Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

Ok.

H = The coin is two headed
E = 2 heads in a row
[P(H) =.5 <- this is a probability, not a premise]
...
The thing here is that I can't figure out a value for Pr(~E/H) and Pr(~E/~H). ~E means I don't get two heads in a row. But not getting two heads in a row doesn't mean I got a tails. Maybe I got 3 heads in a row,

B=0, C=0.325. You are presumably working with a fair coin that has heads on one side, right? (And may or may not have heads on both?)

The thing is, E is the result of some test. E' is also the result of the same kind of test--it is some actual result, with a value distinct from E. E' doesn't mean lack of E, but rather, presence of something not E; E means the test went one way--E' means it didn't go that way.

Furthermore, as another rule, all of your tests must be independent. For the same reason you can't just flip a coin twice, rewind the videotape, watch it get flipped twice again, and perform two inferences, you can't flip it three times, see what it got the first and second time, and see what it got the second and third time, and get two results. Two results means not less than 4 flips.

And finally, you must apply every result you get, or at least sample them randomly--you certainly cannot pick and choose your results (this would skew them). So if you flip the coin four times, you should apply two inferences (note that P(H|E')=P(H)P(E'|H)/P(E'); that is, it works perfectly fine when E is negated).

This case, mind you, is one where you pretty much know the exact values, except for the value of P(H). In this regard, figuring out these "atoms" is merely an exercise. The point of the atoms is to allow you to see deeper relationships between the big terms you're playing with, and allow you to see how certain changes in an estimate affects the fundamental sections of your universe, so that you know exactly how to estimate things fairly (which is still nothing but a guess, but a full understanding is necessary to keep you honest with yourself).

 

[westprog]

OK, but (and this is just a semantic quibble) I'm not sure I would use the term "fine-tuning" in such situations because the whole concept of fine-tuning implies a tuner. It could just be that we are alive because the constants are what they are. Sure, it could be that the constants themselves are contrained by some unknown process, but then it seems a bit silly to call them fine-tuned. They would just be what they are with the whole concept of "fine-tuning" being an artifact of the way we look at them.

so, basically we agree.

I'd be quite happy with something like "apparently fine-tuned". Saying that the universe is fine-tuned does somewhat beg the question.

 

[Bri]

I honestly don't understand your point.

My point being that I suspect that most members of SETI hold a belief without evidence.

Inteligent life has been show to exist. Invisible elephants?

And this clearly illustrates how you want to change the rules to fit your own personal biases. So extra terrestrial intelligent life = intelligent life, but invisible elephants != elephants. I get it.

And they are different from SETI in what way?

According to you, SETI has no belief that aliens exist. If they did, would they be (*gasp*) irrational?

No. Of course not.

So it's not irrational to have a belief that extra terrestrial intelligence exists, but it IS irrational to have a belief that anything else for which there is no evidence exists?

What are you talking about? I'm asking you valid questions that go directly to your argument. Both Malerin and Beth understand the validity and relevance of the questions.

The questions concern the premise of the argument. I can ask similar questions about the premise of an argument based on Drake's equation, such as:

• Do you know the precise conditions and events by which life emerged on this planet?
• Do you know the precise conditions and events by which life becomes intelligent?
• Do you know for a fact that those conditions and events occurred elsewhere?
• Do you know the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets?
• Do you know the fraction of those planets that actually go on to develop life at some point?
• Do you know the fraction of planets that develop life that actually go on to develop intelligent life?

Yet somehow you feel that belief that extra terrestrial intelligent life exists is rational, but belief that a god exists is irrational. Sounds like special pleading to me.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm pretty sure we're arguing in circles. I had a long reply prepared for this post, but I think it's best to just ditch it. Now I am fairly confident that we were merely talking past each other.

I'm fairly confident that we aren't disagreeing at all. I don't disagree with your new objection to the premises -- I only disagreed with your claim that the argument itself was invalid. I agree that you have a valid objection to the premise, and that accepting the premise is important to accepting the conclusion. My point was that it's the same with other beliefs that some folks seem to continue to insist are not irrational.

The other thing is that we seem to be using different languages. Your criteria for "irrational" sounds way too high of a burden for my tastes--I would certainly hold incoherency as irrational, but I'd toss in general lack of application of reason as well.

