Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

It might be priceless had I suggested that my analogy was exactly the same as the thing I was comparing it to, but of course that would defeat the purpose of an analogy.

What I wrote (and you quoted it in your post) was: "Likewise, there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. None."

My analogy provides a counter-example against a particular criteria proposed for determining whether a skeptic can believe in a god (namely that there is no evidence for the existence of a god). The analogy isn't flawed unless you have evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. If one cannot have an opinion about the existence of something due to the fact that there is no evidence of its existence, then the same would be true of the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system.

Had I claimed that the analogy would hold for all criteria you might conceive of for for determining whether a skeptic can believe in a god, then you would be correct. But I didn't, nor is that the point of an analogy.

If you have another criteria you'd like to suggest, I'll do my best to provide an appropriate analogy for that one too.

-Bri

The problem is, you're looking at the 'life in the universe' issue from an egocentric point of view.

Instead ask yourself the question, "Does intelligent life exist in the universe?" We can answer that in the affirmative, because we are an example of intelligent life.

Then ask yourself, "How probable is it that there is more than one form of intelligent life in the universe?" Our region of space is not unique - we're just spinning along in the outer spiral arm of the Milky Way, a dot, upon a dot, upon a dot in the grand scheme of things. From our observations, the laws of physics are uniform across visible space, and there are likely billions of planets out there that could have the same conditions as we do that support life. There may be billions more that can support life, but a very different type of life to what we know. Given the huge numbers involved, it becomes reasonably likely that there is more than one form of intelligent life in the universe.

As such your analogy fails on the only point you were trying to make with it - evidence. If there was a god, she'd smite you analogy for being so inappropriate.

 

[articulett]

It's infinitely more likely that an intelligent life form evolved somewhere else then it is that a conscious entity without a brain or body exists.

It is infinitely more likely that any life out there doesn't know or care about us or this speck o the universe then there is one that exists that "knows" what we think and that we can communicate with telepathically.

No matter how you define "god"-- it doesn't seem to fit with anything we know about the universe...nor consciousness nor how intelligence and complexity evolves via an iterative process over time. There is no model for such--just stories based in myth. It is completely outside all known, natural laws. It is an unknowable as all imaginary gods.

Whatever the odds for such a god to exist-- a garden variety life form outside our solar system is astronomically more likely. Why. We have a model that proves it can happen. We have nothing to go on with "god". God defies all known facts and natural law. His existence is, by definition, supernatural-- unless you just are referring to "things we don't understand yet" and calling that "god".

 

[Beth]

Also, since when does a belief have to be held in the present day for it to be considered and evaluated? Is the twenty-first century a prerequisite for sanity?

Not at all, but what is a reasonable belief changes with the culture context a person is living in. Anything other than a (approximately) spherical earth is not a reasonable belief for anyone living in the present day, with the exception of some primitive tribes in isolated areas. It’s not a reasonable belief for daytime talkshow hosts in the 21st century. But it would be a very reasonable belief for most humans who lived in ages past.

And who says that people don't believe in vampires in the present day?

What about other 'vampiric' creatures?

I didn’t say no one believed in them. I said it wasn’t a widely held belief. I don’t think it is. That was one of the criteria I gave when you insisted I specify criteria for reasonable. Would it be unreasonable of me to ask that you keep your examples you wish me to comment on within the bounds of the criteria you insisted I provide?

Is it reasonable to believe in the Chupacabra?

A good question. I don’t know. It’s not unbelievable that an undiscovered species lurks in the wilderness. I doubt it myself and rate it pretty low on the probability scale, but still above the IPU.

And so we end up at the old fallback - sure, you can say that some things don't exist. But so long as the belief is untestable, well, you have no way of knowing for sure, do you? Well, no, I can't know for sure, no more than I can know anything for sure. But if there is no way to know, how does one arrive at the belief in the first place? And more importantly - what does untestable actually mean? Specifically, what does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?
I know the answer to this one, and I bet a number of other people here do too, but I want you to be the one to say this because it's important. To repeat: What does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?

I’m glad you know the answer. I suspect yours is different from mine.

It tells me that what I think I know may or may not be true, so it’s best not to be too certain of which answer is correct. If someone chooses to believe one thing rather than another, it tells me something about that person. If someone chooses to believe that their belief is the only possible rational belief on the question, that position tells me something else about them. Our respective positions on such questions can define who we are, what we value, and how we choose to approach our lives.

That's not what that evidence was for though - that evidence was in regards to the unreliability of witness testimony. Not only that, but I didn't say that it was never better than blind chance - that is only applicable when we are discussing the existence of an object.

Okay. I misunderstood you. Eyewitness testimony can be better than blind chance. Thanks.

Yes - and your posts are going to be twice as long if you repeat everything I write. To state this again so that there's no confusion as to what we are agreeing on: Anecdotal evidence is better than chance if we are discussing the properties of a known object. It is not better than chance if we are discussing the existence of an object. Regardless of whether or not it is better than chance when we are discussing the properties of an object, anecdotal evidence is still incredibly unreliable, to the point of being useless in most situations. The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality.

Actually, this is kind of my point about testimonial evidence regarding the existence of god. There’s an awful lot of it and it converges in a number of respects. That’s one reason I think a person can critically examine the evidence and arrive at a belief that a god might exist. It’s not very consistent in many regards, but there is a core to the concept that seems, to me at least, as solid as the core of the concepts of things like ‘justice’. Does justice exist outside of human imagination? I don’t know the answer to that one either and the evidence is not convincing either way.

This should hardly need to be said, but when we are discussing the existence of god, we are discussing the existence of an object, and anecdotal evidence is entirely useless in drawing a conclusion.

Is god an object? I'm not sure. I believe that most religions mainting that gods are not corporeal beings, although some at times take on such bodies.

Except it's not a subjective assessment.

Yes it is.

Anecdotal evidence is known to be unreliable - this has been demonstrated time and time again, and modern science has evolved a system for screening out subjective assessments precisely because of this. If you want to claim that a class of objects is for some reason exempt from this anecdotal unreliability, it is up to you to provide justification for the exemption. Otherwise you're just engaging in the same run-of-the-mill special pleading as homeopaths and other quack practitioners.

I don’t claim it isn’t subject to unreliability. I’m more than willing to admit that. But I don’t rate at 0 either. You admitted earlier in this post that eyewitness testimony can be better than blind chance. I think it falls considerably closer to 0 than 100% accuracy, but it’s a subjective judgment in every case with every witness regarding their reliability is.

You can arbitrarily dismiss all of it in terms when you consider things for yourself, weighting such evidence at 0. But it’s unreasonable for you to expect everyone else to share that judgment. When you dismiss all testimony regarding the existence of a particular type – such as religious experiences – it comes across as inherently biased to me. I don’t dismiss all such accounts, nor do I believe them without any doubt. I simply categorize it as evidence I can neither trust nor deny completely.

