Just because we're void of any objective evidence doesn't mean we can't use logic and reason to narrow down the possibilities. For example, you making up some random explanation is more unlikely than one that has prevailed through the ages.
So which explanation has "prevailed throughout the ages"?
I think the popularity of a concept does affect how we should feel about the likelyhood. At least, we'd expect the most likely to be the most popular. I doubt that so many people could be so wrong, so that is a reason to think gods as being more likely.
I think you are close to committing a logical fallacy here of the following type:
IF something is highly evidenced lots of people believe in it. THEREFORE if lots of people believe in something it must be highly evidenced.
The propensity of the belief in god is objective evidence that suggests a possibility that gods actually exist, so the possibility of them being human invention is not infinitely more objectively evidenced.
I am afraid that it is.
Let us consider the prevalence of human belief in the supernatural as evidence for the commonality of human psychology (for example). Specifically the need to explain the unknown and the propensity to invoke the unknowable to do so. This answer has the benefit of requiring only human brains (which we know exist) and the human ability to invent concepts regardless of truth (a capability that is massively evidenced and continually demonstrated). In short the possibility of human invention is derived from fact. The possibility of human invention is massively and overwhelmingly objectively evidenced.
On the other hand your preferred answer to the question "Why is belief in gods so widespread?" requires that we invoke wholly unevidenced entities in the form of gods. This is not a possibility derived from fact. This is not a possibility that has any objective evidential basis whatsoever. Your answer is no more or less evidentially viable as an answer than fluctuations in the matrix, telepathic dogs, magic moonbeams, thetan plots to take over the Earth or any other wholly unevidenced explanation for the question under consideration. Namely the question of why there is widespread human belief in gods.
I will ask again on what factual basis do you special plead the possible existence of god as an answer for this question over all of the infinite array of other equally unevidenced possible answers?
I will ask again on what factual basis do you special plead the possible existence of god as an answer for this question over all of the infinite array of other equally unevidenced possible answers?
I'm not. I'm just saying it is one of the possibilities.
And that, since it is, you're argument that the possibility of human invention is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility is wrong.
The evidence suggests that naturalistic answers are far more likely to any given gap. And even if there is an unknowable supernatural truth out there I see no reason to think gods are more likley to be the filler than pixies, celestial cows or any other possibility.
I think the popularity of a concept does affect how we should feel about the likelyhood. At least, we'd expect the most likely to be the most popular. I doubt that so many people could be so wrong, so that is a reason to think gods as being more likely.
I think you are close to committing a logical fallacy here of the following type:
IF something is highly evidenced lots of people believe in it. THEREFORE if lots of people believe in something it must be highly evidenced.
I wasn't saying that the most likely being the most popular means that the most popular is the most likely. I know that's the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. I guess "At least" wasn't the best way to segue that. But still, its beside my point which was to show you a reason to think that gods are more likely than <insert randomly made-up thing>.
Namely the question of why there is widespread human belief in gods.
I will ask again on what factual basis do you special plead the possible existence of god as an answer for this question over all of the infinite array of other equally unevidenced possible answers?
I'm not. I'm just saying it is one of the possibilities.
Well then we agree. It is indeed one of the possibilities. That is exactly why I cited it as one of the possibilities. Obviously. But it is one of the unevidenced possibilities. Along with telepathic dogs, fluctuations in the matrix, magic moonbeams, thetan plots to take over the Earth and every single one of the other conceivable possible answers to this question that has absolutely no factual basis whatsoever. Do you agree that these are all equally unevidenced? And thus equally unlikely? Or are you special pleading the possibility of gods as superior in any way as an answer to the question of why humans believe in gods? If so on what grounds?
Straggler writes:
Namely the question of why there is widespread human belief in gods.
CS writes:
And that, since it is, you're argument that the possibility of human invention is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility is wrong.
Hmmmmmm. So how much more evidenced is it? Is the possibility of human invention and the commonality of human psychology equally as unevidenced as an answer to the question? Or is it evidentially superior to gods, dogs, the matrix and all those other unevidenced possibilities? Are you quibbling over how much more evidenced this is? Or are you denying that human invention is an evidentially superior conclusion period?
But in doing so they special plead god as an answer to any given gap over all of the other near infinite array of equally objectively uevidenced possible answers.
I agree, and I don't understand CS's reasoning here:
CS writes:
Just because we're void of any objective evidence doesn't mean we can't use logic and reason to narrow down the possibilities.
I don't understand how natural process are being over looked for answers, to make room for the possibility of a supernatural concept that is "void of objective evidence."
Well if its void of objective evidence, then what are you describing?
How on earth can anyone describe something that is void of objective evidence?
And here's the grand daddy of all, how can anyone then say that this none evidenced, unknown, ambigous concept actually has the ability to create a universe? (keeping in mind that NO objective evidence points to the need for creation - so that too is pulled from a hat)
And then the cojones to ask us to provide evidence against this unknown, ambigous concept.
Even if the evidence in favour of naturalistic answers is misleading the chances of anyone here having guessed correctly as to the nature of the unknowable explanation is miniscule.
Miniscule is too high of a probability IMO; I'd say the chances are zero. And honestly, we should be happy that its zero because science is better when there are no god-of-the-gaps involved.
I think the popularity of a concept does affect how we should feel about the likelyhood.
Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are quite popular ... so are ghosts, leprechauns and fairies.
What would you say the likelyhood of any of these popular concepts existing is?
