Can theists be rational?

[articulett]

So, they still don't equate. And FTR: They never will. I've no doubt that will stop you though.

Now that is a deduction based on evidence-- an informed deduction as opposed to an argument from incredulity ( "I can't see how this could happen without a fine tuner; therefore a fine tuner must exist!")

Beth may never see it. But I do, and I'm glad I don't need to make semantic blind spots to support a bit of feel-good circular nonsense. I actually kind of enjoy watching all the ways they can wheedle out of the fact that they playing the same kinds of semantics games as believers in woo they don't believe in. No matter how clear you make it; their brain won't let them "get it". Amazing.

The "faith in faith" meme is a powerful meme indeed.

 

[RandFan]

I actually kind of enjoy watching all the ways they can wheedle out of the fact that they playing the same kinds of semantics games as believers in woo they don't believe in.

Agreed. And it really works out the old gray cells.

 

[tsig]

You said "It is irrational to posit a fine-tuner because a "fine-tuner" has no explanatory power."

• What do aliens eat for breakfast?
• How many arms do they have?
• Can they communicate with their thoughts?
• Do aliens probe their own anuses, or only the anuses of other species?

I can play that game too. If it's irrational to posit the existence of a fine-tuner, then it's also irrational to posit the existence of aliens for the same reason.



Is not. And it's not my argument.



Because positing aliens doesn't raise any questions. Got it.

-Bri

How did the universe get out of tune? Was the Music of the Spheres non harmonious? Did the heavenly choir miss a beat? Was it a half-note high or a half-note low?

How did the fine tuner do his work and when did he do it?

 

[Bri]

Can you point to one that is not known?

There are several terms that are unknown. For example, the fraction of planets that go on to develop life, and the fraction of those planets that go on to develop intelligent life.

NO! Please re-read Sagan's words. He most clearly is reserving judgement on the existence of ET intelligence because we don't have the evidence.

Reserving judgment and reserving an opinion are two different things. Sagan was a proponent of SETI which has spent lots of money to listen for signs of extra terrestrial intelligent life. I doubt he would have supported it if he had no opinion as to the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence. I also doubt he would have said "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence" if he didn't have an opinion.

The stuff about being surprised if things sort of like what happened here on Earth only happened here on Earth means that he too would argue against Makaya's assertion that we are unique in the universe. There is also no evidence for that.

No, that's not what he said. He said "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence."

You're reading in a belief that is not there.

Are you suggesting that it's irrational to have an opinion about something without a preponderance of evidence?

Or are you referring to SETI?

I was referring both to SETI and to the probes.

The only way we'll ever get from our current state of ignorance as to whether ET intelligences exist to a state of knowledge is to have actual evidence.

Unless they're not out there -- then it's just a colossal waste of time and money. Which is why for anyone to spend that kind of time and resources listening for signals from outer space requires at least the opinion that there's something to listen to.

-Bri

 

[tsig]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the argument cj posted has to do with the existence of a god.



A fine-tuner is a being which has the power to set the fundamental constants of the universe to relatively specific values that would allow life to develop and exist.



Not any moreso than any other definition.

-Bri

Or the fine tuner set the constants for reasons we cannot comprehend and we are just the mold growing on a speck of dust in a remote spiral arm.

 

[articulett]

Or the fine tuner set the constants for reasons we cannot comprehend and we are just the mold growing on a speck of dust in a remote spiral arm.

of this run of the mill galaxy...

 

[RandFan]

Unless they're not out there -- then it's just a colossal waste of time and money. Which is why for anyone to spend that kind of time and resources listening for signals from outer space requires at least the opinion that there's something to listen to.

This is just so wrong in a number of ways.

First: Science is about asking questions and attempting to answer those questions. Susan Blackmore spent much of her time trying to demonstrate, scientifically, the paranormal. She failed to do that and she now does not believe in the paranormal.

Sincerely searching for answers using scientific methods is not a waste of time. We often learn so much that we aren't even looking for in doing so but even if we don't it is still worth the search for one simple reason, one must take a risk to get a reward. One can't take a risk unless one can be wrong.

Which leads me to the second point: It is believed by SETI that there could be intelligent life out there. Like Blackmore, SETI is trying to confirm the hypothesis. It should be noted that many hypothetical ideas have turned out to be wrong. Science doesn't work by knowing what is correct before they attempt to confirm what is correct. That is nonsensical.

 

[yy2bggggs]

In this case, the argument assumes a probability of a fine-tuned universe if a god exists and a probability of a fine-tuned universe if no god exists. For any given definition of "god" you would have to place the probabilities accordingly. There is no false dichotomy.

Bri:

And what does fine-tuned mean? More specifically, what is the most general interpretation of fine-tuned you can possibly come up with, that compels me to accept that P(E|H') is the value you set it as?

