Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[cj.23]

???

Are you kidding? A quote of paragraph with no link and it is hearsay? Really? Dude? No, really, dude.

Yes, agreed, I thought that as well. Why not email James Randi and ask him? I will if you want, but better you do it...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

BTW: You really should check out www.quirkology.com

Yes good site - as you may have gathered I know Wiseman, though he may well have forgotten me. There are not more than about 50 of us in the parapsychology community in the uK, and that is a good twenty more than ten years ago. He was very kind about a hypothesis of mine when giving sceptical comment on a Discovery Channel show I made years ago though, and I must thank him one day.

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Yes, agreed, I thought that as well. Why not email James Randi and ask him? I will if you want, but better you do it...

If I was new to the subject I would be happy to. I'm not at all dogmatic and I'm willing to question my held beliefs but I don't have any dissonance as to this subject. Derren Brown is respected in this field which is why Dawkins interviewed him. Derren's explanations are not in conflict with the explanations of Randi, Wiseman no matter how hard you try and suggest that there is. There are certainly disagreements but that does not prove that Derren's explanations are bogus.

If you found a quote that said that someone emailed Randi and Randi verified that the earth was flat I wouldn't bother to take the time to email Randi to verify it. Can you understand? I've emailed randi and I've had a short debate with him (4 or 5 emails apiece). I don't see the need to waste my time.

If Randi thought that Derren was complete BS it wouldn't change anything though. Randi isn't my prophet and I don't always agree with him. I only note that he talks a lot about the psychology of magic, as does Derren.

So in the end I don't see your point.

 

[RandFan]

This is deeply ironic. The reason I first noted that Brown was using conjuring tricks for some stuff, not NLP. hypnosis or deep psychology was because Richard Wiseman had taught me the same trick. It involves a very simple method that while it does rely on the misdirecting the audiemse does so in exactly the same manner as James Randi would employ. Wiseman did at an SPR lecture, and then later when he was my guest lecturer at my psychic reseach group. I think Derren Brown is a brilliant magician - I just don't think that his explanations reveal anything.

I think that's nonsense but that's fine. I don't see the point of winning a debate about the quality of Brown's explanations. Having listened to The Skeptics Guide To The Universe, Atheist Experience, Point of Inquiry, and many other blogs and podcasts (not to mention JREF) and having researched and read many books on the subject for years I simply don't see the discontinuity you would like me to believe.

 

[cj.23]

Hi Randfan, sorry I'd gone to bed but I just got up to fetch a drink and thought I'd see how the debate fared - I gues sthis is just one of the places we will have to disagree poiltely. For once, it's because i'm more sceptical than you, specifically of NLP -- http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html is a fair summary of my concerns from the Skeptic's Dictionary. I may be being VERY unfair - my scepticism is based on my early 90's training in Psychiatric Nursing when I was repeatedly exposed to NLP ideas and mini-courses, and became extraordinarily cynical based on how it was presented there. It's one of the millions of areas I have never had time to investigate properly, and there is a huge research literature, so it will have to wait till I have more time. Hypnosis again is such a complex issue that I don't think my limited knowledge of the subject can do it any justice -- I defer to those who know more, and freely admit you probably know far more about these issues than I do. I'm always happy to learn, and to admit my woeful ignorance - and probable bias. NLP was presented to me in such psychobabble terms that any real insights were probably lost - it may well have some very real value.

Anyway need sleep, and thanks to everyone for the interesting conversation _i'll carry on responding tomorrow

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Hi Randfan, sorry I'd gone to bed but I just got up to fetch a drink and thought I'd see how the debate fared - I gues sthis is just one of the places we will have to disagree poiltely. For once, it's because i'm more sceptical than you, specifically of NLP -- http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html is a fair summary of my concerns from the Skeptic's Dictionary. I may be being VERY unfair - my scepticism is based on my early 90's training in Psychiatric Nursing when I was repeatedly exposed to NLP ideas and mini-courses, and became extraordinarily cynical based on how it was presented there. It's one of the millions of areas I have never had time to investigate properly, and there is a huge research literature, so it will have to wait till I have more time. Hypnosis again is such a complex issue that I don't think my limited knowledge of the subject can do it any justice -- I defer to those who know more, and freely admit you probably know far more about these issues than I do. I'm always happy to learn, and to admit my woeful ignorance - and probable bias. NLP was presented to me in such psychobabble terms that any real insights were probably lost - it may well have some very real value.