Anecdotes are data? How exactly does one measure or observe an anecdote?

One listens to the person telling it and one categorizes and counts the occurrences. It’s best if one has an unbiased sample of individuals to draw such anecdotes from, without that one cannot draw any conclusions about the rates of such experiences. Not terribly useful, but data nonetheless.

It may be that you don't know what data means in a scientific context, and so are equivocating with the 'data' used in general language, which is considered a synonym for 'information'.

No. I did not mean it as synonymous with information. Anecdotes do not allow us to generalize, so they fall short in terms of useful information. I consider them better than nothing, but not much better.

I disagree - a skeptic should apply Occam's razor.

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on whether a skeptic must assume the null as 'no god exists'. I think either can be set up as the null.

It is the only reasonable one for a skeptic to hold because it is the only position that can be reached through proper application of skepticism. That's not arrogance, that's fact, and you have yet to show otherwise - your entire argument up to this point stands as a shining example of why this is so, unless you redefine skepticism so that anecdotes, special pleading and appeals to authority are considered good arguments and evidence.

If this is true, it would imply to me that the existence of free will is not a skeptical belief either. Do you believe in free will? Or are we destined to type these words and next post and next?

Well, in that case I don't really care. Proving that a human opinion exists is as easy as holding that opinion, or providing someone who does. If that is really all you've been arguing, then you haven't been doing a very good job at it, because most of your arguments are irrelevant. They are, however, quite relevant if you are arguing for that one should hold either the middle ground or the theistic position - which makes me suspect that perhaps this new argument is a fallback position in the absence of a counter-argument.

Also, if that isn't your position, what position are you arguing for?

Tolerance of those who believe differently than you do. Respect for the fact that people can, and do, examine their religious beliefs critically, scrutinize them carefully and thoroughly, and arrive at a belief different from the one you hold. Not everyone of course. Not all atheists have given the matter much thought either. But to assume, as is common on this forum, that just because someone doesn’t agree that the only outcome to applying skeptical tools and methodology to their religious beliefs is atheism, is as arrogant and unpleasant as the outrage and/or pity any smug believer has for those who believe different from them.

I'm outta time for posting. Nice talking with you. Don't feel obligated to respond if I'm starting to irritate you too much.

 

[Bri]

Instead ask yourself the question, "Does intelligent life exist in the universe?" We can answer that in the affirmative, because we are an example of intelligent life.

That's great, except my analogy wasn't comparing belief that intelligent life exists in the universe with belief in the existence of gods. It was comparing belief that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system with belief in the existence of gods.

Then ask yourself, "How probable is it that there is more than one form of intelligent life in the universe?"

Since we don't know what conditions are necessary for intelligent life to develop, we have no way of knowing. It is impossible to extrapolate from a single example. According to this article:

We have only one example, rendering statistical estimates impossible, and even the example we have is subject to a strong anthropic bias.​

Frank Drake, who formulated the Drake Equation, seems to agree:

Frank Drake himself has commented that the Drake Equation is unlikely to settle the Fermi paradox; instead it is just a way of organizing our ignorance on the subject.​

As such your analogy fails on the only point you were trying to make with it - evidence. If there was a god, she'd smite you analogy for being so inappropriate.

Since there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, the analogy is appropriate.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Since there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, the analogy is appropriate.

-Bri

Only to you and Beth.

I think everyone thinks you guys are using some very flawed logic to imagine that a belief in invisible forms of consciousness is as logical as the assumption that they are all made up.

Beth even compares "god" with "justice"... Heck, with that semantic silliness you could say that "god IS justice" and then your god would be as real as "justice". For the rest of us words have meanings we use to clarify understanding. Woo believers tend to obfuscate while pretending to clarify-- they use words and say nothing. They tend to be very poor at analogies--using them to infer what they want rather than to clarify understanding.

We understand. You and Beth think it's somehow rational to conclude that someone's version of god exists in some manner in some way. Claus feels that as long as no claims are made, skeptics have no business saying anything about the prospects. The rest of us say that gods are as likely as demons, psychic powers, and body Thetans. Most of us understand that concepts like god are not on par with "justice" or "life in another solar system" because gods infer consciousness of some sort without a brain--the others do not. "Justice" is a human construct not a form of consciousness that cares about humans -- life on other planets involves things known to exist-- corporeal life forms on planets in our universe. I think people use these analogies to pretend that god belief (a purposefully poorly described concept) can be logically derived.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... and by the same reasoning... Santa is real as a metaphor for the "/Spirit of Christmas"--

I still don't consider belief in Santa skeptical. But I am amazed at how words, analogies, and logic is twisted to make some god sound possible without being any recognizable god. I am amazed at what is skirted over and ignored and the general arrogance while feigning curiosity and claiming to be agnostic. For agnostics you guys sure bend over backwards to make invisible creators of the universe sound likely. As far as I'm concerned my apologist/woo meter is blinking big time, and if you have trouble conversing with people I suggest that is why. Not their supposed "intolerance" and "meaness". We really don't find you as rational, logical, or as pleasant as you imagine yourselves. Your reasoning is very transparent. You have only made a case to convince yourself that belief in some god-ish (poorly defined) thing is perfectly rational. We don't buy that.

With your logic it's possible that Schlitt really does know god's name is Sandy (hysterical, btw) and that my students are possessed and that monkeys are flying out of my butt right now. I mean, no claims have been made and all the evidence isn't in and there's lots of evidence that people can "know" things via feelings and faith and subjective experiences... or so you claim. One must sit on the fence until all possible evidence is evaluated so that one can build a semantic case for whatever they want to be true.

As Schlitt said, yep-- this skepticism stuff is fun! I can pretend to be logical while confirming all the things I want to be true and ignoring all the evidence or stuff I don't want to be true.

 

[articulett]

Tolerance of those who believe differently than you do. Respect for the fact that people can, and do, examine their religious beliefs critically, scrutinize them carefully and thoroughly, and arrive at a belief different from the one you hold.

No one is being intolerant, Beth, when they conclude your logic is flawed. They are just concluding that your logic is flawed. Yes, people arrive at different "belief systems"-- but there is one reality... science and skepticism are about understanding that reality--scientists and skeptics seem to increasingly converge when it comes to facts about that reality. They don't use the assumption that "invisible forms of consciousness can exist" to explain anything--nor "invisible, immeasurable forces". When we conclude that god beliefs are not rational, it is not "disrespectful"-- it's a logical conclusion derived through skeptical analysis that is based on evidence. All gods are inserted in place of supposed gaps in evidence. Why should we respect that when that is the very reason most skeptics are, in fact, non-theists? That's certainly not a position most theists respect!

