence to support it, and anecdotal evidence is just not strong enough to support the claim that any god(s) exists.
What do you think of his statement that beliefs based on personal experience or anecdotal evidence are "unreasonable"? How would you respond to someone who questioned why you believe what you believe when you don't (and can't) know with complete certainty whether you're really right or not?
Comment