Can theists be rational?

[articulett]

It's teh awesome!!11!

How's Zuckerman's book?

 

[Bri]

Depends on the size of the number. Drakes equation of course is about our galaxy. The numbers become ever so much bigger when contemplating the universe.

We can play "my number's smaller than the reciprocal of your number" as much as you like. Make your number as big as you want, and I'll come up with one small enough that if you multiply by it the result will be a very small number. If the conditions and events by which intelligent life arose on Earth were very specific to the conditions and events that occurred on Earth, then there probably aren't any aliens.

I note that Paulos also delves into the probability of inteligent life in his book Innumeracy. Not so much on god though. Perhaps it is because there is a real basis for such speculation for ET but not for god.

I'm guessing that the subject of gods just isn't his cup of tea.

Depends on the degree of confidence of the opinion. Folks who throw away their digitalis because a faith healer told them to do so are irrational are as people who honestly think that god will help them find their wallet but won't cure the 3 year old suffering from lukemia. That's not just irrational but it is incredibly arrogant.

I completely agree. More common ground.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because we're not extra terrestrials.

The Drake Equation does not distinguish between terrestrial or extra terrestrial life. I know you keep claiming it does, but as I've said several times now, if we are the only intelligence, you could plug the appropriate values into the Drake Equation and get a number that refers to us (1 modified by the longevity factor).

Again, some common ground. Of course, Sagan was a great proponent of SETI which has spent millions of dollars in search of these beings of which Sagan reserves judgment about.

You seem to think this is a contradiction. It's certainly not. Sagan advocated reserving judgement without evidence. For us non-faith-based people, it follows that it's a good idea then to search for the evidence.

It seems safe to assume that by "reserves judgment" he probably doesn't mean that he has no opinion on the subject.

I agree--and it's not a hard thing to figure out since I quoted Sagan giving his opinion. Here it is again: "I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it." That's his opinion. That's--as he says--what he really thinks.

Yes, we know that there are a lot of stars. The problem is that we know next to nothing about some of the other terms.

We know one very important thing--that which distinguishes the exercise sharply from the Forster & Marten argument: none of the terms is zero. IF any one of them was zero, we would not exist.

Multiply a really, really big number by a really, really, really small number and you can get a really small number.

Yes--that's why I called it speculation that the number is a big one.

This is a minor point, but N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. Values can be obtained that are (much) smaller than 1.

We exist and we currently have the ability to send and receive signals. Wwe know for sure that there is at least one civilization in the galaxy that can transmit and receive signals. Look carefully at the factors and tell me where it says we don't count.

The problem is that "reserving judgment" doesn't mean that we can't have an opinion. We all have opinions about all kinds of things about which there is little evidence, and most are not considered "irrational."

And there are some beliefs which are rightly considered irrational.

Believing that the Nigerian scam e-mail is telling you the truth is one. Believing you're going to draw a Royal Flush when you're holding the 2 of hearts, 3 of clubs and 4 of diamonds is another. Believing you can throw a "three" on an otherwise fair die that has only the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is another one.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know this is drifting a bit off-topic, but on the ET intelligence thing, we also have the history of how useful it has been to assume we have a special or unique place in the universe.

Also, how useful has been the "Goddidit" explanation been for the advancement of our knowledge?

I think these considerations also affect how rational it is to believe one thing or another.

Consider "God" as a scientific hypothesis. Many of the claims made about God are testable. When we test this hypothesis, it is falsified. So rather than toss out the hypothesis, we merely claim it only applies to things we haven't (or cannot) test. That is, it retreats to the gaps in our knowledge.

If the theory of evolution through natural selection, or whatever favorite atomic theory model you care to examine, failed as often, wouldn't you consider it irrational to cling to that theory or model?

Yet it's rational to cling to the God hypothesis as long as you remove all the offending defining characteristics of God? As a hypothesis, it's got a terrible track record.

 

[cj.23]

I ordered that book two days ago.

