|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: This seems like you are now in a position that all supernatural beings are equally un-testable and are therefore equally likely to exist. (This would include the FSM.) Here is the much cited Dawkins scale of belief:
Dawkins Scale writes: 1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists. 2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there. 3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God. 4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable. 5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there. 7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God. In the thread Pseudoskepticism and logic RAZ stated that:
RAZD writes: Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in. Message 510 A selection of the scenarios and entities that were mentioned in that thread and which I would class myself as being a 6 on the scale above: Last Thursdayism. An invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom. Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and other imaginable but irrefutable concepts that the human brain can conceive of. Is it really rational to be 5 on the above scale with respect to Immaterial Toilet Goblins the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel or an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom? We cannot test for any of these. But I would suggest that we can still be pretty damn sure (albeit philosophically uncertain) of their existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I agree. We cannot test for any of these. But I would suggest that we can still be pretty damn sure (albeit philosophically uncertain) of their existence.But it seems that GDR liked the argument put forward by RADZ regarding not disbelieving in things that can't even be tested for. It seemed that GDR was moving towards thinking that a complete lack of evidence was enough to make something possible. Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Panda writes: But it seems that GDR liked the argument put forward by RADZ regarding not disbelieving in things that can't even be tested for. Indeed. It seems to be the theistic default position to fall back on unfalsifiability as some sort of argument. This is why other unfalsifiable things like Immaterial Unicorns and Last Thursdayism have to keep being raised. If believers stopped getting excited about unfalsifiability there would be no need to mention such things.
Panda writes: It seemed that GDR was moving towards thinking that a complete lack of evidence was enough to make something possible. I would say that there is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. This is another common theistic fallacy. ALL claims are made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, psychology and culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Last Thursdayism. An invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom. Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and other imaginable but irrefutable concepts that the human brain can conceive of. But how many of those things are even attributed to atheism? It seems to me that atheism (and atheists alike) are more attibuted to "the current crop of gods" so to speak. In that aspect, EVERYONE is an atheist, some just go one god further than others."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: My opinion is that it would be by a natural mechanism as designed by God.RAZD writes: As would all "natural mechanisms" ... thus making "Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None" (the subthread title by Straggler) more a blind assertion of opinion than a logical deduction from evidence (another "D" decision rather than an "A" decision). The main problem to me is that before you can state that "there is none" one would need a methodology that can positively test for a presence of whatever is being investigated. For example, take the kite experiment of Benjamin Franklin -- if he did not have a means to test for the presence of electricity, the experiment would have detected none. It would then be simple (simplistic?) to claim that there is no evidence of electricity in lightening. I thought RAZD made a good point and you responded as follows.
Straggler writes: Just stop and think about what is being said here.Think of all the unfalsifiables we could apply this to!!!! What test can be undertaken to determine the existence of the pink fluffy magically undetectable Easter Bunny? What test can be done to confirm or deny Last Thursdayism? Yet I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence favouring both of these as human inventions to conclude that in all likelihood the Easter Bunny is a fiction and that the Earth is billions of years old rather than a few days. What do you say?
You had made this statement earlier.
quote: I agreed with that statement. However, you then based on that statement claim that your subjective opinion on the existence or non-existence of god(s) is better evidenced that my subjective opinion. You are inferring that because this proclivity of ours has produced many false images of god(s) that the evidence suggests that images are much more likely to be incorrect. I think that what RAZD is saying is not that it makes either of our conclusions more likely, but that it can’t be used to support either one. I would add to that, that you can’t disprove the easter bunny in this way either. I contend it just isn’t relevant. We have to draw our conclusions based on something else. I can’t see where believing in the easter bunny is a reasonable belief, but I wouldn’t come to that conclusion based on the idea that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. I just don’t think that statement has anything to say about the existence of the easter bunny. Reason just tells me that I should reject the idea. However I made this statement a few posts ago.
quote: I don’t think that is an unreasonable statement. I’m not expecting you to agree with my conclusion, but it is reasonable, which in my view takes it out of the category of the easter bunny. I’m not claiming this as proof, I’m just trying to make the point that both of our conclusions are reasonable.
Straggler writes: There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. Every human claim is made in the highly objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. No problem there.
Straggler writes: It mystifies me why believers of all flavours think that defining something such that it is unfalsifiable makes it somehow immune from all forms of objective evidence. I don’t make that claim and I don’t think many others do either. I agree that your statement regarding human proclivity is objectively true. I just disagree that it has anything to tell us when it comes to our subjective conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god(s).