Anyway need sleep, and thanks to everyone for the interesting conversation _i'll carry on responding tomorrow

cj x

Let me try and be clear.

I stated earlier that it wouldn't surprise nor bother me if Derren Brown were wrong about something. It's not critical. I've disagreed with Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, Randi, etc., etc..

It's an exciting and dynamic world. Science is an exciting and dynamic field. I don't need for everyone on the skeptics side of the fence to be right about everything. Bill Maher BTW is a great example. He think's there is something to the Big Pahram/Medical conspiracy BS. But that doesn't make him wrong about everything else.

If Browne is wrong about NLP or something or other then that doesn't make him wrong about the psychology he does use that others agree with him on. In the end you are making and ad hominem argument (though I'm not taking a stand for or against NLP but I'm happy to be skeptical about it).

More importantly, Derren isn't a scientist or researcher. He is an entertainer who uses psychology and, as you said, trickery or whatever to do what he does. If he used NLP as a diversion and cut and edited his shows to make it appear that someone was hypnotized or fell for the NLP as others have done (See David Blaine and Chris Angel) it wouldn't bother me. He's an entertainer. However I think his sober claims about psychology when talking with Dawkins and others is pretty on the mark. But even if it wasn't, it's not critical to my point.

I've said before and I'll say it again, I have no prophet. I have no dogma. My only claim is that there is no evidence that there is anything paranormal/supernatural/metaphysical (pick your term I don't give a damn).

If you can show it to me I'll believe it.

 

[PixyMisa]

The existence of a God? That's the problem with theism - belief in a God actually tells us very little.

Indeed.

If you want to get specific though, and say embrace Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, then you have very specific faith claims there. For example one might look at St.Augustine, and predict

These are not predictions, except v, which is not testable.

I don't think that the failure of prediction is in anyway fatal to the theistic hypothesis anyway.

This is exactly the problem.

A God that was predictable would not be a God? Predictability is a value of forces and laws, not persons. The god hypothesis postulates a person.

Special pleading.

Imagine that every time a prayer for rain is made, a little purple cloud appears over the believers head and rains on them. Scientists explore this perfectly predictable event, and discover it constitutes a natural law.

With no mechanism.

The event occurs within nature - so they would be perfectly right to postulate a natural mechanism.

Postulate, yes. Find, no.

Where is God now?

Busily creating tiny purple rain clouds.

Did not Newton believe that gravity was established by God?

Who cares?

In that sense God becomes predictable; and cease to exist in terms of any kind of visibility?

So if there is evidence for God's existence, God doesn't exist?

And you ask if atheists are rational?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why do you believe there is a distinction? As far as I know I can observe an electron, or the Big Bang, or Evolution directly. Hell there are plenty of planets outside the solar system which can not be directly observed? So what is the difference exactly?

Objective evidence; defined properties; well-formed hypotheses; logical rigour; methodological naturalism.

Your argument fails to provide any of these.

I would not go as far as you - I think all I have shown is that some people believe they experience God.

Some people believe they experience ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, goblins, reincarnation, astral travel, gods, angels and/or demons. None of these exist.

I have never had a mystical experience personally. However, whether I personally experience God or not makes no difference to the existence of God?

Then by extension, whether anyone personally experiences God or not makes no difference to the existence of God.

I have never experienced Disneyland - I have heard accounts by others and seen pictures, but I lack direct experience. That is by no means fatal to the existence of Disneyland?

No. The two cases are not equivalent.

Disneyland is not a supernatural entity. We have physical evidence for Disneyland, and detailed documentary evidence with known provenance from contemporary sources. Disneyland is well-defined, not a post-hoc rationalisation.