I guess I had better read it too then. I try to read any decent new atheist book that comes out... I have rather a nice collection now!

cj x

 

[Bri]

The Drake Equation does not distinguish between terrestrial or extra terrestrial life.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement to fls to which you commented. I said that she was using the term "alien" in two different ways, only one of which is how we've been using the term in the course of this discussion (which, as I'm sure you know, concerns intelligent extra terrestrials).

You seem to think this is a contradiction. It's certainly not. Sagan advocated reserving judgement without evidence. For us non-faith-based people, it follows that it's a good idea then to search for the evidence.

...

I agree--and it's not a hard thing to figure out since I quoted Sagan giving his opinion. Here it is again: "I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it." That's his opinion. That's--as he says--what he really thinks.

So Sagan appears to have a belief concerning the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence. Given the statement "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence" one might even conclude that he is of the opinion that its existence is probable.

We exist and we currently have the ability to send and receive signals. Wwe know for sure that there is at least one civilization in the galaxy that can transmit and receive signals. Look carefully at the factors and tell me where it says we don't count.

Look at some examples and you'll see that some estimations from Drake's equation are less than 1. For example, if the fraction of planets that go on to develop life is very, very small (as would be appropriate if it turns out that the conditions for life are very, very specific to those conditions and events that occurred on Earth such that events and conditions on another planet would have to be nearly identical to those on our planet to give rise to life) the result will be far smaller than 1.

And there are some beliefs which are rightly considered irrational.

More likely, a person's reasons for holding the belief might be irrational, or the person might hold the belief much stronger than is warranted by the evidence.

Believing that the Nigerian scam e-mail is telling you the truth is one.

As I said, whether or not such a belief would be irrational would have to do with your reasons for having the belief. There are certainly rational reasons for having such a belief.

Believing you're going to draw a Royal Flush when you're holding the 2 of hearts, 3 of clubs and 4 of diamonds is another.

Under most circumstances, sure. I don't think anyone has argued that things that are improbable are probable.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It's teh awesome!!11!

How's Zuckerman's book?

I've not finished it. What I have read it's good but I'm questioning some of the premises.

 

[cj.23]

I know this is drifting a bit off-topic, but on the ET intelligence thing, we also have the history of how useful it has been to assume we have a special or unique place in the universe.

Yet as I keep pointing out, a cost/benefit analysis teall us nothing about the truth of a claim, only its utility? So sure it's rational - if you define rational in terms of acting in terms of utility, but without regard for truth???

Also, how useful has been the "Goddidit" explanation been for the advancement of our knowledge?

Incredibly. Massively. No sarcasm - I mean it. And yes I know I'm feverish, but I can demonstrate this quite simply with reference to historical fact.

I think these considerations also affect how rational it is to believe one thing or another.

I don't, but that is neither here nor there.

Consider "God" as a scientific hypothesis. Many of the claims made about God are testable. When we test this hypothesis, it is falsified.

Go on, give some?

So rather than toss out the hypothesis, we merely claim it only applies to things we haven't (or cannot) test. That is, it retreats to the gaps in our knowledge.

This is the God of the Gaps theory, a theological critique of certain 18th century offshoots of Latitudinarianism and some forms of Deism. Have I not whittered extensively about this already in this thread? Well I guess I should do it in my one instead -- rather than have more thread drift here.

If the theory of evolution through natural selection, or whatever favorite atomic theory model you care to examine, failed as often, wouldn't you consider it irrational to cling to that theory or model?

Sure - because you are not noting this is exactly what actually happens in real science. One almost never rejects an entire theory because of a failed replication, a failed prediction, or a single anomaly. We experct them, because the model is not a complete representation of reality. We just keep plodding away refining the model, not hurl it out the window at the first problem. We here a great deal about falsification in science, but few working scientists would i think deny that accomodation of known anomalies are just as common.

Yet it's rational to cling to the God hypothesis as long as you remove all the offending defining characteristics of God? As a hypothesis, it's got a terrible track record.