Our conclusion is NOT "intolerant"... (and facts don't need to hide behind accusations of "intolerance", btw) There is no evidence that any invisible forms of consciousness can exist!! A skeptic follows the evidence to reach conclusions. You guys make room for a god by using nebulous definitions, poor analogies and avoiding having a god that one can pin down. Umm... that sounds on par with invisible bigfoots to me. Why aren't they equally likely? Should we "respect" and "tolerate" that? Your wide open door for possible gods should be left open for demons and psychic powers too, right? There's similar "convergent data" after all. But, that makes the term skeptic impotent and useless as a definition as far as I'm concerned. Who couldn't use that blather to describe themselves as a skeptic and cry about people being "intolerant" when they raise their eyebrows?

If those things you consider woo could qualify as skepticism per your definition of skepticism-- you have a really useless definition of skepticism and skeptics. That's what did in Behe--astrology would have to be science if they used his definition of science. Astrologists could call themselves skeptics and make the same "poor me" arguments as you for their claims! Stupidity and ignorance is not respect worthy... even if it's dressed up as "god".

I think that we can agree that either some invisible form of consciousness exists without a brain or all claims about such things are based on the same fallacious reasoning that humans are known to use in regards to belief in such things. I think it's obvious why most skeptics choose the latter. I think people have to use some really twisted reasoning to make the former remotely plausible given the eons of belief and the non-existence of measurable evidence. And even some such entity did exist-- we have no means of distinguishing such a consciousness from delusions. And when I say "we" that means all humans. I think it's clearly arrogant to presume otherwise. There is no error correcting mechanism with faith.

 

[Mobyseven]

Just for fun, everytime you avoid the question I asked or answer a different question while trying to pass off as though you dealt with the actual question, I'm going to do this: *BUZZ*

I'm doing this because it's getting mighty frustrating talking to you, and hopefully making it blatantly obvious that I'm not falling for the avoid-the-question nonsense will get you to actually answer for once.

Not at all, but what is a reasonable belief changes with the culture context a person is living in. Anything other than a (approximately) spherical earth is not a reasonable belief for anyone living in the present day, with the exception of some primitive tribes in isolated areas. It’s not a reasonable belief for daytime talkshow hosts in the 21st century. But it would be a very reasonable belief for most humans who lived in ages past.

Okay, and why is it a reasonable belief to hold? You keep saying that popularity makes a belief reasonable to hold, but you are yet to justify that position. Are beliefs held by a majority of people more likely to be correct? Is reality created by group consensus? What is your justification for your assertion - you have to have one, or else it's a meaningless definition that you've made up specifically to define yourself as having 'won' the argument.

I didn’t say no one believed in them. I said it wasn’t a widely held belief. I don’t think it is. That was one of the criteria I gave when you insisted I specify criteria for reasonable. Would it be unreasonable of me to ask that you keep your examples you wish me to comment on within the bounds of the criteria you insisted I provide?

*BUZZ*

It is within the criteria, so don't sidestep the issue.

A good question. I don’t know. It’s not unbelievable that an undiscovered species lurks in the wilderness. I doubt it myself and rate it pretty low on the probability scale, but still above the IPU.

*BUZZ*

That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked, "Is it reasonable to believe in the Chupacabra?" What that requires is a yes or no answer, and an explanation. Keep in mind that this is a widely held belief in Mexico, a country with over 108 million people in it.

I’m glad you know the answer. I suspect yours is different from mine.

Let's see...

It tells me that what I think I know may or may not be true, so it’s best not to be too certain of which answer is correct. If someone chooses to believe one thing rather than another, it tells me something about that person. If someone chooses to believe that their belief is the only possible rational belief on the question, that position tells me something else about them. Our respective positions on such questions can define who we are, what we value, and how we choose to approach our lives.

*BUZZ*

Again, that's not the question I asked. I asked, "What does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?"

I even put it in bold and repeated it so that you would actually answer the question. I guess that was too much to hope for, and instead of an answer to the question I gotsome wishy-washy tripe about how it makes you doubt that what you know is true, and how our opinions define us as a person. Rather than make you actually think for two seconds about what the answer to the question I actually asked is, I'll just kill the suspense and tell you.

If a claim is untestable, then there is no difference between a world in which that claim is true and a world in which that claim is false. This is because if there was a difference, we would be able to test for that difference. As such, untestable claims have no explanatory power.

Okay. I misunderstood you. Eyewitness testimony can be better than blind chance. Thanks.

Please don't thank me. If you think that that supports your position, you haven't understood a damn word I've said.

Actually, this is kind of my point about testimonial evidence regarding the existence of god. There’s an awful lot of it and it converges in a number of respects. That’s one reason I think a person can critically examine the evidence and arrive at a belief that a god might exist. It’s not very consistent in many regards, but there is a core to the concept that seems, to me at least, as solid as the core of the concepts of things like ‘justice’. Does justice exist outside of human imagination? I don’t know the answer to that one either and the evidence is not convincing either way.

Did you understand anything that I wrote? The bit that seems to have you dancing for joy would be this part, "The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality."

See anything wrong with your premature celebration? "...object that is known to exist..." Is god an object that is known to exist? No. Which brings us back to the fact that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless in establishing the existence of an object.

As for your question, "Does justice exist outside of the human imagination?" The answer is, "No." Justice is an artificial human construct, much like mathematics or 'evil'. Should sentient life cease to exist, so would such concepts - the harsh truth is that reality does not and cannot care about artificial human constructs.

Is god an object? I'm not sure. I believe that most religions mainting that gods are not corporeal beings, although some at times take on such bodies.

I'm using object in a restricted philosophical sense - an object being a thing, entity or being that can have properties and bear relationships to other objects, and that exists somehow in space and time. This is a useful definition for the purposes of this discussion as a less restricted definition would allow for artificial human constructs to be considered objects.

So yes, god is an object. Non-corporeal beings can be objects too - provided they exist.

Yes it is.

Are you a second grader in disguise, or do you actually think that automated contradiction can form the basis of an argument?

I don’t claim it isn’t subject to unreliability. I’m more than willing to admit that. But I don’t rate at 0 either. You admitted earlier in this post that eyewitness testimony can be better than blind chance. I think it falls considerably closer to 0 than 100% accuracy, but it’s a subjective judgment in every case with every witness regarding their reliability is.

Again - anecdotal evidence can be better than blind chance when discussing the properties of a object that is known to exist. If we don't know that the object exists, then anecdotal evidence is useless. Or are you going to tell us that belief in bigfoot, extraterrestrial UFOs, the Chupacabra and the Loch Ness Monster are all reasonable beliefs to hold because of the numerous anecdotes claiming witness or direct experience?