Straggler writes: Can you explain why you think there is no objective evidence relevant to the question of god(s)? I'm not claiming that there isn't. I am saying though that it isn't unreasonable in instances like this to come to widely different subjective conclusions based on the same objective evidence.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Panda writes: Do think that we can say something exists because we can't test for it?Do you think that every single idea that anyone imagines is validated because we can't test for it? Not at all. I'm just saying that just because we can't test for it doesn't say it doesn't exist. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: The conclusion that humans will invent agency to explain those things which they find baffling or significant is not a subjective conclusion. Your conclusion that an unevidenced intelligent agent is responsible for the things that you personally find baffling and significant (morality, altruism, love etc.) very much is. The two conclusions are NOT equally subjective.
But they are two different types of conclusions. I claim that there is an intelligent agency for things like intelligence, morality, love etc. You claim that there is a natural non-intelligent agency for intelligence, morality, love etc. Those are the two conclusions we are comparing. I agree that the two conclusions are NOT equally subjective but I'm pretty sure we don't agree on which one the objective evidence favours.
Straggler writes: Do ideas cause brain activity or does brain activity cause ideas? Not relevant. I'm just saying that an idea is non-material yet it is something. My only point is that the fact that there is more than just the material world that we can perceive with our 5 senses.
Straggler writes: I already mentioned autism as an example of those who might lack normal levels of agency detection. Interestingly schizophrenics arguably have the opposite problem. They see agency and intent to a degree that is mentally debilitating. Everything has meaning and intent, nothing is random or co-incidental and conspiracy theories result in paranoia and psychosis. Unsurprisingly Schizophrenics are particularly prone to supernatural/paranormal beliefs. The fact that such symptoms are treatable with drugs suggest that there is a definite physical cause for such beliefs. Furthermore experiments involving the manipulation of dopamine levels in believers and skeptics suggest that people's perception of pattern and meaning can be directly affected. It seems that the physical brain is the cause, not the effect, of beliefs and ideas. Of course there are brain diseases that mean that our ideas can be scrambled. No one will question that but so what? It’s like a computer, and even if there is physical cause for some of the things we believe, it tells us nothing about the whether or not that physical cause exists because of an intelligent agency or not.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again GDR, nice posts.
Message 222: Thanks for the reply however, sad as it makes me I have to disagree with this. What you are describing isn't analogous at all. Bush making the decision to go into Iraq had a huge downside potential which I suggest we haven't seen the end of yet. Yes, people's religious views have often been used as a justification for all sorts of heinous acts, however, I suggest that if they didn't use religion they would have found some other excuse. Perhaps you misunderstood me here, I wasn't making an analogy but citing an example of what I consider one of the worst instances of a rush to judgment in modern history.
There you go Straggler. What he said. You have no idea of how badly I wish I had thought of that. Brilliant. Thank you. It seems to me, however, that the replies of others seem to miss the point. For instance:
Panda Message 223: Do think that we can say something exists because we can't test for it? Do you think that every single idea that anyone imagines is validated because we can't test for it? This seems like you are now in a position that all supernatural beings are equally un-testable and are therefore equally likely to exist. (This would include the FSM.) Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence.
Straggler Message 224: What test can be undertaken to determine the existence of the pink fluffy magically undetectable Easter Bunny? ... Yet I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence favouring both of these as human inventions to conclude that in all likelihood the Easter Bunny is a fiction .... and Message 226: We cannot test for any of these. But I would suggest that we can still be pretty damn sure (albeit philosophically uncertain) of their existence. I go back to my flow chart diagram:
question | is there sufficient valid information available to decide | | yes no | | decide based is a on empirical decision valid evidence necessary? (A) / \ yes no ... but ... / | | decide why make a based on decide decision inadequate at this anyway evidence time? based on =guess =wait opinion (B) (C) (D) What we have is Straggler's opinion about the existence of the Easter Bunny, because he feels it is something important enough to have a decision about it.
GDR Message 230: I would add to that, that you can’t disprove the easter bunny in this way either. I contend it just isn’t relevant. We have to draw our conclusions based on something else.
Message 222: We all form a world view. I base mine on the teachings of Jesus as I understand them. Others, presumably including yourself, base their world view on something else. So you form an opinion based on your world view, just as Straggler, Panda, et al, do. The point is that any such decision is necessarily based on opinion, and needs to be recognized as such. There may be a large degree of consilience of opinions regarding certain topics, such as the easter bunny, but that does not change the fact that such decisions are necessarily based on opinions. There are questions that science cannot answer -- some because we do not have the means to test them, and some because they are untestable. That's a fact of life, and trying to force people into making decisions (or calling them irrational because they don't make your decision) doesn't alter that fact either.