I don't draw the inference that experiences I do not participate in do not exist, which is what you appear to advocate here.

The experience exists. Your interpretation of the experience is invalid.

"Number 4: Atheism. If a deity exist one assume she wants us to have a purpose, or direction. Most people at some point struggle to find meaning or contentedness in an apparently senseless universe. So why would a deity obscure her existence, allowing this to occur? In what sense is Free Will rendered negligible by God revealing herself? Why not reveal herself, and allow humans free agency to accept or deny her? Why allow for atheism, which appear unjust, a form of entrapment?"

The Cathars answered that one.

 

[PixyMisa]

On the contrary. It is not direct evidence of a God. It is evidence. Look back over the thread, and see my examples I have offerred...

i) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is eviudence for the Big Bang
ii) The Fossil Record is evidence for Evolution
let's add a few more
iii) The Gallic Wars is evidence for Caesar's campaigns
iv) The bending of light recorded in the Michelson-Morley experiments is evidence for Relativity
v) The presence of the bacterium heliobacter pylori in patients with stomach ulcers is evidence for a link.

What is the common factor between all of these examples but absent from your "God" concept? (Actually, there are several correct answers.)

These are off the top of my head. If you want I will simply open a dozen science journals and show you the term evidence employed in the same context.

Indeed.

And that is not the context that you are using.

By your reckoning none of these would be evidence

Wrong.

the only admissible evidence for something would be the thing-in-itself

Wrong.

as any secondary data relevant to the construction of a hypothesis is not evidence.

Wrong.

Now, any of those things I just listed in i)-v) above could fit other hypotheses too.

Correct.

They remain evidence for the hypotheses I associated with each - quite obviously so...

Yes. And?

Sure, I still don't get the real difference between dat and hypothesis you propose

Then go back to high school and try staying awake in science class.

but then as in each case above the data of mystical experiences

There is no such thing.

becomes evidence whein invoked as part of the God hypothesis.

And there's no such thing as that either.

So it is still evidence for that hypothesis.

If there were such a thing, perhaps so, but since there isn't, the point is moot.

Wher eis the difference?

You have no "God hypothesis". You have no "mystical experiences".

You have experiences (or at least, anecdotal evidence of experiences). You interpret these as mystical for no valid reason. You then provide a post-hoc rationalisation for these interpretations.

The fossil record data only becomes evidence for the evolution hyposesis when invoked as part of the evolution hypothesis.

That is what I said, yes. It cannot be otherwise.

So as I keep saying, evidence exists -- and i am not the one mangling how evidence is defined.

You are mangling pretty much everything.

You don't have the data you claim to have.

You don't have the hypothesis you claim to have.

Hypotheses are never proven in Science

Really? Wow. That would come as a huge surprise to me if I hadn't JUST SAID THAT.

and your definition of science fails because it renders say Evolution non-scientific

No.

and Big Bang cosmology

No.

and pretty much all observational science.

No.

Take Global Warming. How does if x then y apply?

How does it not?

You are trying to claim a tiny amount of experimental science is somehow descriptive of all scientific methodology.

Nope. All science works the same way. Whether we can set up the experiments ourselves, or have to wait for nature to run them for us, does not matter.

It's not. It's a subset of science, and a subset of scientific methodologies.

You're confused. Controlled experiments are a subset of scientific procedures, but nowhere did I so restrict myself.

Regardless of this crucuial flaw in your reasoning

Which exists only in your imagination.

there is another problem. We have already noted that methodological naturalism excludes supernatural causality, and hence effectively removes our subject matter from consideration.

NO.

It disallows it in scientific hypotheses, and for good reason, because you cannot provide a useful explanation of anything once you allow a supernatural cause.

It must be understood though that methodological naturalism is a meta-experiment. It does not instruct us to ignore evidence that is inconvenient, rather, it provides a potentially useful approach for understanding our Universe.

It's not a scientific hypothesis itself because it's not clear what form falsification could take, but it is anything but a blind exclusionary principle.

This is not really an issue, because science is not our only way of knowing.

Merely the only useful one.