You can arbitrarily dismiss all of it in terms when you consider things for yourself, weighting such evidence at 0. But it’s unreasonable for you to expect everyone else to share that judgment. When you dismiss all testimony regarding the existence of a particular type – such as religious experiences – it comes across as inherently biased to me. I don’t dismiss all such accounts, nor do I believe them without any doubt. I simply categorize it as evidence I can neither trust nor deny completely.

Again, because you seem to be missing the point here - anecdotal evidence can provide the incentive to start a proper investigation. But regardless of the outcome of the proper investigation, drawing any type of positive conclusion from the anecdotal evidence is irrational and unreasonable.

One listens to the person telling it and one categorizes and counts the occurrences. It’s best if one has an unbiased sample of individuals to draw such anecdotes from, without that one cannot draw any conclusions about the rates of such experiences. Not terribly useful, but data nonetheless.

So your brilliant idea is to count the number of people claiming an experience?

How do you deal with inconsistent testimony? How do you establish who has had a 'real' experience as opposed to a trick of the mind? How do you establish that no one in your sample is lying?

In short, how do you control a sample of anecdotes, when all subjects claim to bear witness to the same object, and yet have contradicting and mutually exclusive testimony, may have misinterpreted the experience they had as divine when it could be something else, or may be outright lying?

The point isn't that anecdotal evidence of god is useless unless god exists, the point is that anecdotal evidence of god is useless regardless of whether god exists. That is why the anecdotal evidence is useless.

No. I did not mean it as synonymous with information. Anecdotes do not allow us to generalize, so they fall short in terms of useful information. I consider them better than nothing, but not much better.

So you don't think that anecdotes are useful, yet you use them in your decision making process to arrive at conclusions. That's a masterful piece of cognitive dissonance if ever I saw one. I notice that you ignored the rather broad definition of data I supplied you - why is that?

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on whether a skeptic must assume the null as 'no god exists'. I think either can be set up as the null.

*BUZZ*

This time not because you failed to answer a question I asked, but because I'm getting sick of reading through and finding that rather than address what I've actually written you snip out huge portions and act as though I never justified my position. For example after, "I disagree - a skeptic should apply Occam's razor," there was the following:

Given that interventionist gods can be tested for (and have failed miserably when tests have been run), that leaves us with an untestable, unfalsifiable god who does nothing and resides nowhere in the universe. Application of Occam's razor tells us that non-belief in god (not multiplying entities beyond necessity) is the preferred hypothesis.

Allowing the belief of entities or phenomenon to be called reasonable only on the basis that they have no explanatory power (and therefore cannot be tested for) is ludicrous and unparsimonious - it means that we may safely believe in unicorn riding goblins, so long as we posit that they are invisible, that they live in a biosphere on Jupiter hidden from our view, or some other rationalisation that places them outside of the possibility of scientific testing (at least for our current ability to test).

Hardly an insignificant part of my post, unless you're honestly trying to tell me that there is no more information or reasoning in those two paragraphs than there is in the one sentence you quoted. What you did is called cherry-picking, and if I was playing 'logical fallacy bingo' I think that one would have given me the win.

Aside from that, 'agree to disagree' really is no more than a weasel way of saying, "I can't argue with your reasoning, so I'm going to pretend to take the 'high ground'."

I don't 'agree to disagree'. You're wrong, and unless you can either admit that or come up with a logical argument as to why my argument is flawed I'm not going to be agreeing to anything. Certainly everybody can have an opinion, but some opinions are supported by logic, reasoning and evidence, and some are birthed from the wrong end of the body. Don't come to me with that 'agree to disagree' tosh unless we're talking about something which is entirey based on subjective opinion (the enjoyability of a particular movie or book, for example).

If this is true, it would imply to me that the existence of free will is not a skeptical belief either. Do you believe in free will? Or are we destined to type these words and next post and next?

Free will is a thorny issue - while I would like to believe that I have free will, our current understanding of how the brain works leads me to the conclusion that I probably don't have free will. This is one of those areas where I would absolutely love to be proved incorrect - unfortunately reality has this way of not actually caring about human hopes and desires.

Having said that, I still live my life as though there is free will. For even if it doesn't exist, the illusion that it does is persistent enough that it won't (nor should it) impact upon my life in any meaningful way.

I would suggest that if you want to discuss free will any further, you should start another thread.

Tolerance of those who believe differently than you do. Respect for the fact that people can, and do, examine their religious beliefs critically, scrutinize them carefully and thoroughly, and arrive at a belief different from the one you hold. Not everyone of course. Not all atheists have given the matter much thought either. But to assume, as is common on this forum, that just because someone doesn’t agree that the only outcome to applying skeptical tools and methodology to their religious beliefs is atheism, is as arrogant and unpleasant as the outrage and/or pity any smug believer has for those who believe different from them.

Why should I tolerate irrational beliefs? Many people have many beliefs, and most of the time nobody has a problem with criticism or outright condemnation of a wide range of beliefs - any person who believes that murder is right is condemned, and rightly so, as is a person who believes that children are sexually mature enough that they can engage in such activities. People who believe in the inferiority of women or blacks are also condemned for their beliefs. And yet for some reason condemnation of a specific class of irrational beliefs - religion - is considered taboo, or disrespectful.

You say that I should respect people's beliefs, and that a large number of people have skeptically examined their religion have legitimately come to a different conclusion to me. Yet you have not even remotely made a case for this, your arguments amounting to no more than a collection of logical fallacies: Argument from popularity, special pleading, acceptance of anecdotal evidence, fallacy of the golden mean, and so on.

If you can honestly suggest that people who believe a child was born of a virgin based on a text that is nearly two millenia old has examined that belief skeptically, I'm going to have to call that nonsense. If you think that believing in a god that does nothing, exists nowhere, and is undetectable is a belief one can arrive at skeptically, I'm going to call that nonsense too. And if you think that I'm going to stop criticising irrational beliefs on the basis that I should for some reason respect them - I'm going to call that the biggest nonsense of all.

I'm outta time for posting. Nice talking with you. Don't feel obligated to respond if I'm starting to irritate you too much.

If I didn't want to talk to people who irritated me, I probably wouldn't leave the house.

 

[articulett]

And for Claus:

Illogical reason for reaching belief: Conclusion assumes facts not in evidence (like conscious entities absent living brain)

Logical reason for reaching belief: Following the evidence and going with the most parsimonious explanation for the evidence--the one that doesn't involve the existence of things not known to exist... The same way we can use Randi's demonstrations to extrapolate that all psychics are fakes of some sort. That is the more parsimonious explanation then the notion that some person somewhere really is psychic but hasn't honed their skills enough to pass any scientific testing. It's also the only conclusion that is prone to error correction via evidence. Nebulous beliefs about gods or psychics are not. They are faith based. They require a belief in something not known to exist. They are not amenable to reason and cannot be disproven conclusively to anyone of "faith".

