Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

Like the moon being edible if you accept the premise that the moon is made of green cheese.

No, not exactly. There is plenty of evidence that the moon isn't made of green cheese. There is little or no evidence against the premise of the fine-tuning argument. The problem is that like an argument for aliens based on the Drake equation, while some variables in the premise are supported by evidence, there is also little or no evidence for other variables.

Yes and so is quantum mechanics. That these concepts are theoretical doesn't justify any theory that invokes them to be called theoretical.

I agree. Which is why I'm not sure why you call an argument for aliens "theoretical" just because it evokes similar concepts.

If I have a theory that leprechauns are real and my theory uses as premises quantum mechanics and fine-tuning the use of those terms doesn't make my theory valid or increase the confidence level of the theory.

Yup, exactly. Replace "leprechauns" with "aliens" and "quantum mechanics and fine-tuning" with "theory that there are lots of stars" and you'll have my objection to your argument precisely.

No, it's not simply an adhom. You won't acknowledge what is plain and obvious.

• ET intelligent life: Increased confidence due to a theoretical framework.
• God: Nothing.

No, it's an ad hom. The fact that I won't acknowledge what you yourself refuted above with your leprechaun example seems to belie your claim that it's "plain and obvious."

Why would confidence in ET intelligent life be increased because you invoke evidence for a small part of the argument any more than your confidence in god would be increased because of evidence of fine-tuning?

Science doesn't start out with perfect knowledge. However good science seeks those things where there is some degree of confidence that the proposition is true. A theoretical framework for ET intelligent life gives us some degree of confidence.

Only if you consider "greater than 0 but less than 1" to be a degree of confidence. That's about the same confidence that we have in the existence of a god.

You put scientists on par with belief in the supernatural. THAT is unfair. Scientists have a theoretical framework to search for ET intelligent life.

When have put scientists on par with belief in the supernatural? That's a ridiculous staw man. If there isn't enough evidence upon which to base a conclusion, there isn't enough evidence upon which to base a conclusion. It's certainly not unfair to scientists to point out that science has thus far not been able to come up with conclusive evidence of aliens. It's also not an unfair criticism of SETI to point out that they are trying to prove an unfalsifiable proposition, which arguably isn't science at all.

In the beginning science new precious little. However there were many things that had a basis for inquiry. There was something to observe and test a reason to observe and test.

The key word here being "test." You can't test whether or not aliens exist any more than you can test whether or not a god exists -- it's unfalsifiable.

SETI has that very basis. They have a theoretical framework.

That point is arguable, particularly since you haven't shown the "theoretical framework" upon which SETI is built.

When you can accept that science has a theoretical basis for the question "is there ET intelligent life" then this debate will be over. All it takes is for you to admit the facts.

I'm still quite unclear how you're using the term "theoretical basis" in this context. I see no more "theoretical basis" for the belief that extra terrestrial intelligent life exists than for the belief that a god exists. As you said, invoking theories doesn't necessarily give an argument a theoretical basis unless those theories actually support the conclusion.

As for me, I don't know if there is ET intelligent life. I'm honest enough to admit that.

Good for you! And I'll admit that I don't know if there is a god (as if I've ever said otherwise).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

SETI is searching for patterns in the EM. Speaking of patterns, didn't you say this about the giraffe images?

SETI would be the equivalent of searching the surface of every known planet for extremely detailed giraffes. Just because finding one would be evidence of aliens, that doesn't mean that it's scientifically sound to look for something for which there is no evidence. Scientific inquiry usually involves the concept of falsifiability of a hypothesis.

I'm getting the feeling that your criteria are changing.

Not to my knowledge.

Regardless, this is the reason I separated my question into two parts. I just honestly didn't expect to get hung up, with you, over this part.

I apologize if I disappointed you!

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

No, not exactly. There is plenty of evidence that the moon isn't made of green cheese.

Ahah... this is where I use my get out of jail free card. The moon is supernatural and therefore it is capable of existing beyond time and space. It exists in another dimension. All you need to do is believe that the moon is made of green cheese and it will be green cheese.

Nice huh?

There is little or no evidence against the premise of the fine-tuning argument.

It's not a valid argument for anything.