Itt is again a single subset of ways of knowing - History

History comes in three forms: Stuff written in books, which is just data; science; and crap.

Philosophy

Philosophy doesn't teach us anything about the Universe. Philosophy gave us the tools to create science, of course.

direct obervation, all apply just as well.

Direct observation only provides data. Science provides explanations.

Imagine your great great grandfather. Imagine i assert he was a baker in Middlesborough. How can this knowledge be tested by your "If X, then Y" experimental formulation?

If X then Y need not refer to an experiment.

I can say, if my great great grandfather were a baker in Middlesborough, I would not be able to find records that we was a Polish tailor. If I can find such records, your assertion is falsified.

Ditto the problem of wheter extraterrestrial life exists, or the problem of if your aunt sings the blues? All of these are legitimate questions

None of these, as you have formulated them, are well-formed scientific hypotheses. You can, however, formulate any coherent statement about the real world as a scientific hypothesis, and at least in principle, test it.

Something you haven't bothered with.

Sure, I know Hempdel's covering law. on symmetry of explanation. I may not be especially bright, in fact I know I'm not, but I read quite a bit. I agree it's weaker, and in fact we can easily provide examples where it does not follow. I can't see the relevance here???

The relevance is the depth of your failure.

Not really - ascribe properties to God that are derived from centuries of theology.

Theology is nothing but ascribing properties to God.

I don't think I have postulated a single attribute of god that can not be found in the Church Fathers, and even the Pre-Nicene Church Fathers.

So what?

Even if I did, so what?

The point remains is that this "God" thing of yours is not an explanation for anything, has no predictive power, and no utility. It is a post-hoc rationalisation and leading contestant in the special pleading Olympics 2000 years running.

Grounded theory derives rearch questions from the data, and argues from the bottom up - and I regard it often as a more useful method than the often top down logic of the hypothetico-deductive method, which is often employed in theology and almost standard in some science.

That was nicely devoid of meaning.

Still, my method is in fact entirely consistent with either model -- I'll explain why if you want...

Feel free.

Yes, see underdertemination problem repeatedly referenced above. This applies to almost any hypothesis. The question is whether the model explains the data well. Nothing more, nothing less.

WRONG. Completely and unreservedly wrong.

As I said, for any set of data, there is an infinite number of hypotheses that fully explain the data.

What matters in a hypothesis is not that it explains the data you have, but that it explains the data you don't have. Aything else - such as everything you are doing - is mere curve-fitting.

For any hypothesis N alternative hypoteses which fit the data can be constructed -- outside of pure mathematics.

Yes. Which is completely useless, which is why scientists don't do that.

Only because you have not asked me to define the nature of the god I postulate. In fact I have already given a number of constraints, which prevent this applying.

All I have seen is anti-constraints:

The evidence for Zeus could arguably be either, but I would favour the God hypothesis for various reasons - which I will doubtless have to explain later in this thread. Gods are supernatural, outside of time/space, though some like Zeus and my God are both immanent and transcendent - invisible goblins if they exist are by definition naturalistic, entities within time/space, so clearly within the realm of the scrutiny of science, even given the working assumption of methodological naturalism. If invisible goblins exist we will expect to find evidence for them - and the evidence we do have for "invisible goblins", aka one theory of poltergeists, is hotly contested - I'll discuss it later cheerfully enough...

Supernatural. Outside of space and time. "Immanent" and "transcendent". By implication, not within the scrutiny of science.

These are not constraints. These are not even attributes. This is special pleading.

And in response to your critique, you know what? The same is true of persons generally. Attempt to apply your critique to say Britney Spears.

Are you claiming that Britney Spears is supernatural, outside of space and time, both immanent and transcendent, and not within the scrutiny of science?

If so, please justify this. If not, you've just defeated your own argument.

No speciila pleading, and your definition of evidence and misapplied logic remain a nonsense unless you can answer my objections.

All of your objections have been answered, and none had any validity whatsoever.

All you are doing is special pleading. You haven't presented anything else at all.

 

[six7s]

What is the common factor between all of these examples but absent from your "God" concept? (Actually, there are several correct answers.)