I'm not too compelled by the fact that the constants being tuned are dimensionless. As far as I know, all universes that come into being necessarily get identical constants to ours. Maybe they don't--and I'm quite wide open to accept that they not only can vary, but can even vary as precisely specified by the model by which the P(E|H') was come up with.

But to suggest that either those 26 constants vary according to distributions specified by the model from which you derive P(E|H'), or that there's a god, and that those are the only two possibilities?

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[Malerin]

Picking any 10 balls of 1,000,000 are long odds. Any number you can think of are equally unlikely.

And any particular hand in poker is as likely as any other. How many times in a row would a dealer have to deal himself a straight flush before you get out of the game? For me it would be 2. You'd have to be an idiot to think that a coin that lands HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH is a fair coin. But that result is just as likely as HTTHTHHTTHTTHTHTHTTHTHHTHTHT. Why do you think it's irrational to think the first coin is fair and rational to think the 2nd one is?

I will grant you that it seems very unlikely. But the probability is 1. It has happend. Unlikely? It happened.

So when the police discover a body they just shrug and mumble "**** happens"? Old evidence is used to confirm theories all the time (e.g., Mercury's orbit and relativity theory- If Mercury's orbit had been given a Pr value of 1, it wouldn't have confirmed relativity theory at all. Instead, it was a huge piece of confirmation).

 

[RandFan]

How many times in a row would a dealer have to deal himself a straight flush before you get out of the game?

I don't know how many times I can ask you this. How many iterations of creation do we have?

You are comparing apples with oranges. You seriously need to read Innumeracy by Paulos. He dispatches your argument much better than I can. If unusual events didn't occur we would live in a very, very unusual world.

So when the police discover a body they just shrug and mumble "**** happens"? Old evidence is used to confirm theories all the time (e.g., Mercury's orbit and relativity theory- If Mercury's orbit had been given a Pr value of 1, it wouldn't have confirmed relativity theory at all. Instead, it was a huge piece of confirmation).

This doesn't follow from what I said.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If H/E was nothing at all, how would we assign a degree of belief to it?

Don't trip on the notation. The |, or / as you write it (which is a legit alternate form), is more akin to an argument separation for P than it is a modification of H. H|E doesn't mean anything--P(H|E) does.

P(H|E) means you're taking the probability of H--the same as P(H). The only difference is that you're taking a different kind of probability of H with P(H|E) than you are with P(H). In fact, P always has two arguments, separated by a |; P(H) itself is simply shorthand for P(H|U).

It's a conditional proposition of the type If it rains, then the street gets wet.

Not exactly. Let's say that R is that it rains, and W is that the street is wet. P(W|R), the probability that the street is wet given that it rains, let's say, is 99% (the 1% is reserved for when the street is too warm, and it rains too lightly, let's suppose). And, furthermore, let's say that it rains 20% of the time.

"If it rains, then the street gets wet" is represented by the conditional R=>W. This is logically equivalent to W OR NOT-R; that is, if the street's wet, we're good to go; and if it's not, it had better not be raining. Then P(R=>W) is true 99% of the 20% of the time it is raining (19.8%), plus 100% of the 80% of the time it is not raining (80%), for a grand total of 99.8%. But P(W|R), per above, is 99% on the button.

Conceptually, P(W|R) means that we take all of the situations where NOT-R is true--the 80%--and we throw them away. They're no longer up for consideration. That leaves us with the 20% of U where R is true--being a new U for us. Because certainty is set to 100%, we simply rescale the 20% to 100%. Then we consider W--which was 19.8% before, but gets rescaled to 19.8%/20%=99%. This entire exercise is about tossing NOT-R from a universe, and rescaling P(R) to certainty--which is entirely a thing you do with probabilities. So W|R on its own doesn't mean anything.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are several terms that are unknown. For example, the fraction of planets that go on to develop life, and the fraction of those planets that go on to develop intelligent life.

I think you're only pretending to misunderstand. I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the fact that we know that every one of those things exists.

We don't know the number of planets that go on to develop life, but we do know that it is at least one. We do know that a planet with life did occur. This is the question of existence. We do NOT know that a god exists.

Reserving judgment and reserving an opinion are two different things. Sagan was a proponent of SETI which has spent lots of money to listen for signs of extra terrestrial intelligent life. I doubt he would have supported it if he had no opinion as to the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence. I also doubt he would have said "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence" if he didn't have an opinion.

You really don't understand science then, do you? If we have a question without an answer, we don't go around talking about how strongly we believe one or another answer or what your opinion on an unknown answer is. We actually try to answer the question. The lowest cost and most sensible way (for us especially starting about 30 years ago) was to listen to the radio waves. Now, we can actually detect some types of extrasolar planets.

You think this all requires belief in ET intelligences? Or even a particular opinion on the subject?

No, that's not what he said. He said "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence."