The dictionary definition of irrational is closer to "incoherent," but I'm willing to accept any reasonable and consistent definition that doesn't resort to special pleading. I don't think that someone who uses an argument like the fine-tuning argument as a reason to believe in a god is using any less reason that someone who uses an argument based on Drake's equation as a reason to believe in aliens. They might both be irrational, but I can't see one being necessarily irrational and the other rational without resorting to special pleading.

If you agree, then let's talk about whether beliefs for which there is little or no compelling evidence can be considered "irrational." I think that's where the conversation is headed at some point. But there are still some people hanging onto the notion that some beliefs for which there is little or no compelling evidence are "irrational" while others are "rational."

And "validity", to me, has the technical meaning--saying that an argument is valid if you accept the premises is a bit redundant--an argument that is valid if you accept the premises, is valid if you don't accept the premises. Maybe that was a tripping point as well... but the meaning of "validity" with respect to arguments is that the conclusions follow from the premises.

I agree. I was trying to clarify whether you were saying that the fine-tuning argument was invalid, or only that the conclusions are invalid because you don't accept the validity of the premises.

Regardless, I don't see us as progressing any--there's too much time being spent re-explaining respectively what we are and aren't saying.

Like I said, I suspect that we don't disagree at all.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

My point being that I suspect that most members of SETI hold a belief without evidence.

OK, I'll give you that no intelligence has been found on any planet, including the earth, as some have shown here.

So you believe that there is no intelligence anywhere but on this planet. After all SETI has been looking for thousands and thousands of years and has not found any intelligent life. Also we just know everything about life and it can only exist on a earth like planet, that is the only type of planet shown to have so-called interigent life, so that is the only way.......... yea, right.

Paul

 

[Bri]

So you believe that there is no intelligence anywhere but on this planet.

No, I believe that there is no evidence of extra terrestrial intelligence.

After all SETI has been looking for thousands and thousands of years and has not found any intelligent life.

Sure enough, it is possible that extra terrestrial intelligent exists (just as it is possible that a god exists). We just don't have any evidence of it.

Also we just know everything about life and it can only exist on a earth like planet, that is the only type of planet shown to have so-called interigent life, so that is the only way.......... yea, right.

We don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life can emerge, so we can't say whether or not those conditions and events have occurred anywhere else. If it was a specific set of events and circumstances that caused the emergence of intelligent life on our planet, it may be unlikely that it has occurred anywhere else. See the article on the Rare Earth Hypothesis for more information.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

Bri has presented some evidence that it may be true...

Anything not defined as impossible may be true. That said, #2 is spurious.

Hmmm, let's see number 2 was:

We collect relevant data and determine the probabilty of getting the data we got under the assumption of the null hypothesis.

You consider this spurious? Presumably you are referring to the idea that the universe is fine-tuned and not the actual step itself. Okay. That gets into accepting or rejecting the premise of a fine-tuned universe. It’s not a premise I feel qualified to make a judgment on and I don't want to argue its validity. You are free to reject that premise, but that doesn't make it spurious. It's just one of many things about which reasonable people can disagree.

Well, I certainly wouldn't call it an exact computation, but if someone wants to use such information in developing an estimate of the probability of a creator, no valid reason has been given why it's not a legitimate thing to do...

But that's not true. Not true at all. It's been explained time and time again.

I haven’t heard any valid reasons to reject the argument. A valid reason to reject the argument for a creator but not for Intelligent E.T. life would apply to one but not the other. Every reason you’ve given seems to me to be either applicable to both arguments or neither.

Look, you have an estimate of the probability of a creator. You apparently estimate it at zero. You base this estimate on what? Why is your estimate ‘legitimate’ and others not?

I believe that the latest information indicates that we are in an expanding universe with no indication that it will someday contract or collapse again.

Again, that's just not true.

From your link: Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating.

That’s what I was thinking of. Of course, the big crunch is still possible. No one knows what will happen in another 50 or 100 billion years, but current evidence does not seem to support it.

The multiverse is a legitimate alternative explanation, but it is no less fantastic a proposal than a creator god. I see no reason to favor it as an explanation over that of a creator*.

While I completly disagree you miss the point. You can't calculate a probability of one fantastic proposal without taking into account alternate possibilities.

