New Books For Evidence

Here are some new books which add to our search for evidence relating to the philosophical questions we've been asking:

Karen Armstrong: The Case for God

Thomas Metzinger: The Ego Tunnel; The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Don't Question This!

In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. Bertrand Russell

I’ve always been taught that you don’t question that. How many times have you heard someone say this especially about their religious belief? But, isn’t this an unfortunate lesson to be taught? Would you teach your children not to ask questions? I would hope not but I suspect that many do in fact teach this quite harmful lesson.

What is so wrong about teaching the lesson not to ask questions?

First, it breeds a lack of curiosity. After all, why be curious about a subject if you have been taught not to question it. For that matter, why be curious about most subjects. Since you can't be quite sure that you ought to be asking questions about these areas as well it's probably best to play it safe. One never knows what trouble you might get into by being curious!

Second, it gives the misleading impression that we don’t have explanations for many phenomena for which we do have explanations. Without a sense of curiousity and what Bertrand Russell called the "will to find out," we miss out on discovering the truly fascinating explanations we do have for the world around us and why things are the way they are. For most of these areas explained by theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution, the explanations we do have are much more fascinating than the explanation given and followed by "we don't question this."

The third problem with teaching the lesson not to ask questions is that it makes one vulnerable to demagogues and highly dubious claims. The heart of good critical thinking is the ability to ask the right questions and seek out evidence. In some cases, it is useful to be able to demand of others making claims that they validate these claims before we assent to them. But, the lesson of not asking questions undercuts these critical thinking skills. The price you pay for this is to be left vulnerable to any number of dubious claims. Think of how many of these claims you are exposed to each and every day from politicians, advertisers, lawyers, ministers, actors, CEOs, and many others. They all want you to believe the claims they are making and they all hope you don't ask too many questions.

A fourth problem with teaching the lesson not to ask questions is best explained by Richard Dawkins who calls it quite simply child abuse: “To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant’s opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.” What does he mean by this? I suspect in part his point is the point I have been trying to make in this post.

Parents teach by their actions even more than their words. If you want your children to be good critical thinkers you have to model this behavior. Likewise, if you model the behavior of not asking questions your child will learn this lesson. Is your reaction to this claim relief? Are you saying to yourself "Ah, good I was hoping to be able to teach my child that we don't ask questions about such important ultimate areas of human life?" If your answer to these questions is "yes" then there's really nothing left to say. But, if your answer is no then it might be time to begin asking questions where you have not been asking them before.

You Gotta Have Faith!

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; but when it fails them they cry out that this is a matter of faith, and above reason.
John Locke


I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.
Wilson Mizner


A favorite response from students when confronted with the search for evidence related to philosophical questions (especially the question of God’s existence) is to look towards faith. If they believe there is no evidence that can substantiate their belief in God their response is “that’s why you have to have faith.” But, when you think about it this is an odd response. In no other area of life could this possibly make sense but for their belief in God they seem to think it does. How would we respond to someone researching cold fusion for example who when presented with the lack of evidence in the phenomena simply responds by saying “well, that’s why you have to have faith.” Why do we have to have faith in something that is not validated by evidence?

I don’t have a truly satisfying answer to this question but I would like to hear from some who say this about their reasoning behind the claim. I can guess at some possible explanations which I put forward below but these are only guesses.

A common justification for having faith might be that one has to believe in something. But, this misses the possibility of believing in something that is validated by evidence. If the need to believe is strong isn’t it also accompanied by the desire to believe what is true? While we don’t have any guarantees that our current explanations for how the world works are absolutely true we do have enough validating evidence to warrant belief. And, given the evidence belief in these explanations is surely much more justifiable than belief in something which utterly lacks validating evidence.

Another possible justification for belief could be that it is comforting. This justification could help explain the objection raised above that one should believe according to the evidence. People may not want to believe in explanations that are validated by evidence because they are not comforting. An explanation that asserts that we are all loved by a supreme being who has a plan for us may be more comforting but does that make it true? Surely not. But, then how comforting can it be to believe in something one suspects may not be true?

But, maybe that’s just it. Faith tells the believer that what they believe in is true never mind what their doubts or the evidence might indicate. Faith allows one to push on through that doubt by making a virtue of the lack of evidence. As Tertullian said “it is certain, because impossible.” This sounds immediately satisfying to the believer unless they make the mistake of asking a very ordinary and reasonable question. Does this rule of believing because something is impossible only apply to religious beliefs or can it be applied to other areas of life? If the answer comes back that it only applies to religious beliefs the next question is: Why?