How so? I'm not convinced, so please offer just a few examples...


cj x

 

[RandFan]

We can play "my number's smaller than the reciprocal of your number" as much as you like. Make your number as big as you want, and I'll come up with one small enough that if you multiply by it the result will be a very small number.

As someone else noted, you don't need to posit an infinite number of monkeys. Just a large enough number.

If the conditions and events by which intelligent life arose on Earth were very specific to the conditions and events that occurred on Earth, then there probably aren't any aliens.

Why would one assume that the conditions could only be specific to the earth? Are the conditions specific to our sun only specific to the events that caused our sun?

I'm guessing that the subject of gods just isn't his cup of tea.

He wrote a book debunking arguments for god.

 

[articulett]

intelligent life evolved on earth because it could... it evolved to fit this planet... life on other planets would evolve to fit such planets... and if intelligence was an asset to that life, it too, would evolve.

Most life on our planet is not intelligent--most of it is single cellular-- most of it is also plant matter... of the animal matter, ants and other insects rule... intelligence of the human sort happens to work particularly well for the human sort on this planet.

Your backwards thinking about life itself has you a bit confused about probabilities for life made of matter, and probabilities of "life" without matter, Bri.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Go on, give some?

God created the world some 6,000 years ago in a single act of special creation.

God caused the entire world to be inundated and all the animals we know today were saved on a big boat.

God reveals the future to prophets.

The Bible (in one form or another) is the inerrant word of God.

God will grant you anything you pray for.

The sun's passage across the sky is God driving a fiery chariot.

If you don't do a certain ritual, a god will be angry and cause your crops to fail.

I could go on and on you know.

One almost never rejects an entire theory because of a failed replication, a failed prediction, or a single anomaly. We experct them, because the model is not a complete representation of reality.

But one does reject the entire theory after years and years of unremitting replications of falsification.

We no longer use the theory of "humours" or the notion of "phlogiston"--at all.

We just keep plodding away refining the model, not hurl it out the window at the first problem. We here a great deal about falsification in science, but few working scientists would i think deny that accomodation of known anomalies are just as common.

Yes, I agree. But in the face of unremitting, repeated falsification over years and years, we do scrap the hypothesis and move on.

The trouble with the faith approach is that it is quickly and easily satisfied with a pat answer (God did it) which puts a damper on curiosity and further testing and probing.

How so? I'm not convinced, so please offer just a few examples...

People once all spoke the same language until God came down and confused their speech lest nothing be impossible for them to achieve.

God is the hurler of lightning bolts.

Gods live on top of Mt. Olympus.

Winter is caused by the mourning of a God (goddess, in this case) because her daughter is in the underworld.

Laurel trees originated because a God took pity on a woman being chased by another God and turned the woman into the laurel tree.

The constellation of Cassiopeia was the result of a God putting a woman in the heavens.

I could go on and on.

The track record of "God did it" is really, really not good.

 

[cj.23]

God created the world some 6,000 years ago in a single act of special creation.

A common Christian belief in some north American circles since the 1960's, and in a smaller circle of dispensationalists since the early 1900s. A few Evangelicals held this but it was a minority position in the 19th century, and with the distinguished exception of Archbishop Usher and some anti-modernist clergy it seems to have generally been a minority position? Certainly it was not the only perspective among the Patristic Fathers??? It does really rely on some fairly tedious mathematics to truy and work backwards after all.

God caused the entire world to be inundated and all the animals we know today were saved on a big boat.

Yeah, but if you had been around in Genesis times you would have got the point, because you might well have known the Atra-hasis Epic, or the Sumerian Flood Epic, and thus relaised the point of the story - rather lost today, though you can draw other lessons from it I guess.

God reveals the future to prophets.

Does he? Prophets in the Old Testament tradition ar enot associated with predictions, but with a call for social justice and righteousness as I recall. Some do make predictions - and in at least one case God then changes his mind and they look stupid, and maon about it. I love that story! I think the majority of prophecies actually come as dreams, and the seer interprest the dream or other omen, rather than recieving direct revelation of the future. Dunno, but make a very interesting new thread...