I think you missed my point. Why do you consider one fantastic proposal reasonable and the other ridiculous?

Already we create other creatures in other, smaller bounded universes. Now, how do we tell which type we are in: deliberately created or happenstance? Which type will be more common?

This is just nonsense.

Calling something nonsense is not a persuasive argument.

Because it only correlates to the universe being created or not...

How? I keep asking and you keep evading the question.

I see no aspect of your analogy that correlates to fine-tuning. How would you phrase the If-Then proposition of the fine-tuning argument using your analogy?

I don't understand your point.

That you don’t understand my point does not mean I’ve evaded the question.
I don’t know how to make it any clearer, so perhaps we should move on from your snow analogy. To me, it misses an important aspect of the argument Bri and I have been supporting because there is no element in it corresponding to the 'fine-tuning' premise of the original argument.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The dictionary definition of irrational is closer to "incoherent," but I'm willing to accept any reasonable and consistent definition that doesn't resort to special pleading.

I'm using this dictionary for irrational^dict.

...and I'm pretty sure the thread at large is as well. You seem to be focusing on 1b. 1a or 1c is closer to what's being talked about. In particular, see reason^dict sense 4.

No, I believe that there is no evidence of extra terrestrial intelligence.

Uhm... extra terrestrial intelligence is an extrapolation from a single data point, but it is a data point. You don't need to speculate that something entirely different from your experience occurs--only that something happened again, that you know happened once (not any particular thing, but something happened once).

Terrestrial intelligence counts.

 

[westprog]

Again, that's just not true.

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating.

So as far as we know, the universe is probably not going to contract. But it might. If it did, then what? Why would it expand again? What would make it explode if all matter were concentrated in a black hole? But say it did - then why would the laws of physics be different? We have no reason to suppose that they would change. But say they did - we don't know what might happen at the energies we'd find in the beginnings of the Big Bang. Then mightn't we get a value for gravity that would stop some version of the universe from ever contracting. Therefore the cycle would stop. And it would be probable, assuming random oscillation of laws of physics, that it would stop before we could ever come to exist.

This [Big_Bounce]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce is a description of a possible oscillating universe, and some of the objections to it.

 

[fls]

For the fine-tuning argument, we are being asked to accept the idea that fine-tuning indicates capriciousness, without being given any evidence for capriciousness.

I think we all agree that apparent fine-tuning, like apparent sun-moving, calls for an explanation. It also seems to be agreed that the discovery that we are within one of many iterations of the universe, that physical constants are the consequence of previously unrecognized constraints, that we are naive when it comes to imagining conditions under which life could emerge, etc. are not a 'fine-tuner'. So the fine-tuning argument is not really about fine-tuning, but about lawlessness. That is, we are being asked to accept that evidence of fine-tuning is really evidence of capriciousness or choice. It is as though Malerin were asking us to conclude that her/his coin is 'red' because she/he demonstrated that it was likely two-headed.

On the other hand, SETI only asks us to consider whether alien intelligence is possible based on considering only those sorts of observations that would speak directly to the question. It doesn't ask us to decide the question based on the great red spot on Jupiter (unusual planetary features would be expected in the presence of civilizations that interfere with planetary activities, the great red spot is an unusual planetary feature, therefore an alien civilization is more likely to be present on Jupiter given that there is an unusual planetary feature on Jupiter).

Linda

 

[Bri]

I'm using this dictionary for irrational^dict...

I don't think any of those definitions would allow us to conclude that a belief in a god is necessarily irrational while a belief in aliens is rational.

Uhm... extra terrestrial intelligence is an extrapolation from a single data point, but it is a data point. You don't need to speculate that something entirely different from your experience occurs--only that something happened again, that you know happened once (not any particular thing, but something happened once).

Terrestrial intelligence counts.

Sure, you can speculate, but speculation isn't evidence.

In all fairness I should qualified my statement by saying that there is no compelling evidence that aliens exist (just as there is no compelling evidence that a god exists).

There is no compelling evidence that what occurred on this planet has occurred elsewhere, and not even compelling evidence that it having occurred elsewhere is probable. There is some evidence that it might have been an improbable set of circumstances and events that gave rise to intelligent life on this planet.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

We don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life can emerge, so we can't say whether or not those conditions and events have occurred anywhere else.

