Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

This is just so wrong in a number of ways.

OK, so you're now arguing that it is irrational to have an opinion that there is extra terrestrial intelligent life?

That's a departure from your prior argument, but at least it's consistent.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't hypotheses supposed to be falsifiable? Sitting around with listening devices for invisible elephants isn't exactly following the scientific method is it?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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 know that teapots exist as well. So are you saying that the fact that we know they exist means that it's rational to believe there are teapots orbiting Jupiter? Of course not. Teapots orbiting Jupiter are different than teapots here on earth which are known to exist. We don't know whether teapots around Jupiter exist. Nor do we know whether aliens exist.

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.

We do NOT know that aliens exist. Despite whatever we DO know about intelligent life on earth. We do NOT know that a fine-tuner exists. Despite whatever we DO know about fine-tuning.

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

Given a complete lack of evidence, yes I believe it requires an opinion on the subject in order to spend time and money listening for something that there is no evidence is there. Yes, I do. I don't see any SETI members with listening devices walking around listening for signs of invisible elephants in the name of science. Why? Because they don't believe they exist.

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

Nobody on this thread has said that opinions or beliefs have anything to do with whether or not something is true. The discussion was about whether having an opinion about the existence of extra terrestrial intelligent life would be irrational.

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.

Then I'll expect to see you out listening for invisible elephants. Have fun!

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.

I didn't say anything about knowing. I said that it requires at least the opinion that something for which there is no evidence probably exists in order to spend time and money looking/listening for signs of it.

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

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.

You are misinterpreting me. It is indeed not you that came up with the argument, but it is you that claimed the argument doesn't set up a false dichotomy. I'm not using the second person to attribute the argument to you--I'm using it to put you into the ownership seat, in light of a specific position you did take.

If you disagree with the value of P(E|~H) then you're simply disagreeing with the premise.

Please do not misunderstand. H is a hypothesis. H' is its complement. The complement of a hypothesis is the set of everything that is true when the hypothesis is false.

It's not the value of P(E|H') that I'm disagreeing with. It's the assignment of H' that I'm disagreeing with. There's a specific kind of universe-with-no-god that the argument calls into being--call it J. The assignment of P(E|H') to this value is ipso facto binding H' to this specific kind of universe-with-no-god. I'm not arguing that P(E|J) is wrong--for now, I'm perfectly content to concede this issue. What I'm arguing that J is not equivalent to H'--that H union J is not U--that it's not the only possibility worth considering, that universes which come into being vary on the dimensionless parameters according to the model presented. It's a viable possibility, but by no means is it fairly described as H'.

Whether J is equated to H' in a premise or not isn't really that relevant to me. The defense of the charge in this case would be "if you assume J to be H', the argument follows", and my counter is, "if you accept the argument, you are ipso facto accepting J and H as the only two alternatives, and as such, are committing a false dichotomy". It doesn't matter how you get there--there are a lot more possibilities that deserve to be considered besides H and J. Use of H' as opposed to a second variable is disingenuous.

The discussion had to do with comparing arguments like this one to arguments for extra terrestrial intelligent life based on Drake's equation.

The Drake equation is a red herring. There are a lot of people in this thread--I'm but one of them.

I'm biting off a tiny piece of this apple only. A person who accepts the fine tuning argument is either irrational, or has a very good reason to suspect that H and J are the only possible alternatives. I've yet to see this very good reason in real life cases of people accepting the fine tuning argument--thus, I've yet to come across a rational person accepting it.

Theists per se being irrational? Different story--I'm making no claims. As such, belief in ET intelligence, by parallel, inherits no claim from me. Belief in ET intelligence due to being convinced by the Drake equation, maybe--but it's not parallel unless you present a similar issue to my accusation of false dichotomy. Regardless, it's still a red herring. If you want to go so far as to say "but Carl Sagan was irrational if that's the case", knock yourself out. Meanwhile, I'm talking about people who accept the fine-tuning argument.

 

[Paulhoff]

Can theists be rational?