The Bible (in one form or another) is the inerrant word of God.

Who says it isn't, in the traditional sense? Inerrant doe snot mean "literally true guide to scientific fact" you know, and the major Churches have never claimed it does. In fact St. Augustine went out of his way to point out that it was definitely NOT that - I'll provide quotes if interested, and from Origen etc.

God will grant you anything you pray for.

Really? Sounds very John Wimber, but where does it say that

The sun's passage across the sky is God driving a fiery chariot.

Yep, well known iconography, but any proof anyone actually thought so? I am thinking of Virgil, I'm sure there are much earlie rpoets who employed the device, but as a lot of people seem to have thought the sun was really a hot disk or a hole in the sky, I'm not convinced anyone took Apollo that literally in terms of the chariot.

If you don't do a certain ritual, a god will be angry and cause your crops to fail.

Not really falsified is it? I'd need more direct examples, but iut does sound like th purity laws in the Old Testament which read like contamination phobia OCD to me. Anyway I need sleep, so I'll discuss my point properly tomorrow -- for now I'll just say night, and interesting list!

I could go on and on you know.

Yes, and we will discuss the main motifs - but tomorrow - I'd better try and get some sleep while i can.

night cj x

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A common Christian belief in some north American circles since the 1960's, and in a smaller circle of dispensationalists since the early 1900s.

So? It is a real God belief that is falsifiable in any number of ways.

Yeah, but if you had been around in Genesis times you would have got the point, because you might well have known the Atra-hasis Epic, or the Sumerian Flood Epic, and thus relaised the point of the story - rather lost today, though you can draw other lessons from it I guess.

So? It is a real God belief that is falsifiable in any number of ways.

Who says it isn't, in the traditional sense? Inerrant doe snot mean "literally true guide to scientific fact" you know, and the major Churches have never claimed it does.

While inerrant doesn't mean literal it does mean "free of errors". You want a list of Biblical contradictions?

Really? Sounds very John Wimber, but where does it say that

Matthew 21:22.

Yep, well known iconography, but any proof anyone actually thought so? I am thinking of Virgil, I'm sure there are much earlie rpoets who employed the device, but as a lot of people seem to have thought the sun was really a hot disk or a hole in the sky, I'm not convinced anyone took Apollo that literally in terms of the chariot.

What proof would that be if people asserting those beliefs isn't enough for you? (Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If anyone claiming to believe something sounds silly enough to you, you can claim they probably didn't really believe it.)

Not really falsified is it?

Sure it is. Don't do the ritual a number of years in a row and see if the crops don't always fail without the ritual.

How about this one, Blessing your throat on the Feast of St. Blaize will protect you from diseases of the throat (and all other diseases).

You could test that one the way you do any treatment. It might take some doing to make the method truly double blinded, but it's easy enough to falsify nonetheless.

How many of these will it take for you to admit that the "God did it" hypothesis has a terrible track record?

 

[articulett]

A
Who says it isn't, in the traditional sense? Inerrant doe snot mean "literally true guide to scientific fact" you know, and the major Churches have never claimed it does. In fact St. Augustine went out of his way to point out that it was definitely NOT that - I'll provide quotes if interested, and from Origen etc.



Yes, and we will discuss the main motifs - but tomorrow - I'd better try and get some sleep while i can.

night cj x

Hee-hee.... you said "doe snot"... go get some sleep, CJ!

 

[Oliver]

Theists can be rational about non-religious issues.

 

[RandFan]

intelligent life evolved on earth because it could... it evolved to fit this planet... life on other planets would evolve to fit such planets... and if intelligence was an asset to that life, it too, would evolve.

Reminds me of the analogy of a puddle of mud suddenly becoming cognizent. It would think that the world was specially made for it. Hey, the walls of the puddle fit it so well and the environment are uniquely suited for it.