Exactly. He would disagree with Makaya's assertion that we are alone. He would point out that we don't have the evidence to support that claim.
ETA: Note that the thing Sagan finds astonishing or incredible here is the subjunctive version of the sentence "there are not any ET intelligences".

Are you suggesting that it's irrational to have an opinion about something without a preponderance of evidence?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not something is true.

I was referring both to SETI and to the probes.

Which probes? I don't think any probe we have ever sent out was for the purpose of detecting ET intelligence. I don't think anyone has good reason to think there is intelligent life on Mars, for example.

Unless they're not out there -- then it's just a colossal waste of time and money. Which is why for anyone to spend that kind of time and resources listening for signals from outer space requires at least the opinion that there's something to listen to.

I disagree.

We listen to those radio waves because we don't know if there is something there or not. And we will never find out if there is someone out there broadcasting if we don't listen.

Learning about the natural world ("world" in the philosophical sense) is never a colossal waste of time and money. When we don't have an answer to a question, I think the curiosity that drives us to look for that answer is a much more desirable and admirable trait than claiming to know what we do not and quash the drive to discover the real answers.

It is not necessary (or even desirable) to believe that ET intelligence exists in order to conduct the science and gather the evidence we need to answer the question, "Do ET intelligences exist?" The best frame of mind, I think, is to recognize that we don't know.

Likewise, it is not desirable or even reasonable to claim that ET intelligences do not exist. We don't know.

 

[yy2bggggs]

However, when the odds are long enough, sometimes one instance is all you need. Suppose a special one-time lottery was created for just you. The odds of you winning are ten trillion to one. You fill out your card, the numbers are drawn, and you win.

I've won such a lottery, with a reward that dwarfs any lottery on the face of the planet--existence.

Only the odds were much, much longer.

 

[RandFan]

I've won such a lottery, with a reward that dwarfs any lottery on the face of the planet--existence.

Only the odds were much, much longer.

Damn! I should have gotten that one. If we do a look back probability analysis of my existence it is beyond comprehension. Of all the sperm and all of the eggs of all of my ancestors a tiny fraction had to come together in just the right way. And none of my ancestors could die before child bearing age. And each of my ancestors had to follow a very complex path to meet the mates that would lead to my existence. The odds are staggering to say the least. No lottery on earth could begin to compare. Winning many multiple lotteries could not compare. Getting many identical royal flushes wouldn't begin to compare.

This is the fallacy of backward probability analysis. Since it happened the probability is actually 1. What could have been is another matter but the probability of what could have been doesn't change what DID happen.

That is what Malerin fails to understand.

 

[Darat]

Could everyone agree for the sake of the argument* that a belief in aliens is completely and utterly irrational so we can move on to the next part of Bri's argument which presumably will answer the topic of the thread i.e. "Can theists be rational?"


*(even if you have to pretend and shove your fingers in your mouth to prevent you typing)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

You'd have to be an idiot to think that a coin that lands HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH is a fair coin.

A fair coin would produce a run of 28 heads (or tails) on average once every 268,435,456 trials of 28 tosses.

So obviously it depends on how many times the coin had been tossed before the experiment was conducted as to whether this is an unusual result or not.

But that result is just as likely as HTTHTHHTTHTTHTHTHTTHTHHTHTHT. Why do you think it's irrational to think the first coin is fair and rational to think the 2nd one is?

<snip>

Because the second sequence is evidence against the hypothesis "the coin is biased".

More generally, each of us compares possible models of reality against other possible models of reality and select the model which we estimate best explains the observed data.

 

[Belz...]

Right. Also, I can come up with counter-examples, such as a teapot orbiting Jupiter. It's exactly the same as a teapot here on earth, except its location. I don't think that lends any more credence to its existence than anything else.

Ouch. I think you should read that back to yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Hail Zeus. So what's the probability that Zeus exists? Why is it different for god?

Actually, I think Zeus is more likely because he isn't self-contradictory, seems more physically possible, and is responsible for observable physical phenomena.

 

[Belz...]

What do aliens explain?

Nothing. But then they're not meant to. What's your point, now ?

I can play that game too.

Apparently not, because one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Bri]

And what does fine-tuned mean? More specifically, what is the most general interpretation of fine-tuned you can possibly come up with, that compels me to accept that P(E|H') is the value you set it as?

I didn't set it at all. It's not my argument. You're free to reject the premises of the argument if you like.

But to suggest that either those 26 constants vary according to distributions specified by the model from which you derive P(E|H'), or that there's a god, and that those are the only two possibilities?

If you disagree with the value of P(E|~H) then you're simply disagreeing with the premise. I also disagree with the premise of the argument -- I've said that countless times.

The discussion had to do with comparing arguments like this one to arguments for extra terrestrial intelligent life based on Drake's equation. If you accept that the opinion that extra terrestrial intelligent life exist is an irrational belief, then at least you're being consistent.

-Bri