Not if they use a so-called god to explain anything they don't understand, so-called god being used as a filler for the unknow, explains nothing and is useful for nothing.

And also not if they have a so-called god in any form walking around on the earth at some time.

Paul

 

[Bri]

It is indeed not you that came up with the argument, but it is you that claimed the argument doesn't set up a false dichotomy. I'm not using the second person to attribute the argument to you--I'm using it to put you into the ownership seat, in light of a specific position you did take.

Correct, I did say that it doesn't set up a false dichotomy. A dichotomy, yes, but not a false one. There are only two possibilities for the hypothesis (the existence of a god) -- H (got exists) or ~H (god does not exist).

Please do not misunderstand. H is a hypothesis. H' is its complement. The complement of a hypothesis is the set of everything that is true when the hypothesis is false.

Correct. Either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. There is no other possibility.

It's not the value of P(E|H') that I'm disagreeing with. It's the assignment of H' that I'm disagreeing with.

~H is simply the complement of the hypothesis -- ~H is "there is no god." What else do you propose can be assigned to it?

There's a specific kind of universe-with-no-god that the argument calls into being--call it J. The assignment of P(E|H') to this value is ipso facto binding H' to this specific kind of universe-with-no-god.

No, ~H would include any universe with no god, not just one specific kind of one.

I'm not arguing that P(E|J) is wrong--for now, I'm perfectly content to concede this issue. What I'm arguing that J is not equivalent to H'--that H union J is not U--that it's not the only possibility worth considering, that universes which come into being vary on the dimensionless parameters according to the model presented. It's a viable possibility, but by no means is it fairly described as H'.

If they don't include a god, then they're fairly described by ~H.

The Drake equation is a red herring. There are a lot of people in this thread--I'm but one of them.

I've been pretty clear about the reasons for the comparison with the Drake equation. If you're not of the opinion that a belief in a god must be irrational, then indeed the comparison isn't really intended for you. I'm even willing to discuss whether any belief for which there is little compelling evidence could be considered irrational. But to say that theism is necessarily irrational whereas other beliefs are not seems to be special pleading.

-Bri

 

[Malerin]

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.

Which is to say that a necessary condition for your existence is the precise values of the physical constants, which puts us right back to the FT argument.

The improbability of your own existence (parents/grandparents/ancestors being at the right place at the right time) is a string of coincidences that would apply to almost anything in the world (e.g., it is highly unlikely the tree in my yard should exist, given all the events that had to go a certain way in the past for that particular tree to be where it is). So your own existence is not analogous to firing squad cases or lotteries.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I've been pretty clear about the reasons for the comparison with the Drake equation. If you're not of the opinion that a belief in a god must be irrational, then indeed the comparison isn't really intended for you. I'm even willing to discuss whether any belief for which there is little compelling evidence could be considered irrational. But to say that theism is necessarily irrational whereas other beliefs are not seems to be special pleading.

-Bri

And of course it has been made very clear to you that even if people did believe in the Drake equation in the same way they believe in "God", whether that is special pleading or the most irrational belief ever has nothing at all to do with "Can theists be rational?"

At this point your obsession with the Drake equation can't be described as a mere red herring, it's more like an undiscovered giant red-squid!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which is to say that a necessary condition for your existence is the precise values of the physical constants, which puts us right back to the FT argument.

The improbability of your own existence (parents/grandparents/ancestors being at the right place at the right time) is a string of coincidences that would apply to almost anything in the world (e.g., it is highly unlikely the tree in my yard should exist, given all the events that had to go a certain way in the past for that particular tree to be where it is). So your own existence is not analogous to firing squad cases or lotteries.

Sure it is. You seem to be looking at the issue through teleological lenses.

One way of addressing the FT argument is to say -- we are able to pose the question only because we exist; we exist because of the possibility that involves constants being at particular settings. They could have been anything, but they happen to be what they are, so we are what we are.

But, without assuming the inevitability of "us", there is nothing special here.