<snip/>

<snip/>

<snip/>

All of your objections have been answered, and none had any validity whatsoever.

All you are doing is special pleading. You haven't presented anything else at all.

Thank you, PixyMisa, for taking the time to counter what you accurately, I think, term 'special pleading' - a much more specific and also less inflammatory term than 'trolling'

 

[Darat]

Several post moved to AAH for breach of Rule 12 and Rule 11. Remember your Membership Agreement especially Rule 11 and Rule 12. Any more breaches of Rule 12 or Rule 11 will result in further action which may include suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[six7s]

Still, it does not follow logically that God does not exist, and there are many who would argue God is far from extraneous.

So?

Since when did it follow that atheism involved a logical assertion that gods do not exist?

Atheism, as I'm sure you know is simply a-theism; a life lived without any theism

I didn't get where I am today by conflating the term atheism with anti-theism, Reggie!

Are you, CJ?

If so, why?

Any chance that my sincere, simple and straightforward (and recently AAHd ) questions will be answered in kind?

 

[fls]

On the contrary. It is not direct evidence of a God. It is evidence. Look back over the thread, and see my examples I have offerred...

i) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is eviudence for the Big Bang
ii) The Fossil Record is evidence for Evolution
let's add a few more
iii) The Gallic Wars is evidence for Caesar's campaigns
iv) The bending of light recorded in the Michelson-Morley experiments is evidence for Relativity
v) The presence of the bacterium heliobacter pylori in patients with stomach ulcers is evidence for a link.

These are off the top of my head. If you want I will simply open a dozen science journals and show you the term evidence employed in the same context.

By your reckoning none of these would be evidence - the only admissible evidence for something would be the thing-in-itself, as any secondary data relevant to the construction of a hypothesis is not evidence. Now, any of those things I just listed in i)-v) above could fit other hypotheses too. They remain evidence for the hypotheses I associated with each - quite obviously so...

The issue isn't whether or not these things could serve as evidence for something else. Those things are all evidence because if they were different, they would weaken or destroy the thing they are evidence for. The 'evidence' for God doesn't have that constraint. It can be different and still count as evidence in the mind of the believer. If something can be true or false, yet leave the hypothesis unchanged, it's not evidence for that hypothesis.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

You misread me. I said Invisible Goblins are a naturalistic hypothesis, and hence subject to scientific scrutiny. I asserted Zeus and my God were not. They can act upon nature, but as any activity in nature will appear naturalistic, how would you detect that? That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier: how do you distinguish between a "god" and an "invisible goblin"? According to you, neither is detectable other than from the results of their actions (for which there may well be other naturalistic explanations). You say that gods "can act upon nature, but [...] any activity in nature will appear naturalistic", but this applies equally to invisible goblins - they are only detectable as a result of their activity in nature. The only distinction you've given so far seems to be that you have asserted that one category is "supernatural" and the other is "naturalistic". How do you tell which category a particular entity should be in?

Given that you believe in an undetectable entity, how do you tell whether it is a god or an invisible goblin?

 

[fls]

Right, now I have always been VERY clear i think that I define supernatural by the etymological root, super = "above", nature ="time/space". A supernatural entity is one (by the definition I employ here) that transcends Space/Time. In fact I dedicated a whole post to clarifying this earlier? Regardless of whether you accept my definition or not, the problem remains (and I know I have to address MM's objection) of methodological naturalism in science.

Now to understand my post above you have to know that methodological naturalism is simply the premise employed in science that if something happens, we can explain it in terms of lawful, natural actions - causality. It excludes any supernatural causality. Look the term up, and you will see I am not redefining it, or inventing anything, though my discussion with MM above should have shown you this. Here is the wiki link we both invoked --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism
It's hardly rockest science. Also assumed (to overcome the Induction Problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction )) is uniformity of nature - that nature works the same way everywhere, eternally. That is less relevant here.