In his book Innumeracy Paulos points out that inteligent life on other planets may very well be clouds of methane or a type of algae in some large ocean.

The odds of dealing any five cards from a pack of 52 is 2,598,960. So sit down, draw five cards and ponder just how amazing that feat was. It was 2,598,960 to 1. Yet you did it! !!!! HOORRAAAY !!!!



Wait, not so special? There was a probability of 1 that you would draw 5 cards? Hmmmm......

 

[RandFan]

Hee-hee.... you said "doe snot"... go get some sleep, CJ!

I prefer doe urine to doe snot. And at $5.00 an ounce it's reasonably priced.

 

[articulett]

I prefer doe urine to doe snot. And at $5.00 an ounce it's reasonably priced.

I wonder how they collect it? --or maybe I don't want to know.

But it, apparently, is someone's job to do so.

 

[RandFan]

I wonder how they collect it? --or maybe I don't want to know.

But it, apparently, is someone's job to do so.

And that's not all. To artificially inseminate horses, cows, pigs and other animals someone has to get his or her hands dirty.

 

[fls]

Ironically, in order for us to be aliens, aliens would have to exist.

But you're using two different definitions of the word. I'm sure you understand that we're talking about intelligent life beyond Earth's solar system, we're not talking about intelligent life in Earth's solar system.

We're really just talking about intelligent life in this galaxy, of which we are one example. There isn't anything about Drake's equation that excludes Earth.

No, sorry, we are not intelligent life beyond our own solar system. But we are an example of intelligent life, sure enough. The problem I see with your argument is that you're essentially saying that it's rational to believe in invisible elephants because we know something about elephants.

I'm saying that it's rational to look at what we know about elephants when we are wondering whether or not it's reasonable to search for large animals on an as yet unexplored landmass on Earth.

Same with invisible elephants. It's still speculation.

I agree that invisible elephants would be speculation in the same way that gods are speculation. But that is basically my point. We are not speculating based on invisible elephants, but rather on the basis of known elephants.

The hypothesis is that a fine-tuner exists. As I said, some of the variables are based on observation, namely that the universe is fine-tuned.

I understand that is the reason given for bringing up the argument. But there is no direct observation of a fine-tuner, nor is there any hypothesis which makes a fine-tuner necessary. However, there is direct observation of intelligent life in this galaxy, plus hypotheses such as the ones I mentioned earlier.

Simply observing that the physical constants have a particular value does not make it necessary that they were chosen capriciously, just like observing that the heavenly bodies moved in a pattern that wasn't immediately obvious meant that their movement was capricious. And as I argued earlier in this thread, the difference between considering a force God or considering it natural is whether or not it is lawful (i.e. not capricious). You don't consider the multiverse explanation 'God', for example.

In both cases, some terms are based on systematic observation and hypothesis testing while other terms are based entirely on conjecture which is not based on systematic observation and hypothesis testing.

From Wikipedia:

The value of R* is determined from considerable astronomical data, and is the least disputed term of the equation; f_p is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in n_e was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

...

f_i, f_c and L, like f_l, are guesses.​

The latter three are guesses, not because we are meant to look into our hearts in order to find the answer (like we are when guessing at the prior probability of God), but simply because our information is inadequate at present. The blanks are meant to be filled in by finding opportunities for observation, though.

Faith is belief not based on evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that would allow one to conclude that aliens are probable, therefore to say "I believe in aliens" is not a belief based not on evidence.

And I think that illustrates the difference between rational and irrational. Because Drake's equation isn't used to say "I believe in aliens". It is used to say, "looking for evidence of aliens may not be a complete waste of time". People believe in God without direct evidence of God, but people don't believe in aliens when we don't have direct evidence of aliens.

Nobody said anything about being certain. Belief that aliens are probable doesn't require certainty. But it does require more than "scant" information to be considered an evidence-based belief.

Exactly. And because of that, we don't have a belief in aliens.