One must assume teleology in the first place before making the FT argument. The flip is -- however improbable, we exist to make the argument. However improbable, the fourth hair 3.5 cm from my part and 2.5 cm from my forehead just happens to be in the position in space that it is right now. What are the odds? If one assumes teleology from the outset, then one has already assumed a fine tuner

There are several other ways of addressing the FT argument, as we have been over in other threads.

For this issue, I don't see any way to prove teleology. It is an assumption one makes or denies from the outset; no argument is going to necessarily demonstrate it and certainly not an argument that depends on an N of 1, a single universe.

 

[Bri]

And of course it has been made very clear to you that even if people did believe in the Drake equation in the same way they believe in "God", whether that is special pleading or the most irrational belief ever has nothing at all to do with "Can theists be rational?"

At this point your obsession with the Drake equation can't be described as a mere red herring, it's more like an undiscovered giant red-squid!

What a useless comment. I'm not discussing Drake's equation by myself here. Others, including the author of the OP, have also been discussing Drake's equation and continue to do so. And of course it has to do with whether belief in a god can be rational.

Using the "usual" definition of "irrational" (not coherent) then of course the belief in a god can be rational. So obviously there is a different definition being used by those claiming that a belief in a god is necessarily irrational. So, yes, it's certainly on-topic to discuss the various definitions being used and see how they apply to other beliefs that have been suggested are "rational" beliefs.

If you're not interested in the discussion, then by all means join a different one or start your own. Or just put everyone on ignore if you like.

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

Correct, I did say that it doesn't set up a false dichotomy. A dichotomy, yes, but not a false one. There are only two possibilities for the hypothesis (the existence of a god) -- H (got exists) or ~H (god does not exist).

English is so ambiguous at times. Math? Very, very precise.

Once you get to Bayes Theorem, you're speaking math. Where the numbers come from is everything. The prose you surround it with is nothing but lies (Edit: Clarification--this is a poetic expression, not an accusation). If P(E|H) means that the universe was fine tuned by a fine tuner, H must represent the existence of a fine tuner in some incarnation. You're perfectly willing to call all fine tuners god. H' then immediately gets an interpretation--no fine tuner.

Now, when you talk about P(E|H') meaning that the universe, not being fine tuned, arose according to a model, you're committing a false dichotomy. Any specific alternate hypothesis you tie deserves a label not necessarily distinct from H'--I'm giving it J. P(E|H') is bound to a value specifically due to a hypothesis about how the universe comes about without a god. In particular, it has the universe vary on dimensionless parameters under certain distributions. Again, not necessarily distinct from H', but this is what the argument actually consists of, in the non-ambiguous precise language of mathematics, as a direct consequence of assignment of the probability in this fashion.

The question then is whether or not J is H'. J is H' if and only if the model, J, is the only possible (or at least, the only viable) model that is an alternative to H.

Yes, definitely, H' means the complement of H. But the argument assigns the entirety of H' to this J.

Correct. Either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. There is no other possibility.

There is, but we can ignore it for now.

~H is simply the complement of the hypothesis -- ~H is "there is no god."

Fine. Then "there is no god" is equated to "the universe follows this model". Doesn't matter one iota to me. "there is no god" reads H', and "the universe follows this model" reads J. I can do math in prose if you absolutely insist on it--just allow me to slap the duck labels onto the ducks while I do so.

No, ~H would include any universe with no god, not just one specific kind of one.

Not by the argument. The argument derives a P(E|H') based on equating H' with J.

If they don't include a god, then they're fairly described by ~H.

Not as long as they equate it to a specific model, J, such that J is not H'. And whether or not they forgot to label that duck J, I don't care.

I've been pretty clear about the reasons for the comparison with the Drake equation. If you're not of the opinion that a belief in a god must be irrational, then indeed the comparison isn't really intended for you.

That's fine. But (a) you brought it up, and (b) since you brought it up, with respect to this specific comparison, your Drake equation analogy is lacking an analogous logical fallacy.