I doubt that so many people could be so wrong, so that is a reason to think gods as being more likely.
I'd say this has a lot to do with god being able to shape shift as society gets more educated about the nature of reality.
Lets try a few and see where you stand.
What is more likely as a god concept:
1) Zeus - the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder.
2) Ra - commander of the sky, the earth, and the underworld.
3) Jesus - was born of a virgin. Died then resurrected.
4) God - creator of the universe - Dieist concept.
5) Some unknown force
Which one do you think is the likely responsible agent to any question about reality that may come up, and why?
Now, would your answer to: "Which one do you think is the likely responsible agent to any question about reality that may come up?" change if I add nature as the 6th concept? - If so, why?
And, whats more likely: That an unknown force exists that created the universe, planets, humans, etc. -OR- that humans made up the concept of god in its early days of life on earth to answer questions about reality that they couldn't answer otherwise?
Lets assume that you choose the latter: Given the many, many shape shifts of the god concept throughout human history, what's more likely: That humans guessed the right concept for the creator of the universe -OR- that everyone believes in some form of god because every civilization from early man on created these concepts to answer questions that they couldn't answer otherwise?
But in doing so they special plead god as an answer to any given gap over all of the other near infinite array of equally objectively uevidenced possible answers.
I agree, and I don't understand CS's reasoning here:
In truth I don't think it has ever occurred to CS or RAZD that human belief in gods or subjective human experiences of gods are phenomenon that require explanation rather than evidence in favour of their already preconceived answer. The two sides of this debate are looking at this from opposite ends of a telescope. I don't need to tell you who I think is looking down the wrong end of that telescope.
Miniscule is too high of a probability IMO; I'd say the chances are zero.
Near zero certainly. But if such things exist and if they are conceivable by humans then somebody could in theory at least guess the truth. Zero to all practical intents and purposes quite possibly but potentially possible nevertheless.
And honestly, we should be happy that its zero because science is better when there are no god-of-the-gaps involved.
Invoking gods is a dead end exercise in pointlessness. Even if there isn't a naturalistic answer to be found to some question or other we will learn more seeking one than we will congratulating ourselves on our open-mindedness at declaring "Goddidit". On that I think you and I can wholeheartedly agree.
Your confidence in the concepts you hold of actually being true. I'd say I have high confidence that tomorrow morning the sun will be in the eastern sky, but I have low confidence that I will see an IPU.
Can you explain the scale a little better for me?
Start with three basic categories of evidence: (1) none, (2) subjective or unconfirmed evidence, and (3) objective empirical evidence; then match those with the kinds of logical conclusions one can make from the evidence; finally describe the appropriate level of confidence that is associated with such concepts.
The idea is to remove the pro/con/emotional status of a concept from the discussion, to focus on how the concept is supported, so they can be discussed on the same basis.
The idea is to remove the pro/con/emotional status of a concept from the discussion, to focus on how the concept is supported, so they can be discussed on the same basis.
OK.
Is the possibility of gods as human inventions better evidenced, worse evidenced or equally evidenced as the possibility that gods actually exist? Is there any objective evidence relevant to this question in existence at all? Or are you still claiming that there is a complete absence of all objective evidence applicable to this question?
Re: Dawkins Scale Now try the Levels of COnfidence
Hi Straggler,
I'm still a 6.
Yep. Me too.
For the record I find it difficult to understand how you can rationally argue for being a "6" to say nothing of a "6.9999" ... so I want to try another approach. Tell me where you sit on the levels of confidence:
Note that these levels and their descriptions reflect many of our discussions and focus on some of the few points where we agree.
What's your level of confidence that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old.
What's you level of confidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?
Re: Re: Dawkins Scale now how about levels of confidence?
Hi Phat, great,
looks like I am also a 2 on your scale!
Now how do you rate your confidence in the concept that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old based on the evidence presented in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread?
Your confidence in the concepts you hold of actually being true. I'd say I have high confidence that tomorrow morning the sun will be in the eastern sky, but I have low confidence that I will see an IPU.
Ah, ok, got it.
Start with three basic categories of evidence: (1) none, (2) subjective or unconfirmed evidence, and (3) objective empirical evidence; then match those with the kinds of logical conclusions one can make from the evidence; finally describe the appropriate level of confidence that is associated with such concepts.
Well since there is currently no concept anyone has proposed, and the word "god" has an infinite amount of concepts that go with it, I'll propose my own and tell you my level of confidence.
In regards to:
Zeus - I'm a III
Jesus - I'm a III
Ambiguos force - I'm a II
I think those three are seperate enough that any other god concept would match one of those 3. So it should give you an idea of where I am in regards to god concepts.
So what level of confidence do you have in your position being true?
Except for an ambigous force, I'm a III.
And just for comparison, I'm a III in regards to the age of the earth.
No, you are claiming that I'm claiming that agnostic and atheist are equivalent, and now you are digging deeper. Here's an extract from the post in which you first make the claim (my yellows): ... All of which is based on your own mistake; your mistranslation of my claim that the "6' position is agnostic into "atheist=agnostic".
So now I can safely say that your position (now) is that atheist≠agnostic?
Good, now that you have cleared that up, where is your evidence for the part of your (whatever you mean by) "6" position that is atheistic? (seeing as you never addressed that issue on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, which was the purpose of that thread, where only agnostic=agnostic people don't need evidence).
Meanwhile, while we are waiting for you to catch up, why not fill us in on how you classify your "6" belief on this scale:
™ Version 4.2
(1)