 

[Mobyseven]

That's great, except my analogy wasn't comparing belief that intelligent life exists in the universe with belief in the existence of gods. It was comparing belief that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system with belief in the existence of gods.

And I'm telling you that that all you're doing is handwaving evidence away.

Let me ask you this - if we had knowledge of intelligent life that was on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, would you then ask, "What is the probability that life exists outside of our solar system and Alpha Centauri's solar system?"

If not, why not? And in a similar vein, on what grounds are you excluding evidence of intelligent life from our solar system from the search? By what criteria is that evidence eliminated?

 

[Lonewulf]

Not at all, but what is a reasonable belief changes with the culture context a person is living in. Anything other than a (approximately) spherical earth is not a reasonable belief for anyone living in the present day, with the exception of some primitive tribes in isolated areas. It’s not a reasonable belief for daytime talkshow hosts in the 21st century. But it would be a very reasonable belief for most humans who lived in ages past.

Have you answered the question of why time period is the only prerequisite?

For instance, you said no one today that is "sane" (assuming that you're right here, which I don't believe you are) believes in fairies. Yet you accept them believing in a Sky Fairy (I.E., God).

What has "disproved" fairies? Why is what time period they believed in such a thing indicative of... anything, really? Egyptians believed in a vital life energy, or the ka... does this mean that the soul is disproved, because they believed in it back then? Or were the Egyptians just as sane as modern people?

If the Egyptians were just as sane, and their beliefs and "testimony" were just as trustworthy as modern people's... then why not the same with fairies? If there is reason to disbelieve them... then why not also disbelieve people today?

That the earth goes around the sun has nothing to do with the time period it was believed in... it has everything to do with being a debunked theory thanks to objective scientific evidence. In the BC's, someone suggested the existance of atoms; he was correct in his theories (though probably not in the details). So time doesn't disprove his theory.

Where is that which disproves fairies?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It’s not a reasonable belief for daytime talkshow hosts in the 21st century. But it would be a very reasonable belief for most humans who lived in ages past..

A reasonable belief, yes. Evidence the Earth is flat, no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's great, except my analogy wasn't comparing belief that intelligent life exists in the universe with belief in the existence of gods. It was comparing belief that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system with belief in the existence of gods.

OK, it took me a minute to figure out what the difference was you meant here. So now we need this smiley:

[out of sequence] Since there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, the analogy is appropriate.

Here we are again faced with someone who isn't getting a concept despite it having been explained numerous times. (Nothing personal.) So let me try another approach.

There are a couple things science doesn't have the ability to ever test. One of those is anything that happened before the Big Bang. We cannot see past that point no matter how good our instruments will ever be. Another thing science is said to be unable to test for is anything outside of the Universe. At least at the current time, it is believed we can never observe anything that is outside of the Universe. The gods science refers to when making the statement science cannot test for gods is a god that is beyond the laws of nature, beyond the laws of physics, essentially beyond the natural Universe. (I argue that isn't the correct definition of god but that is a separate point.) This is the god you are referring to.

Life outside of the solar system is discoverable. We have not yet detected it, but it is detectable by the the laws of science if we had the proper instruments or spaceships.

In one case we could discover it if we had the right tools. In the other case there are no tools possible to ever discover it. The analogy is not appropriate.



Regarding the concept of evidence for intelligent life beyond the solar system...

Since we don't know what conditions are necessary for intelligent life to develop, we have no way of knowing. It is impossible to extrapolate from a single example. According to this article:

We have only one example, rendering statistical estimates impossible, and even the example we have is subject to a strong anthropic bias.​

Frank Drake, who formulated the Drake Equation, seems to agree:

Frank Drake himself has commented that the Drake Equation is unlikely to settle the Fermi paradox; instead it is just a way of organizing our ignorance on the subject.​

-Bri

You are confusing certainty with probability. But science can conclude either one. There is no certainty of life outside the solar system. But the fact there is life on Earth, that Earth is not unique, and that the Universe is so enormous, there is some probability of intelligent life elsewhere. How probable is subject to speculation.

 

[articulett]

A reasonable belief, yes. Evidence the Earth is flat, no.

Exactly. And by the same token-- a belief in god is reasonable since most people are indoctrinated to believe such things by people they trust from a very young age. But that is not evidence that any gods exist. It is, however, an explanation why some people might use god as an explanation for something they don't understand.

People did not experience alien abductions before they realized there could be other planets... these are beliefs inculcated via culture... people interpret the things they don't understand via the stories they are told. Those who don't believe in gods--don't have evidence they extrapolate as a message from god. Those who don't believe in demons, don't see signs of them and don't know any possessed people. Those who understand weather phenomenon--don't interpret lightening as a message from a god. The brain confabulates explanations to explain Hypnogogic dreams and schizophrenic delusions by reaching to cultural stories when it doesn't understand what is going on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you didn't answer. You just called it "without any reason". Yet, that reason you point to is evidence....On what evidence do you draw your conclusion in Hal's case?

I did. You just don't like the answer. Did Hal grow up in a vacuum? Did he come to the conclusion god/s exist by magic? Is he resistant to any outside influence he ever heard about god/s from? Did he not believe until he became a skeptic or did he believe before he became a skeptic? Did he have his own religion in childhood of Deism? Or did he modify his religious beliefs to fit the claim of no evidence?

Denial is a natural human behavior.

Given that I can evaluate the likelihood of these answers regardless of specifically asking them, I can certainly make an assessment of the probability Hal or anyone else believes in gods sans evidence. Given I know something about denial in human nature, I can add that evidence to my conclusions.

You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from the evidence you think applies.





This answers my question you didn't address:

You have to understand that it isn't being unskeptical, if they don't claim evidence.

Yes they are. The have an unskeptical belief. They are unskeptical because the belief in gods is by necessity unskeptical. Anyone applying skeptical principles to god beliefs would find them unsupportable.

But you haven't supported it with neither reason or facts. Your "reason" is based on a false premise: That Hal claims evidence of his beliefs. Your "facts" are also wrong, for the same reason: Hal doesn't claim evidence of his beliefs. ... Then point to the evidence that you think Hal is in denial of.

Are you unable to process what I said? "Denial" means the person is unaware of the thing in question. Hal can make a claim he believes without evidence because he is consciously unaware of the evidence. I don't know one way or the other what Hal says or thinks to himself about the reasons he believes in a god. And in this case, I am going by what you are telling me so in essence we are really discussing Deist reasoning rather than Hal personally.

You ignore the fact people grow up with god beliefs. You are taking the view these beliefs evolved in an adult mind with or without careful thought. God beliefs never evolve that way. People are exposed to religious doctrines at various ages of their lives. They choose based on that exposure and whatever else they experience to adopt the conclusion the evidence supports god beliefs. The Deism comes later in trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance if one then goes on to adopt science and skepticism as a philosophy.