I'm even willing to discuss whether any belief for which there is little compelling evidence could be considered irrational.

And until I claim otherwise, I range from considering some theists rational to considering the entire human race irrational. But I am claiming a specific set of humans-in-practice to be irrational, and such humans-in-practice, in practice, contain a disproportionately large representation of theists. Again, just a tiny bit of the apple.

 

[Paulhoff]

70 sextillion (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars just in the visible universe and many more planets then that, and many more moons then that. And someone thinks that only one planet has intelligent life?

Paul

 

[Bri]

You're perfectly willing to call all fine tuners god. H' then immediately gets an interpretation--no fine tuner.

That's inaccurate. I've been very clear that I doubt the argument would consider all fine-tuners "god," specifically that natural explanations would be included in P(E|~H). It is likely that the argument assumes a definition of "god" having to do with an intelligent being capable of fine-tuning the universe.

Now, when you talk about P(E|H') meaning that the universe, not being fine tuned, arose according to a model, you're committing a false dichotomy.

It would, if I meant P(E|~H) in that way, but I don't and don't believe the original argument meant it in that way either. It indicates the probability that the universe is fine-tuned according to any model that doesn't include a god.

The question then is whether or not J is H'. J is H' if and only if the model, J, is the only possible (or at least, the only viable) model that is an alternative to H.

J isn't ~H -- it's a subset of ~H. Nobody has indicated that ~H only consists of a single scenario. It includes all scenarios that don't involve a god.

I can do math in prose if you absolutely insist on it--just allow me to slap the duck labels onto the ducks while I do so.

I don't think there's a need. I believe I understand what you're saying, but you're assuming that the argument requires that P(E|~H) is equivalent to a specific scenario J. It doesn't, and wasn't assumed in the argument.

The argument derives a P(E|H') based on equating H' with J.

I don't believe the argument specified how P(E|~H) was derived. If you believe that the probability assigned isn't accurate if you include all possible scenarios, then you're objecting to the probability assigned in the premise.

That's fine. But (a) you brought it up, and (b) since you brought it up, with respect to this specific comparison, your Drake equation analogy is lacking an analogous logical fallacy.

If you look back, I think you'll find that I mentioned Drake's equation in a different context but that others brought up Drake's equation after I pointed out that the definitions of "irrational" that were being used might make other beliefs like the belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life irrational.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

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

I find that arguing for positions I don’t actually hold does a really good job of that! It also forces me to really understand the position much better than I would otherwise. Incidentally, unless I explicitly state that I hold a particular opinion or belief, it’s best not to assume that I do. I often argue just for the sake of arguing.

First off, anthropomorphic is when we give human attributes to non-human things. Like trees. Arguing that a tree is constructed by tiny people is anthropomorphic. The Anthropic Principle is different. Perhaps my argument is akin to the Anthropic principle but that is debatable.

Okay, it’s debatable. At least you see my point. Thanks.

No. For a very simple reason. I don't conclude that there must be or might be ET intelligent life because of ignorance. Or in other words I can't imagine how ET intelligent life couldn't exist therefore it might or must exist. You DO make that mistake.

You’re using an argument from incredulity to justify belief in ET intelligent life and accusing me of coming to a conclusion based on ignorance!!! Can you say ‘projection’.

Oh, wait, do you mean that this is NOT your argument? It’s not phrased clearly, but if that’s what you mean, you should realize that the argument isn’t one I’m making either.

ID is very different. You are saying you can't imagine how a fine tuned universe could happen without a designer.

Not at all. The argument that has been discussed is:
IF our universe if fine-tuned (a premise which does have some evidence)
THEN the probability of the existence of a creator who fine-tuned it is more probable than if our universe is not fine-tuned.

That’s a pretty fair distance from the argument as you have rephrased it. If a Bayesian approach is used, that requires an estimation of the probability of a fine-tuned universe without a designer, it not only does NOT depend on being unable to imagine how it could happen, but instead requires us to imagine how it could happen in order to arrive at an estimate of the probability.