Why can’t we apply this to other equally important areas of life including our relationships with others, our healthcare, our careers? It would clearly be absurd to apply this rule to these areas of life but why does it apply to an area of life which purports to explain such ultimate questions as the origin of the universe and life on Earth; questions for which we have quite plausible (not to say possible) explanations? Why does the belief in God need to obvious crutch of “believe because it is impossible.” Something to think about.

What's wrong with faith?

Many of those who are engaged in the evidence forum here or in my philosophy course will likely be wondering this as we go through the semester looking for evidence beyond one's own faith concerning these questions. But, what's wrong with basing our beliefs solely on faith without worrying about evidence?

Well, there are several things wrong with this. First, it ignores the possibility that there is relevant evidence. By skpping the search for evidence and going straight to faith we might be missing some useful information and interesting insights.

Second, it is important to remember that even the most faithful of philosophers and theologians have recognized that it is important to ground their faith in reason, evidence, and knowledge. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas offered five ways for proving the existence of God for us to examine.

Third, if you concede that faith is all that is required when it comes to drawing conclusions about one of these questions we're addressing (probably the one about God) why not concede that faith is all that is required for drawing conclusions about the other questions as well? You might respond by saying that for those other questions there is evidence whereas for the question of God's existence there is none so we have no recourse but to rely on faith. Which brings me to:

Fourth, if all we have to go on is faith and no evidence how do we know what to believe with regard to one or any of these questions. By definition, without evidence or objective facts to draw on, everyone is right about what they believe no matter what this might be. What is the problem with this? It illustrates that the belief (in this case about God's existence) is not really a belief about how the world is but about what the believer feels. This is fine as far as it goes but most believers do think that their beliefs say something about how the world really is as opposed to merely how they feel.

So, the search for evidence is important. What if that search fails to find any evidence? There are several responses one can make.

Believe whatever you want anyway.
Suspend belief entirely.
Believe what the evidence allows and nothing more.

Of course, you are free to choose which of these options you wish. Two important final points seem relevant though. David Hume once said that "the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" and Christopher Hitchens has been quoted as saying "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

The Baloney Detection Kit

You can watch the video here: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/.

The Ten Questions:


How reliable is the source of the claim?
Does the source make similar claims?
Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Does this fit with the way the world works?
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Does it make a difference?

When it comes to the philosophical questions we pose here a popular claim is that there really is no evidence that we can gather to answer them. This is an especially popular reaction to the question: Is there a God? But, let's think about this for a moment.


Let's suppose that there is no evidence of any kind to count either for or against the question of God's existence. Then whether God exists turns out to be true or false is not a matter of how things are in the world. The claim that God exists is simply a claim about how the person who believes feels. Likewise, the claim that God doesn't exist is simply a claim about how the person who does not believe feels. Is this really what you want to maintain when it comes to this question? To the believers we could ask: Do you mean to say that your claim that God exists has no bearing on how things are in the world? If you don't believe there is evidence then you must answer this question yes. However, if you think that God's existence makes some difference to the world and how it works then you have to concede that evidence is relevant to answering the question.


Why is this such a hard thing to concede? I believe it is because recognizing the relevance of evidence means that you have to recognize the relevance of all the available evidence not just the evidence that validates your position. This involves risk.


It is easy for most believers to cite some evidence for their belief; personal experiences, miracles, the complexity of the world. What is more difficult is to evaluate this evidence in light of good standards of critical thinking. Indeed, there are problems with citing personal experiences or miracles as evidence and we can discuss these in later posts. The notion of the complexity of the world has been discussed in many forms but essentially comes down to one form or another of the teleological (or design) argument which we can also discuss in later posts.


The point to make here is simply that if God's existence matters, if God's existence makes a difference in the world then evidence has to be relevant to the question and that evidence exists. Our goal here is to find the evidence and evaluate it. As Bertrand Russell once said "what we need is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out."

The Argument Clinic

Think you've got a good argument that hasn't been sufficiently addressed? Or perhaps you just want another analysis besides the one offered by your instructor. Then you might enjoy trying this website: The Argument Clinic. You can submit arguments and they will analyze them and inform you of their philosophical merits.