"My first contention is that any Supernatural action within the Universe is by definition therefore Natural, and will manifest in terms of Natural Law. That manifestation may be highly unusual, or extremely rare, but it would not be as in Hume's famous definition of a miracle a violation of Natural Law, as by definition anything that occurs in Nature is Natural.

I see your definition as leading more obviously to the expectation that a Supernatural action within the universe will not manifest in terms of natural law - that the supernatural nature allows it to be capricious.

Therfore, I contend that supernatural causation would be effectively invisible to our naturalistic Science, which by definition is bounded by the natural. While logic and reason (and perhaps mathematics) might be used to explore what lies "beyond" the Universe, experimental and procedural science can not. As a "supernatural event" becomes natural by definition as soon as it occurs in the universe, Science will indeed find no "miracles" - which is not to say that supernatural interventions do not occur.

By this, you are suggesting that any actions from a supernatural entity are necessarily constrained by natural laws, which makes them indistinguishable from actions by a natural entity. Other than a name change, what distinguishes a supernatural entity from something like Lorentz Invariance?

Let me give a playful example. Let us assume that the Norse Trickster God Loki built the universe. His handiwork is the Laws of Nature, and any examination thereof will reveal nothing but Natural forces acting in accordance with Natural Law. Any arbitrary exception he introduced, such as the Duckbill platypus (I know it's quite explicable really, but you get my point!)would be quite Natural, and entirely explicable by Science. Then imagine a Scientist who looks at the world and says "There is no Loki". Yet equally rational is the Loki-ist theologians, who looks at the same Science and says "we can not see Loki, but we can learn the nature of Loki from his handiwork!" The Loki-ist might remark after JBS Haldane that Loki appears to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles!""

For at least a hundred years, scientists have been approaching these questions with the idea that there is an underlying reality that we experience as the natural world, and that we can learn something about this underlying reality through our observations. However, is there any particular reason to label this 'supernatural'? Your own examples demonstrate that you consider the 'supernatural' not just that part of the universe on the other side of what it is that we experience as natural, but as something that is also capricious. And it is that capriciousness which is visible to Science.

Linda

 

[cj.23]

Ah I worked out why I never got round to replying. It was a good (and amusing post - I hope others caught the Reginald Perrin references - "great!", "super!",) but by the time I saw it I thought I had already answere din other replies. Here goes...

So?

Since when did it follow that atheism involved a logical assertion that gods do not exist?

It does not. Which is why I extended my original request for evidence of the non-existence of God as well. You see for theism to be irrational, well we would surely be have to falsify the position "theism can be rational". SO far as I can see no one has done this yet?

Atheism, as I'm sure you know is simply a-theism; a life lived without any theism

Or the belief there is no god, or in weak atheism, no gods I personally know of, or probably no gods, or maybe no gods - yes.

I didn't get where I am today by conflating the term atheism with anti-theism, Reggie!

Are you, CJ?

If so, why?

Oh I'm not -
strong atheism is the belief that Gods do not exist
weak atheism is lack of positive belief in a deity, and includes agnosticism
anti-theism is opposition to
religion as far as i know, not Gods?

Sorry it took a while - it was back on page 2 which meant finding it with loading speeds like i'm experiencing took a while!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

As I appear to be completely alone defending my position in this thread, unsurprisingly really, especially as many posters who I had hoped might have input are busy with the "Is theism irrational thread?" - and i have not had the time to reply to that one in days - can I ask for patience in awaiting responses? I WILL reply to everyone, whether to agree, ask for more information or dispute their point -- but I am really busy and have limited time to respond. I am not intentionally evading any point. Please feel free to pm me with a link to any post you think needs immediate attention from me?

Sorry! I do fully intend to reply to PixyMisa nd FLS today.
cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

And so it continues. CJ23 is trying to manipulate our standards of evidence and logic so that anything popularly believed should be considered to be real.