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

If we get tired of arguing, we may just have to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t see why they cannot be considered equally rational arguments. So far you have given no solid reasons for concluding they are different that I agree with. IMO, your ‘reasons’, such as the claim above regarding argument by incredulity, either apply to both or don’t apply to either.

BTW: This is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen. Because "virtual" creatures are ignorant of us therefore god.

Uh, no. That’s not the argument. The argument that belief in ET intelligent life is rational is based on the idea that we exist and we know other galaxies, stars and planets exist, it's a rational speculation that others creatures like us could exist elsewhere. I see the argument for a creator god to be similar in that we know that we exist and we know that we create virtual universes that are constrained by the laws we set up and we create creatures that evolve in them. Therefore, it's a rational speculation that other creator beings like us could exist elsewhere and have created our universe. I don’t see either argument as being convincing, but I see both as being rational.

They don't equate. They never will. But you will keep trying. And I will keep demonstrating how ridiculous the idea is.

Go for it. It’s a fun way to occupy those brain cells and you might even succeed someday.

 

[Beth]

70 sextillion (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars just in the visible universe and many more planets then that, and many more moons then that. And someone thinks that only one planet has intelligent life?

Paul

Some people think it's less than that!

 

[RandFan]

OK, so you're now arguing that it is irrational to have an opinion that there is extra terrestrial intelligent life?

No. That is a strawman. I'm simply pointing out what is wrong with your claims.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't hypotheses supposed to be falsifiable? Sitting around with listening devices for invisible elephants isn't exactly following the scientific method is it?

Observation is a key aspect of the scientific method. FTR: If there was a basis to look for invisible elephants then yes, it would in fact be following the scientific method. There are scientists thoughout the world with listening devices and cameras looking for various animals. Our database of species grows every year because of observation. Here is an article about new ocean species that were discoverd due to observation.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That's inaccurate.

Sorry, wrong use of terms. By "willing to" I mean "able to". Whatever the intent, I have no qualms about using the term "god" to refer to anything that "fine tuned" the universe--that adjusted parameters with specific intent to cause life to arise. Others might, even those who argue it--but I don't. Call it over-conceding, if you will.

I've been very clear that I doubt the argument would consider all fine-tuners "god," specifically that natural explanations would be included in P(E|~H).

Okay, let's just start here.

H is there is a god. H' is there is no god. E is there is life.

Then P(H|E)=P(H)P(E|H)/{P(H)P(E|H)+P(H')P(E|H')}. Or, P(H|E)=P(H AND E)/{P(H AND E)+P(H' AND E)}. That is to say, the probability that there is a god given there is life, is given by the probability that there is a god and that there is life, divided by the sum of the probabilities that there is a god and that there is life and that there is no god and that there is life.

Good so far. Where does "fine tuning" come in? How do you get to the 26 dimensionless constants varying? To me this just looks like:
P(H|E)=P(H AND E)/P(E)

Sure it does. But if I come up with numbers for those, and plug it in, does it deserve the name "fine tuning argument"?

You're sort of missing the soul of the argument.

 

[Belz...]

So you would have no opinion about the fairness of a coin that lands HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

Talk about not understanding.

Probability isn't for everyone, it seems.

 

[RandFan]

Then I'll expect to see you out listening for invisible elephants.

This is serious ignorance. Scientists use observation to discover new species all of the time. Here is an article of scientists using observation to discover new animal species in Vietnam.

Observation is a crucial part of the scientific method.

 

[Belz...]

We know that teapots exist as well. So are you saying that the fact that we know they exist means that it's rational to believe there are teapots orbiting Jupiter?

Now you're just being obtuse on purpose. Now, why the hell would a person do that, I wonder...

 

[Bri]

No. That is a strawman. I'm simply pointing out what is wrong with your claims.

So which is it? Rational or irrational?

FTR: If there was a basis to look for invisible elephants then yes, it would in fact be following the scientific method.

But without a basis, is it irrational?

-Bri