Straggler writes: Can you explain why you think there is no objective evidence relevant to the question of god(s)? I'm not claiming that there isn't. I am saying though that it isn't unreasonable in instances like this to come to widely different subjective conclusions based on the same objective evidence. Because those subjective conclusions are based on opinions, and this explains why your conclusions are different from straggler's and mine and ... etc. added by edit:
Straggler Message 1483 Peanut Gallery: Chuck when are you going to learn that lots of people having deep conviction that something is true neither makes it true nor is evidence of it's truth? Excluding the deep convictions of straggler? ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
RAZD writes: Perhaps you misunderstood me here, I wasn't making an analogy but citing an example of what I consider one of the worst instances of a rush to judgment in modern history. Here is what you had posted earlier.
quote: I agree with your assessment on Iraq, and I even question the thought that it would have been the thing to do even if they had found WMD's. I do see you though as drawing a parallel between that rush to judgement and coming to a conclusion on either theism or atheism. Did I get that wrong?
RAZD writes: Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence. I think I made the same point in my reply to Panda.
RAZD writes: So you form an opinion based on your world view, just as Straggler, Panda, et al, do. The point is that any such decision is necessarily based on opinion, and needs to be recognized as such. There may be a large degree of consilience of opinions regarding certain topics, such as the easter bunny, but that does not change the fact that such decisions are necessarily based on opinions. There are questions that science cannot answer -- some because we do not have the means to test them, and some because they are untestable. That's a fact of life, and trying to force people into making decisions (or calling them irrational because they don't make your decision) doesn't alter that fact either.
We are singing from the same hymn book.
RAZD writes: Excluding the deep convictions of straggler? ... Now play nice. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: I agree that your statement regarding human proclivity is objectively true. I just disagree that it has anything to tell us when it comes to our subjective conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god(s). Again - I haven't said anything directly about the non-existence of gods. I have simply said that we know as an objectively evidenced fact that humans will invent intelligent agents in situations where there are none because of their psychological proclivity to falsely invoke such explanations for things they find baffling or significant.
GDR writes: I am saying though that it isn't unreasonable in instances like this to come to widely different subjective conclusions based on the same objective evidence. When the objective evidence tells us that humans can, and almost invariably will, invent such agents whether they exist or not how it can be equally reasonable to conclude that a particular unevidenced such entity is just as likely to exist as be invented? This makes no sense.
GDR on the Easter Bunny writes: Reason just tells me that I should reject the idea. It can indeed be rejected without being tested in the way that RAZD insists upon. Because where there is sufficient evidence of human invention falsification becomes largely irrelevant. That is my point. Where do you "reason" that concepts like the Easter Bunny, the IPU, Last Thursdayism etc. etc. etc. originate from if not the human mind? And isn't this reasoned conclusion based on the absolute fact that humans can and do invent such things? If not then what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: I claim that there is an intelligent agency for things like intelligence, morality, love etc. You claim that there is a natural non-intelligent agency for intelligence, morality, love etc. Again - The false dichotomy. What I have actually said is that there are evidenced explanations, unevidenced explanations and questions that we are unable to answer as yet.
GDR writes: My only point is that the fact that there is more than just the material world that we can perceive with our 5 senses. Without our physical senses we can experience only that which is inside our own minds. With our physical senses we can only detect that which physically exists. How can it possibly be otherwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Note that you are wrong. Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
RAZD writes: The point is that any such decision is necessarily based on opinion, and needs to be recognized as such. There may be a large degree of consilience of opinions regarding certain topics, such as the easter bunny, but that does not change the fact that such decisions are necessarily based on opinions. There are questions that science cannot answer -- some because we do not have the means to test them, and some because they are untestable. That's a fact of life, and trying to force people into making decisions (or calling them irrational because they don't make your decision) doesn't alter that fact either. But RAZ the problem here is that you just don't practice what you preach. You cannot test for Last Thursdayism but you still go round telling creationists that the Earth is "Old....Very old indeed". If I put it to you that there is an undetectable killer bogeyman in your bedroom whose actual existence will only manifest itself by killing you then it is a fact that you are just as dismissively atheistic towards this entity as I am. Not because you have tested it. You can't test for it (except by being killed). But because you know as well as I do that baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions. You can call it an "opinion" but unless you move out of your bedroom just in case your actions speak louder than words. It's not pseudoskeptical to conclude such entities are human inventions. It's by far the most evidenced conclusion. Your problem lies in taking this evidence and applying it to the things that you subjectively believe in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: Without our physical senses we can experience only that which is inside our own minds. With our physical senses we can only detect that which physically exists. How can it possibly be otherwise? We know ideas exists but I don't think we can say they physically exist as we discussed before. It certainly appears that a moral code exists but it isn't physical. It seems evident that there is more than that which exists physically, at least with our understanding of what is physical.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It certainly appears that a moral code exists but it isn't physical. According to whom or evidenced by what? My understanding was that the scientific consensus is that the medium for morality is brain matter, which is certainly physical. Do you know of some some non-physical medium which makes it appear otherwise?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024