But that is not what Hal says. He says that he doesn't claim to be able to justify his belief to anyone.

He isn't refusing to show evidence. He isn't in denial. He isn't claiming to have evidence at all.

How do you know he isn't in denial? You are simply stating that because he doesn't claim to be using evidence he must not be using evidence. A person in denial wouldn't be expected to say anything different. A person's own statements are not evidence they are not in denial, they wouldn't recognize the denial.

And in this case I think you are taking someone who says he has no need to support his belief to others and turning that around to saying it is evidence he also doesn't support his belief to himself. That isn't even logical, let alone likely.

Answer the question: What evidence is being claimed? Yes, by Hal.

What is this evidence he is in denial of?

It's one simple question.

I think I covered this above as well as in my other posts. It just isn't an answer that agrees with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

And for Claus:

Illogical reason for reaching belief: Conclusion assumes facts not in evidence (like conscious entities absent living brain)

Logical reason for reaching belief: Following the evidence and going with the most parsimonious explanation for the evidence--the one that doesn't involve the existence of things not known to exist... The same way we can use Randi's demonstrations to extrapolate that all psychics are fakes of some sort. That is the more parsimonious explanation then the notion that some person somewhere really is psychic but hasn't honed their skills enough to pass any scientific testing. It's also the only conclusion that is prone to error correction via evidence. Nebulous beliefs about gods or psychics are not. They are faith based. They require a belief in something not known to exist. They are not amenable to reason and cannot be disproven conclusively to anyone of "faith".

Thank you. That took a while.

Now: Does Hal claim that his god is a fact? Yes or no.

Just yes or no. Don't hide your answer in your usual flood of words. Just answer either:

Yes

or

No

And: What is the evidence that Hal rejects?

And, for the fourth time: What gave you the idea that I wouldn't be skeptical of the idea that demons had possessed your students?

I did. You just don't like the answer. Did Hal grow up in a vacuum? Did he come to the conclusion god/s exist by magic? Is he resistant to any outside influence he ever heard about god/s from? Did he not believe until he became a skeptic or did he believe before he became a skeptic? Did he have his own religion in childhood of Deism? Or did he modify his religious beliefs to fit the claim of no evidence?

Denial is a natural human behavior.

That's not evidence. That's conjecture. You judge Hal based on what you think he should have experienced, and then apply your own standards.

You are not using evidence to say that Hal is in "denial". You are using your own prejudice.

Given that I can evaluate the likelihood of these answers regardless of specifically asking them, I can certainly make an assessment of the probability Hal or anyone else believes in gods sans evidence. Given I know something about denial in human nature, I can add that evidence to my conclusions.

You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from the evidence you think applies.

You talk about likelihood and probability. Please provide the calculations and data on which you computed this probability.

Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

This answers my question you didn't address:
Yes they are. The have an unskeptical belief. They are unskeptical because the belief in gods is by necessity unskeptical. Anyone applying skeptical principles to god beliefs would find them unsupportable.

Not if their beliefs are not claimed to be evidential.

Are you unable to process what I said? "Denial" means the person is unaware of the thing in question.

O RLY?

Hal can make a claim he believes without evidence because he is consciously unaware of the evidence. I don't know one way or the other what Hal says or thinks to himself about the reasons he believes in a god. And in this case, I am going by what you are telling me so in essence we are really discussing Deist reasoning rather than Hal personally.

No, we are discussing why you call Hal - a Deist - unskeptical and in denial because he claims a non-evidential god.

If you don't know Hal, how can you presume to speak on behalf of all Deists (minus Hal)?

You ignore the fact people grow up with god beliefs.

Not me. I didn't grow up with god beliefs.

You are taking the view these beliefs evolved in an adult mind with or without careful thought. God beliefs never evolve that way. People are exposed to religious doctrines at various ages of their lives. They choose based on that exposure and whatever else they experience to adopt the conclusion the evidence supports god beliefs. The Deism comes later in trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance if one then goes on to adopt science and skepticism as a philosophy.

Ah, you do presume to speak for all Deists. Except Hal, of course.

How can you know how all Deists have come to their Deism?

How do you know he isn't in denial? You are simply stating that because he doesn't claim to be using evidence he must not be using evidence. A person in denial wouldn't be expected to say anything different. A person's own statements are not evidence they are not in denial, they wouldn't recognize the denial.

What you are doing now is forcing evidence on someone not claiming to have it. You are putting Hal in a position where he can't win - and you can't lose. No matter what he says, you will always say "Oh, well, he is in denial!"

Unlike some other defense mechanisms postulated by psychoanalytic theory (for instance, repression), the general existence of denial is fairly easy to verify, even for non-specialists. On the other hand, denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial".
Source

How skeptical is that?

And in this case I think you are taking someone who says he has no need to support his belief to others and turning that around to saying it is evidence he also doesn't support his belief to himself. That isn't even logical, let alone likely.

He doesn't claim to be able to support his belief with evidence.

 

[NeilC]

Regarding the concept of evidence for intelligent life beyond the solar system...You are confusing certainty with probability. But science can conclude either one. There is no certainty of life outside the solar system. But the fact there is life on Earth, that Earth is not unique, and that the Universe is so enormous, there is some probability of intelligent life elsewhere. How probable is subject to speculation.

If the probability is unknown then it could be very small indeed. If all we can say is that there is SOME probability (i.e. it's possible) of intelligent life elsewhere then BELIEVING it to be true is a matter of belief/opinion/faith. This would seem to make the analogy valid.

A theist might have some personal experience of a godly interaction. He knows such things can be explained by other causes but overall is of the opinion that in this case it is not. He's not certain by any means but leans towards believing in god.

Both of these are opinions. Both could be wrong. We can argue about the supposed probability of each case but as we know such probability cannot be defined.

So is this theist a skeptic? Is he being less skeptical than the intelligen life believer? Neither are saying they know. Neither are taking the agnostic/"hard skeptical" stance of saying they can't know, don't know and there don't have an opinion. Rather both are saying they believe in something with scant evidence.

We can pick out some differences in these two situations but I think there is enough of an analogy for them to be used like this.

I don't believe in intelligent life elsewhere. I simply do not know. I'm agnostic and skeptical about this. Personally I do believe there are no gods. By some definition of skepticism I'm being less skeptical about there being no gods than I am about intelligent life.

So I think Bri is correct that it's very hard to come up with a definition of skeptic that allows such speculative beliefs and opinions on a variety of subjects (some scientigic) that excludes this sort of weak theism. I think this partly because I've had this discussion with Bri already and I'm impressed with his arguments.