Also at one time life was thought to be in a very narrow range of temperatures and conditions on earth that has been shown to be wrong, the range is much bigger then thought.

It has been shown on earth that all life doesn't need the sun for its energy, two completely difference areas on the bottom of the ocean have been found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riftia

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5529/418

What people seem to forget is that science is a very new thing, and that we are just at the start of it. This is not the time to stick our heads in the sand and saying “Science doesn’t know everything” no kidding. The only way to learn is the pull ones head out and search.

Paul

 

[Bri]

So the fine-tuning argument is not really about fine-tuning, but about lawlessness. That is, we are being asked to accept that evidence of fine-tuning is really evidence of capriciousness or choice. It is as though Malerin were asking us to conclude that her/his coin is 'red' because she/he demonstrated that it was likely two-headed.

I don't think so. I think the fine-tuning argument is simply considering the probability that the universe would be fine-tuned by chance or some other (as of yet unknown) reason as opposed to the probability that it would be fine-tuned if a god exists. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for a reasonable person to imagine that the chances would be higher if an intelligent being exists that has the power to set the constants in such a way that the universe can support life.

On the other hand, SETI only asks us to consider whether alien intelligence is possible based on considering only those sorts of observations that would speak directly to the question.

Probably unintentional wording there, but of course alien intelligence is possible. The question is whether it is probable. In order to conclude that it is probable, you have to make assumptions for which there is no compelling evidence.

It doesn't ask us to decide the question based on the great red spot on Jupiter (unusual planetary features would be expected in the presence of civilizations that interfere with planetary activities, the great red spot is an unusual planetary feature, therefore an alien civilization is more likely to be present on Jupiter given that there is an unusual planetary feature on Jupiter).

I have two problems with your analogy. First, if the red spot on Jupiter had no other known explanation and looked exactly like a giraffe in precise detail down to the nose hairs, we might try to estimate the probability of a feature like that occurring by chance or due to some other unknown explanation, and possibly surmise a higher probability that there are/were intelligent beings on Jupiter that had seen a giraffe.

But your objection seems to be directed toward the nature of the arguments rather than anything that would relate to the argument being valid. Similar Bayesian arguments are made all the time and are considered perfectly acceptable. So your objection seems like special pleading to me.

The two arguments are different, to be sure. But I'm not sure they're different in any significant way that would allow you to say that one is necessarily irrational and one rational without resorting to special pleading.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What people seem to forget is that science is a very new thing, and that we are just at the start of it. This is not the time to stick our heads in the sand and saying “Science doesn’t know everything” no kidding. The only way to learn is the pull ones head out and search.

I agree, but that's somewhat besides the point of whether belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life is rational or irrational given the lack of compelling evidence to support the belief.

-Bri

 

[westprog]

Malerin, this is another fallacy. It's a well known one called the Gamblers Fallacy and is also covered in the book (*explicitly it uses the example of flipping a coin as does wiki). The fallacy you are making is used by Casino owners to increase their haul.

FTR: Damn straight I would give you even odds.

Yet you keep making significant and classical mistakes about statistics. Take my advice, get the book. Yours seems to be missing some very important points.

If you see someone throw 30 heads, then you would be crazy to give him even odds on a tail coming up. Even if you examined the coin. Even if you were given the coin to throw and found it produced heads and tails with equal probability.

I'm not sure at what point it is clear that the assumptions on which the assignment of equal probabilities to heads and tails is made cannot be justified. After five heads there is no reason to doubt. After ten one might be a little bit suspicious. But anyone who insists after thirty heads in a row that the coin is equally likely to produce heads or tails is clearly entirely mistaken.

 

[Darat]

I agree, but that's somewhat besides the point of whether belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life is rational or irrational given the lack of compelling evidence to support the belief.

-Bri

It is somewhat beside the point whether a belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life is rational or irrational given the compelling lack of connection to "Can theists be rational?".

 

[RandFan]

Hmmm, let's see number 2 was:

No. Not THAT number 2.

(2) The data collected is the probability of the Universe being as it is. If it is fine-tuned, then the probability is small.