 

[cj.23]

OK. i'll start by quoting what FLS is replying to to make this easier to follow - here is the quote FLS gave

On the contrary. It is not direct evidence of a God. It is evidence. Look back over the thread, and see my examples I have offerred...

i) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is eviudence for the Big Bang
ii) The Fossil Record is evidence for Evolution
let's add a few more
iii) The Gallic Wars is evidence for Caesar's campaigns
iv) The bending of light recorded in the Michelson-Morley experiments is evidence for Relativity
v) The presence of the bacterium heliobacter pylori in patients with stomach ulcers is evidence for a link.

These are off the top of my head. If you want I will simply open a dozen science journals and show you the term evidence employed in the same context. By your reckoning none of these would be evidence - the only admissible evidence for something would be the thing-in-itself, as any secondary data relevant to the construction of a hypothesis is not evidence. Now, any of those things I just listed in i)-v) above could fit other hypotheses too. They remain evidence for the hypotheses I associated with each - quite obviously so...

FLS responded sensibly as usual

The issue isn't whether or not these things could serve as evidence for something else. Those things are all evidence because if they were different, they would weaken or destroy the thing they are evidence for. The 'evidence' for God doesn't have that constraint. It can be different and still count as evidence in the mind of the believer. If something can be true or false, yet leave the hypothesis unchanged, it's not evidence for that hypothesis.

Linda

OK, that seems sensible enough. Let's look at the point I was defending with these examples

vi) Mystical experience is evidence for God.

Now note I am referring specifically to Mystical Experience - a specific set of neurological events, with define characteristics, not more generalized religious experiences, or thought about God. I can't recall whether I discussed the characteristics of this category of experiences in this thread - William James (1902) - set out the first description.

Right, so let's look at FLS's objection --
Now is God existence dependent upon the evidence of mystical experience? Clearly not. The hypothesis can stand or fail on other evidence, as it can for almost all my examples --

i) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be shown to actually arise from defective measurements, but other evidence could be provided for the Big Bang. (Asking the poster Sol Invictus would be your best bet here...)
ii) The Fossil Record is evidence for Evolution, but if we had no Fossils at all we could still see Evolution through inference from selective breeding in animals, and from DNA and perhaps morphology?
iii) The Gallic Wars is evidence for Caesar's campaigns, but without it we would still have plenty of other evidence from the archaeological realia.
iv) The bending of light recorded in the Michelson-Morley experiments is evidence for Relativity, but I suspect - I do not know - that many other experiments have suggested the truth of Relativity.
v) The presence of the bacterium heliobacter pylori in patients with stomach ulcers is evidence for a link, but correlation is not causation. If there were no bacterium, so sure in this instance the hypothesis would fai.

So the hypothesis can stand without mystical experience - we can draw on lots of other evidence (more on which later).

Now here comes my first objection to FLS's formulation

Those things are all evidence because if they were different, they would weaken or destroy the thing they are evidence for

Removing the evidence would give us less evidence, but would not falsify the evidence, unless the evidence is as in the case of heliobacter pylori the basis of the hypothesis. If God was a construct devleopled from mystical experience alone, removing it might well destroy the hypothesis. So in a moment I'll add some more evidence to discuss.

Now so far I have dealt with the vidence being different by not existing - but FLS' point is I think much subtler. If the evidence was different, the hypotheses would be falsified. So here we need to show that mystical experience can still exist, and yet provide a different outcome. Unsurprisingly I think we can...

If mystical experiences invariably gave a result that was indistinguishable from mental illness, we would not be able to claim them as evidence. If mystical experiences always accesed McKenna's "machine elves" we would be perfectly correct to postulate them as evidence for those, but not the Judeo-Christian God. If the content of mystical experience varied wildly, with no consistent phenomenal elements, but varied entirely in form based upon on the cultural and belief systems of the percipeint, again we would be justified in saying this weakened or negated the god hypothesis. If the mystical experience always resulted in a polytheistic realisation, the Judeo-Christian hypothesis would be weakened. (i'll review the fit of the experience to various faiths later...)

The evidence for God might remain unchanged in the minds of the individual who had the experience; the noetic quality indeed of these mental states suggests to me FLS is almost vertainly right here. However that has no impact on someone studying the question, like myself, who never seems to have these experiences personally. We are not arguing from a particular mystics experience, but from the findings of those who have studied a wide spectrum of reported states.