 

[Egg]

If the probability is unknown then it could be very small indeed. If all we can say is that there is SOME probability (i.e. it's possible) of intelligent life elsewhere then BELIEVING it to be true is a matter of belief/opinion/faith. This would seem to make the analogy valid.

A theist might have some personal experience of a godly interaction. He knows such things can be explained by other causes but overall is of the opinion that in this case it is not. He's not certain by any means but leans towards believing in god.

Both of these are opinions. Both could be wrong. We can argue about the supposed probability of each case but as we know such probability cannot be defined.

So is this theist a skeptic? Is he being less skeptical than the intelligen life believer? Neither are saying they know. Neither are taking the agnostic/"hard skeptical" stance of saying they can't know, don't know and there don't have an opinion. Rather both are saying they believe in something with scant evidence.

We can pick out some differences in these two situations but I think there is enough of an analogy for them to be used like this.

I don't believe in intelligent life elsewhere. I simply do not know. I'm agnostic and skeptical about this. Personally I do believe there are no gods. By some definition of skepticism I'm being less skeptical about there being no gods than I am about intelligent life.

So I think Bri is correct that it's very hard to come up with a definition of skeptic that allows such speculative beliefs and opinions on a variety of subjects (some scientigic) that excludes this sort of weak theism. I think this partly because I've had this discussion with Bri already and I'm impressed with his arguments.

I agree with your point of view here. I quite like the distinction of "hard skepticism". That's essentially where some of my earlier questioning in this thread was going. The "hard skeptical" "we just don't know" position is pretty much unrealistic for a person to consistently adhere to, and I'm sure if we were honest, we all hold beliefs/opinions in various things (not necessarily woo) which would not stand up to skeptical scrutiny, based on our own experiences, knowledge of various subjects (or lack of), anecdotal evidence from sources we have little reason to doubt and from our own subjective analysis of whatever related evidence we might have.

I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that an objectively unsubstantiated belief or opinion is necessarily irrational unless it's directly contrary to pretty conclusive evidence which the believer is well aware of. That would be unskeptical in my opinion, however where no such evidence exists, one person coming to a conclusion that God is merely imaginary and another that God probably exists are not necessarily being any less reasonable or unskeptical than eachother. Neither claim can be proven and neither follows the "hard skeptical" approach and we have no way to reach an objective probability of either.

 

[Bri]

And I'm telling you that that all you're doing is handwaving evidence away.

There's no evidence to handwave away.

Let me ask you this - if we had knowledge of intelligent life that was on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, would you then ask, "What is the probability that life exists outside of our solar system and Alpha Centauri's solar system?"

Of course. And we would then have two data sources upon which to extrapolate. By comparing the two, we can see what they have in common and have a better idea of the requirements for intelligent life to develop. If we had three examples, we'd have an even better idea. With only one example, we have almost no idea at all what the chances are. At most, we can probably say that the chances are greater than 0% -- it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

If we knew that the chances were greater than 50% (and we don't), we might have reason to believe that intelligent life actually does exist outside of our solar system, but we would still have no empirical evidence of it.

If not, why not? And in a similar vein, on what grounds are you excluding evidence of intelligent life from our solar system from the search? By what criteria is that evidence eliminated?

Because I was providing an example of something that skeptics tend to have opinions about without evidence.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There are a couple things science doesn't have the ability to ever test. One of those is anything that happened before the Big Bang. We cannot see past that point no matter how good our instruments will ever be. Another thing science is said to be unable to test for is anything outside of the Universe. At least at the current time, it is believed we can never observe anything that is outside of the Universe. The gods science refers to when making the statement science cannot test for gods is a god that is beyond the laws of nature, beyond the laws of physics, essentially beyond the natural Universe. (I argue that isn't the correct definition of god but that is a separate point.) This is the god you are referring to.

I'm not talking about a god that is entirely beyond detection. I'm talking about a god that interacts with the universe. Such a god could be detected if it wanted to be.

Life outside of the solar system is discoverable. We have not yet detected it, but it is detectable by the the laws of science if we had the proper instruments or spaceships.

Sure. Of course, if the life outside of the solar system were advanced enough, they might be able to avoid our detection if they so chose. They might also be too far away for us to ever detect. The point here is that the notion of intelligent life outside of the solar system is unfalsifiable. We cannot prove it false -- we could only prove it true (for example, if we discovered a radio signal from outer space, or if an alien visited us).

In one case we could discover it if we had the right tools. In the other case there are no tools possible to ever discover it. The analogy is not appropriate.

Here is where you lose me. It is possible that a god exists that has the ability to interact with the universe. It is even possible that this god does interact with the universe, but only does so when we aren't observing. The existence of such a god is of course an unfalsifiable proposition. We cannot prove it false -- we could only prove it true (for example, if it made itself known to us).

Regarding the concept of evidence for intelligent life beyond the solar system...You are confusing certainty with probability. But science can conclude either one.

Science can conclude probability given enough data, but in this case there isn't enough data. Any probability you might assign to it is pure speculation. The most we can say is that it's possible that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system (that the probability is greater than 0%).

There is no certainty of life outside the solar system. But the fact there is life on Earth, that Earth is not unique, and that the Universe is so enormous, there is some probability of intelligent life elsewhere. How probable is subject to speculation.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how unique conditions on Earth were for the development of intelligent life. The probability (how probable or improbable) is indeed subject to speculation.

Since the probability is unknown (it might be large or it might be extremely small), I contend that a skeptic might be of the opinion that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system (due to the sheer number of planets) or might be of the opinion that there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system (perhaps because some rare event occurred or unique condition was present that allowed life and later intelligence to develop on our planet).

-Bri

 

[Beth]

Just for fun, everytime you avoid the question I asked or answer a different question while trying to pass off as though you dealt with the actual question, I'm going to do this: *BUZZ*

How fun for you. Did you enjoy it?

I'm doing this because it's getting mighty frustrating talking to you, and hopefully making it blatantly obvious that I'm not falling for the avoid-the-question nonsense will get you to actually answer for once.

I’m sorry you are getting frustrated. I am responding to your questions as best I can. It seems to me that you simply don’t like the answers I provide to your questions and, to borrow your expression, you handwave them away.

Okay, and why is it a reasonable belief to hold? You keep saying that popularity makes a belief reasonable to hold, but you are yet to justify that position. Are beliefs held by a majority of people more likely to be correct?

As opposed to beliefs held by a single individual or only a few? Yes, I think it’s a reasonable rule of thumb. As you mentioned "The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality." That doesn’t make the majority opinion right of course. We both acknowledge that too.

Is reality created by group consensus?

No, but group consensus does shape our society and culture and contributes to our judgment about what is reasonable to believe.

What is your justification for your assertion - you have to have one, or else it's a meaningless definition that you've made up specifically to define yourself as having 'won' the argument.

