Nobody Believes Anything Based On “No Evidence”

A common scurrilous sophomoric ridiculous false charge leveled against those of a religious bent, and made by internet atheists, is that the religious hold their beliefs “Based on no evidence.” Perhaps Redditor is a better word than “internet athesists”, but I’ll stick with the former, which I use to distinguish the more thoughtful branch of godless heathens from the juvenile.

No one believes any thing, or even holds the uncertainty of any thing, “Based on no evidence.” Even stronger, no one can hold any belief, in certainty or uncertainty, without some evidence. This includes even internet atheists who falsely believe the religious hold beliefs “based on no evidence.”

The evidence internet atheists use in their argument that their enemies (the religious) hold beliefs “based on no evidence” runs something like this: “It’s obvious Science rules, and Science has no need of God, for which there is no Scientific evidence; thus, the religious hold their beliefs based on no evidence.”

That argument is based on evidence. False evidence, and even silly evidence. But it is evidence. The internet atheist believes that if you cannot hold up a specially designed yardstick to the heavens, and find some minimum is exceeded, then God cannot exist. His fallacies include that such a yardstick exists, and that only that yardstick counts as genuine evidence.

Which are both absurd. And yet even if they were not and you think you can form sophisticated versions of both, the religious, from the voodoo practitioner to the Pervert Pennant-waving Presbyterian to the cloistered nun, all also gather evidence for their beliefs, which they all find to some degree convincing if not compelling.

The question is thus always about the evidence itself.

That naturally leads to a chain, because as you seek to justify, or to “destroy”, the evidence used in an argument, you must call upon other, “deeper-down” evidence. And that, too, must be justified in the same way. Eventually there comes a bottoming out, a level of evidence that just seems true to you, but which you cannot prove, and, if you’ve gone all the way to the fundament, that nobody can prove.

As I never tire of pointing out, that is how mathematicians begin their dense tangled web of proofs: (1) with axioms for which there is no proof save recourse and faith in induction-intellection, and (2) faith in reason. For there is also no proof of any kind without using reason which assumes that reason works, that it provides truth, other than harkening to that same induction-intellection. You cannot even reason that reason must always fail, as arch skeptics attempt, without the faith that your reason is working. You cannot escape faith.

Most haven’t the time for this level of activity of thinking. And most with the time haven’t the ability. It is far from easy, and in fact there is nothing more difficult to start from absolute scratch and build a solid world. Because, as is clear from all history, though we must all have faith, many have faith in the wrong things.

Call that faith “belief” if you like, which is a kinder word. For you can believe anything. Even false things.

This happens when your induction lets you down, when you start with false premises that you do not seek to justify. Feelings can do a number on you. They can, as you know from personal experience I’m sure, cause any number of wrong beliefs. I suppose arrogance is a feeling. It is often arrogance that leads some to say “Science gives all truths”, or the like. Science cannot even give you math, so it’s a wonder, or should be a wonder, that anybody would first come to believe in the supreme powers of Science.

I say first come to believe because I think it’s natural for people raised under a scientism regime, as all alive today have been, to believe in the supremacy of Science. Because, of course, all are told so, directly and indirectly, from birth. Yes, a few are also told religion takes precedence, but even these people hear the competing view, and most of these come to believe it.

This is why it is extraordinarily difficult for scidolators to take any religious claim seriously. Scidolator is a more compact word than Science Supremacist, and more apt, because to believe Science is supreme means all morality and ethics must be judged scientifically, as well carrying the heavy burden of explaining the existence of all things. Any system that can do all that is worthy of worship.

Now I often criticize Scott Alexander, whom I believe is a scidolator, though if he is not, then my apologies. I want to highlight an effort in which he examines a religious claim in terrific detail; specifically, the alleged (well, that’s the right word here) Miracle at Fatima. Alexander expends great effort and energy in finding evidence probative of the claim. Which is to say, evidence supporting the claim and evidence which falsifies the claim.

He does this in a scant 30,000 words, which does not, as he admits, come close to exhausting the material. I cannot successfully summarize all of it, so if you have an interest in this claim than you must read his article. I didn’t know much about it (Catholics are not obliged to believe it), and was surprised to learn that Fatima-like claims have been made at other times and places. Like in Lubbock, Texas! Alexander, to his eternal credit, even explores a sub-Reddit of strange people who make a habit of staring at the sun, because (I gather) they believe it gives them certain powers. Many, yes, have gone blind.

If there is any flaw with Alexander’s work, it is that, while he tries to specify what the claim is, itself no simple task, he does not attempt to define what a miracle is. It would seem he means something like (in part) “An event which Science does not explain.” That is a poor definition, and has the obvious flaw that Science can still explain the event, but that nobody knows how. This, and my long experience with doctors, is why I am reflexively and initially skeptical of all first reports of medical miracles.

Miracles ask us to examine and give faith to the ultimate cause of certain events that are noticed. You have to add that “noticed” because God could, of course, cause any number of events that nobody notices, events which could be defined as miraculous. However, this is a not an article about miracles, so we’ll leave it at that.

Or at the plea, or our perennial plea, to examine all evidence, that you can find and grasp, for all things. Especially on strange, miraculous, and conspiratorial matters. And certainly on foundational ones.

Tomorrow, a strange and frightening example of claims of China’s Xi Who Must Be Obeyed and an occult ritual to prolong his life.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use PayPal. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.