Now, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy has been mentioned a great deal in this thread. The experience is internal, spontaneous, and like mystical experiences can have physiological effects on the percipent. Fuerthmore it is if i recall correctly associated with squared theta wave production for a short period after the the attack, which is a handy diagnostic tool. Still, how do we know TLE exists? The symptoms may seem bizarre to those of us who have never experienced it. The answer is of course the same way we know mystical experiences exist - patients have reported th symptoms, and we have looked for effects, having noted a wide similarity of experience across populations that seems to go beyond imagination. Let's take depression as a second example. How do we know depression exists? Maybe to an arch-behaviourist like Watson it would be a meaningless question - all we know is that depressed behaviours exists. (interesting point - how did Behaviourism explain depression? Anyone help?) However the naswer is the same - because people report depressive symptoms, though finding physiological correspondences is hard than one might imagine (the often seen claim that depression is linked with low serotonin levels is actually rather problematic - I'll explain what I mena by this if anyone is interested. There is some relationship, sure, but saying what constitutes low is, er, well difficult!)

There are always problems in studying internal conscious experiences - but with neurophysiology advancing, I think we will see rel progress in the next century, and actually introspective research is far more advanced in some ways than many people seem to realise.

Anyway, I'd better go do some work! I'll reply to FLS's other point shortly...
cj x

 

[cj.23]

And so it continues. CJ23 is trying to manipulate our standards of evidence and logic so that anything popularly believed should be considered to be real.

TBK, have you actually read any of what I have written in this thread? No insult intended, I'm just confused!

I don;t say this at all. I say that often people hideously misunderstand evidence and logic, and make statements that are just dogmatic naysaying in the mistaken belief this constitutes scepticism. (it does actually, a priori scepticism, just not the methodological scepticism I adhere to - but that is another discussion!)

My argument that I feel you are misrepresenting on evidence is simple. If someone says "there is no evidence for UFO's" they are clearly talking nonsense. There is huge amounts of evidence for UFOs. Most of us have seen a light in the sky we can not identify. So let's tighten that definition - "there is no evidence that flying saucers containing extraterrestrial intelligences are visiting Earth."

It's still wrong. There is a huge amount of evidence to that effect, some physical, some testimonial, some recordings, etc, etc. The sceptic does not say "there is no evidence", the sceptic addresses the evidence, and shows how that evidence is better explained by other explanations (and arguably usually ends up violating the principle of parsimony, which is actually no big deal as it is just a convenient short hand anyway. Occam's Razor can lead to ludicrous conclusion if misapplied - there you go another sceptical axiom I'm questioning. Call me a heretic!). The sceptic must address the evidence, or all they are doing is being a dogmatic idiot.

If you want to say "I do not believe that flying saucers containing extraterrestrial intelligences are visiting Earth.", because the evidence that supports that contention is very weak, and better explained by othe rmodels - sure, I'm with you all the way. I don't worry I'm going to be probed by little grey men either.

The point is the evidence exists - and must be addressed, not merely dismissed. Otherwise we really all may as well just go join the 1st Church of I Believe It Because Gawd Says So, in Buttf*ck, Nevada. To dismiss evidence as non-existent without any evaluation when anyone who looks can see the evidence is ludicrous. Explain the evidence, provide a better model, or admit you are a dogmatic fundie. That is the challenge that faces sceptics... including myself.

I certainly don't believe anything that is popularly believed is true - far from it, I believe people believe all kinds of myths, and i challenge them. I often here challenge myths that I find prevalent among sceptics, because this is a sceptic community - the infrasound theory of ghosts, the conflict myth of the historical relationship between Science and Religion, the literal reading of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", the pagan parallel crap about Early Christianity, the nonsense talked about the canon and Nicea, idiocy spouted about Witchcraft in the Early Modern period, and all kinds of other nonsense with as much substance as a New Age pilgrimage guide to Rosslyn chapel. If you don;t think it's important to challenge false beliefs prevalent in the sceptical community, then we will have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think many people will agree with you though...

cj x