They're not based on evidence, therefore they are based on what? A lack of evidence?

An informed guess?

There's a problem with your analogy if you're trying to make a comparison to the fine-tuning argument. The notion of a god being the mover of planets would be diminished if it were found that planets didn't move, just as the notion of a fine-tuner would be diminished if it was found that the universe isn't fine-tuned. But the fact that there is a natural explanation for their movement isn't quite the same thing.

The notion of a god being the mover of planets wouldn't have occurred to anyone if the planets didn't move, just like the notion of a fine-tuner wouldn't occur to anyone if the universe wasn't fine-tuned. The next step is to discover whether or not that motion or fine-tuning is lawful.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm probably not a good person with which to argue Christian theology. But I do know a lot of Christians, and I don't know of any Christians who define God as "mover of the heavenly bodies."

Exactly. As I said previously, it hasn't occurred to us for several hundred years to say that God controls the movement of the heavenly bodies, because we discovered that this movement is natural, and we don't consider God natural. Prior to that discovery, Christians did consider God responsible for heavenly bodies. They still do now, but in a different way - more like what you mention below.

That said, God could still be responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies even though their movement is caused by gravity, particularly if God created gravity.

I would certainly consider a mouse God under the circumstances that one accepts the definition I posted.

I misunderstood, then. I thought your statement was meant to be sarcastic. In that case, we are back to my point that then gods have already been proven to exist. Since we have discovered forces that fit the definitions of what gods do (Zeus forms thunder and lightning - electromagnetism forms thunder and lightning), those forces are the gods we were referring to with our stories.

But again, the whole point is entirely moot because the argument concerning Linda's Syndrome doesn't produce a clearly wrong conclusion unless the premises are clearly wrong.

My point is simply that that isn't the only way to produce a clearly wrong conclusion.

The "new evidence" is a fine-tuned universe. The argument concludes a probability of the hypothesis (that a fine-tuner exists) if a fine-tuned universe is true.

But since we don't know whether or not this universe we find ourselves in is more or less likely in the presence of a fine-tuner, whether or not the presence of fine-tuning in this universe serves as evidence for a fine-tuner depends entirely on whether or not we assume that it does. That is, we can only get out of this argument the assumptions that we put into it.

If you consider it irrational to accept a value given in the premise because of a lack of evidence to support that value, you must also consider it irrational in an argument for the existence of intelligent aliens.

Exactly. So we don't use Drake's equation to serve as evidence for the existence of intelligent aliens.

I don't know what you mean by "a belief based on faith in aliens" but the discussion was about whether there is a reasonable definition of "irrational" that would allow belief in aliens to be considered "rational" but belief in a god "irrational."

Both beliefs are based on arguments that depend on multiple values, some of which are based on scientific evidence and some of which are not based on evidence. You haven't provided any examples of how the two differ that would allow you to state that one is necessarily irrational and the other is rational.

I think that both beliefs would be irrational. The difference is that, because of that, we don't believe in aliens.

That's a valid point, and was made earlier in the discussion. The argument cj posted is really about a fine-tuner of the universe. Whether or not that fits in with the beliefs of individual theists is indeed another matter. I agree, some might reject the notion that if there's a fine-tuner, that fine-tuner must be a god as assumed in the phrasing of the premise of cj's argument.

Right. For example, it doesn't look like the multiverse explanation is seen as a god.

I think we've pretty much run this argument into the ground and it's clear that we aren't going to get anywhere with it. An argument based on Bayes analysis is not a tautology and is not circular reasoning. If you haven't already, please read the article.

If you think you understand Bayesian analysis, then simply argue it for yourself. I can't guess what it is that you think the article says.

It doesn't provide a useful estimate -- that's the problem. Like all arguments, the conclusions of an argument based on Drake's equation are only as valid as its premises. In this case, many of the premises are based on little or no evidence.

-Bri

That is why it is similar to the formula used to estimate whether or not the universe is fine-tuned.

Linda