This is a spurious conclusion. There is no basis for it. The probability of you existing is incomprehensibly small. What do we conclude from that?

That's the problem. You think something can be concluded simply from a rare event. It's not true.

valid reason to reject the argument for a creator but not for Intelligent E.T. life would apply to one but not the other. Every reason you’ve given seems to me to be either applicable to both arguments or neither.

This is simply not true.

• We've never seen a creator that could "create" 300,000,000,000 galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars. We have no idea what that would even entail.
• We've seen intelligent life.

Look, you have an estimate of the probability of a creator. You apparently estimate it at zero. You base this estimate on what? Why is your estimate ‘legitimate’ and others not?

All things not defined as impossible are possible. Believing that there is an invisible unicorn may be under my bed is irrational because I have no basis to form such a belief other than it isn't by definition not-impossible. The plausibility of ET intelligent life is based on real and objective criteria.

From your link: Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating.

But there is no reason to think that there could be something in the future to cause it to collapse.

I think you missed my point. Why do you consider one fantastic proposal reasonable and the other ridiculous?

Creating 300,000,000,000 galaxies with stars of immense mass and distances of incomprehensible size and now way to explain how this is done is truly fantastic. It's beyond fantastic.

• Yet we know intelligent life exists.
• We know that the elements that make up that life are common in the universe.

There is a world of difference between these two things.

To me, it misses an important aspect of the argument Bri and I have been supporting because there is no element in it corresponding to the 'fine-tuning' premise of the original argument.

(emphasis mine) Oddly you can't explain what that "element" is.

 

[RandFan]

My point being that I suspect that most members of SETI hold a belief without evidence.

So long as their belief that there could be other inteligent life isn't based on magic, unparsimonious or beyond our comprehension premises then it isn't irrational.

You can't even tell me what a "creator" is or how it functions or how it creates suns the size of the Pistol Star. For ET Inteligent life I can give you a reasonable basis that it exists. Namely that we exist. I can give you a reasonable basis for how it could exist in other places.

God? Nothing.

So extra terrestrial intelligent life = intelligent life, but invisible elephants != elephants. I get it.

? What? No. You've got that backwards.

Bacteria in one pond = could be bacteria in another.
Elephants != invisible elephants.

The questions concern the premise of the argument. I can ask similar questions about the premise of an argument based on Drake's equation, such as:

Your questions don't obviate any of my premises. Mine obviate yours.

 

[RandFan]

If you see someone throw 30 heads, then you would be crazy to give him even odds on a tail coming up.

Given a fair coin and excluding slight of hand. No. I would not at all be crazy. You are commiting the gamblers fallacy.

 

[Malerin]

Malerin, this is another fallacy. It's a well known one called the Gamblers Fallacy and is also covered in the book (*explicitly it uses the example of flipping a coin as does wiki). The fallacy you are making is used by Casino owners to increase their haul.

FTR: Damn straight I would give you even odds.

Yet you keep making significant and classical mistakes about statistics. Take my advice, get the book. Yours seems to be missing some very important points.

The Gambler's fallacy cracks me up because my dad can't understand it. He thinks that someone who survives a plane crash is less likely to get in another crash because the odds of being in two plane crashes is so improbable (I tell him that if that were true, people who have been in a crash would advertise themselves as "crash preventers", and would charge to accompany superstitious people on trips).

I also know why the roulette tables have readouts so you can see what the last 10 or so results were- people who think red has come up 4 in a row might think black is "due" and feel they should put a bet down.

However, sometimes a string of outcomes is indicative of not chance, but something else. This is why the notion of "signigicant results" is so important. Let's take a casino game for example. Suppose we're at some sleazy little casino sitting at a blackjack table. Dealer's playing with an 8 deck shoe. Dealer gets 21. Dealer gets 21 again. And again. And again. Are you really telling me you would just chalk it up to good luck on the dealer's part? After about the 3rd blackjack in a row you'd be the only person at the table and rightfully so. A string of multiple black-jacks is much much more likely on the theory of cheating than it is on the theory of chance. Bayes illustrates this nicely

H = Dealer is cheating
E = 10 blackjacks in a row

Pr(E/H) >> Pr(E/~H). Therefore, there will be significant confirmation to the belief that the dealer is cheating, just as there should be.