It’s my personal criteria and it’s not a particularly unusual one. I only brought it up because you pressed me to define my criteria. Now you accuse me of having made it up specifically to define myself as having 'won' the argument. Not true. I don't think of these arguments of having been 'won' or 'lost' but as expeditions into understanding other people's point of view. By that criteria, I always 'win'.

It is within the criteria, so don't sidestep the issue.

I disagree. How does fit the criteria I provided?

That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked, "Is it reasonable to believe in the Chupacabra?" What that requires is a yes or no answer, and an explanation. Keep in mind that this is a widely held belief in Mexico, a country with over 108 million people in it.

Yes it is. I said “I don’t know” . What part of “I don’t know” don’t you understand? Am I required to have a firm opinion on every weird belief you can come up with? And if I don't, I'll be accused of avoiding the question? Seems like a lose/lose proposition for me, designed, as you accused me of doing, so that you can define yourself as having 'won' the point.

Again, that's not the question I asked. I asked, "What does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?"

I even put it in bold and repeated it so that you would actually answer the question. I guess that was too much to hope for, and instead of an answer to the question I gotsome wishy-washy tripe about how it makes you doubt that what you know is true, and how our opinions define us as a person. Rather than make you actually think for two seconds about what the answer to the question I actually asked is, I'll just kill the suspense and tell you.

If a claim is untestable, then there is no difference between a world in which that claim is true and a world in which that claim is false. This is because if there was a difference, we would be able to test for that difference. As such, untestable claims have no explanatory power.

Hmmm. I give an answer. You don’t like it. Therefore my answer is wrong and/or I’m avoiding the question. This is a debate style I’m becoming familiar with.

Please don't thank me. If you think that that supports your position, you haven't understood a damn word I've said.

I was thanking you for clarifying your position. I had misunderstood you earlier and thought you were claiming that such evidence was never better than blind chance.

Did you understand anything that I wrote? The bit that seems to have you dancing for joy would be this part, "The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality."

See anything wrong with your premature celebration? "...object that is known to exist..." Is god an object that is known to exist? No. Which brings us back to the fact that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless in establishing the existence of an object.

As for your question, "Does justice exist outside of the human imagination?" The answer is, "No." Justice is an artificial human construct, much like mathematics or 'evil'. Should sentient life cease to exist, so would such concepts - the harsh truth is that reality does not and cannot care about artificial human constructs.

It’s nice to know that it’s not just religious questions you are so certain about your viewpoint being right and others completely wrong. The question of whether such things as ‘justice’ and ‘numbers’ exist outside of human minds is on open one – much like the question of whether god exists. Can you honestly not conceive that other intelligent rational humans have spent considerable time and effort and though on such matters and arrived at different conclusions? Do you consider them all irrational? Uncritical thinkers? Believing only due to blind faith? I don't. I don't know the answers to those questions, nor do I claim to. What I do know is that despite much thought and effort, no one else has answered them definitely either.

Are you a second grader in disguise, or do you actually think that automated contradiction can form the basis of an argument?

Ad hom does not advance your argument. Do you think I’m a second grader? As for automated contradictions, your posts are full of them. Do you think declaring your opinion is the only right one and that all others are not only wrong but that people who believe other than you do are irrational uncritical thinkers helps you come across as a knowledgable adult?

Again, because you seem to be missing the point here - anecdotal evidence can provide the incentive to start a proper investigation. But regardless of the outcome of the proper investigation, drawing any type of positive conclusion from the anecdotal evidence is irrational and unreasonable.

Really? Do you consider it irrational and unreasonable to expect a jury to render a verdict when that is the only type of evidence available.

So your brilliant idea is to count the number of people claiming an experience?

I was responding to your claim that it wasn’t data.

How do you deal with inconsistent testimony? How do you establish who has had a 'real' experience as opposed to a trick of the mind? How do you establish that no one in your sample is lying?

I can’t know that. Likewise, no pollster who asks someone how they voted can be certain that no one in their sample is lying. Still, it’s data and it seems that, for the most part, anecdotal evidence systematically gathered and analyzed can provide us with insights.

In short, how do you control a sample of anecdotes, when all subjects claim to bear witness to the same object, and yet have contradicting and mutually exclusive testimony, may have misinterpreted the experience they had as divine when it could be something else, or may be outright lying?

If you can't control the sample, you are in the same situation of a person sitting in the jury box. You listen, you evaluate the different witnesses for how credible you think they are, and you make the best decision you can based on the evidence you have available. Is it perfect? No. Might you be wrong? Yes. Is it unreasonable to come to a conclusion anyway? I don't think so. A person merely needs to keep in mind that their conclusion, whatever it is, might well be wrong.

The point isn't that anecdotal evidence of god is useless unless god exists, the point is that anecdotal evidence of god is useless regardless of whether god exists. That is why the anecdotal evidence is useless.

You are making a subjective evaluation of anecdotal evidence again. You can consider it useless if you want, but I don’t think it is reasonable to expect everyone else to feel the same way about such evidence.

Aside from that, 'agree to disagree' really is no more than a weasel way of saying, "I can't argue with your reasoning, so I'm going to pretend to take the 'high ground'."

And your evidence for this interpretation is?

I don't 'agree to disagree'. You're wrong, and unless you can either admit that or come up with a logical argument as to why my argument is flawed I'm not going to be agreeing to anything. Certainly everybody can have an opinion, but some opinions are supported by logic, reasoning and evidence, and some are birthed from the wrong end of the body. Don't come to me with that 'agree to disagree' tosh unless we're talking about something which is entirey based on subjective opinion (the enjoyability of a particular movie or book, for example).

Like the usefulness of anecdotal evidence?

Free will is a thorny issue - while I would like to believe that I have free will, our current understanding of how the brain works leads me to the conclusion that I probably don't have free will. This is one of those areas where I would absolutely love to be proved incorrect - unfortunately reality has this way of not actually caring about human hopes and desires.

Having said that, I still live my life as though there is free will. For even if it doesn't exist, the illusion that it does is persistent enough that it won't (nor should it) impact upon my life in any meaningful way.

That's a rationalization that sounds surprisingly similar to what theistic skeptics say about their belief in god.

I would suggest that if you want to discuss free will any further, you should start another thread.

Not particularly. I brought it up as an example of a belief that many skeptics hold without strong evidence. Why do you think it reasonable for a skeptics to believe in free will but not in god? Seems to me that the evidence for both is quite similar - there is only testimonial and subjective personal experience that either exist.

I’m sorry, but I’m out of time again. Besides, my posts are getting way too long.

I think at this point, we are simply going round and round over the same points. I don't agree with your arguments, you don't agree with mine. This thread has over a 1,000 posts. I think it may be time for me to move on to a different thread. It's been nice talking with you.