The problem is that like an argument for aliens based on the Drake equation, while some variables in the premise are supported by evidence, there is also little or no evidence for other variables.

Me: There is the moon.
You: I don't see it.

I agree. Which is why I'm not sure why you call an argument for aliens "theoretical" just because it evokes similar concepts.

And this is where I think you are being dishonest. It doesn't simply evoke similar concepts. It is theoretical in that it answers questions based on what we know. Just like the scientist who infers the possibility of bacteria in other ponds we infer the possibility of life in other parts of the universe.

Yup, exactly. Replace "leprechauns" with "aliens" and "quantum mechanics and fine-tuning" with "theory that there are lots of stars" and you'll have my objection to your argument precisely.

Again, dishonest. You know that there is more than a single premise. The number of stars is only one of those premises. Though to be sure that is far more than exists for god.

Me: There is the moon.
You: I don't see it.

How can I make you see the moon if you won't look?

The fact that I won't acknowledge what you yourself refuted above with your leprechaun example seems to belie your claim that it's "plain and obvious."

There was no refutation.

Why would confidence in ET intelligent life be increased because you invoke evidence for a small part of the argument any more than your confidence in god would be increased because of evidence of fine-tuning?

Me: Here is evidence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.
You: #1 is insufficient evidence for anything.

First off, #1 is more evidence than there is for god. Second what about 2 through 7?

How can I get you to acknowledge the other premises? If you won't acknowledge or deal with the premises of any argument then the discussion is pointless.

The key word here being "test." You can't test whether or not aliens exist any more than you can test whether or not a god exists -- it's unfalsifiable.

That's not true. I can hypothesis that there is intelligent life in a quadrant of space and attempt to falsify it like a scientist can falsify whether or not there is bacteria in any given pond.

That point is arguable, particularly since you haven't shown the "theoretical framework" upon which SETI is built.

How can I get you to acknowledge my "theoretical framework" if you simply deny that it is there?

Me: There is the moon.
You: I don't see it.

Again, how can I get you to acknowledge that the moon is actually there if you keep repeating that you don't see it? It's for that reason that I think you are being intellectually dishonest. You won't acknowledge my premises. You won't rebut my premises. You simply declare, by fiat, that they don't exist.

I'm still quite unclear how you're using the term "theoretical basis" in this context. I see no more "theoretical basis"...

(emphasis mine).

Bri: I don't see a moon.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon

I don't know how to make you see what you refuse to see.

 

[Herzblut]

Hello RandFan,

No, it's not simply an adhom. You won't acknowledge what is plain and obvious.

• ET intelligent life: Increased confidence due to a theoretical framework.
• God: Nothing.

Confidence? In what? How? The only way a theory gains any confidence is by empirical evidence. Without evidence it's pure speculation.

Science doesn't start out with perfect knowledge. However good science seeks those things where there is some degree of confidence that the proposition is true. A theoretical framework for ET intelligent life gives us some degree of confidence.

In what? In that within our lifetimes we will communicate with aliens, or at least receive signals from them? I have no reason to raise my confidence level above zero, to be honest. Although I'd really wish to, but I'm simply not driven by wishful thinking.

You put scientists on par with belief in the supernatural. THAT is unfair. Scientists have a theoretical framework to search for ET intelligent life.

But no evidence. Men are simply curious and want to know if there's somebody else, and invest enormous resources like maniacs which could be spent more wisely elsewhere, if you ask me.

RF, I'm jumping into this thread and apologize if I missed a portion which already clarified things totally unclear to me.

H

 

[RandFan]

SETI would be the equivalent of searching the surface of every known planet for extremely detailed giraffes.

No. False ananolgy.

A correct analogy:
Bob: I became sick after I drank the water from this pond.
Ted: I checked and the pond is contaminated with bacteria.
Bob: There are other ponds. Can I drink from them?
Ted: Well, we know that the conditions that led to bacteria in the first pond possibly exist in the other ponds.
Bob: So we shouldn't drink from any of them?
Ted: We can check those ponds and determine if any of them are free of bacteria.

But, by your criteria the above is NOT scientific.

C'mon Bri, you just aren't credible.

 

[RandFan]

Hello Ranfan

Hi Herz.

Confidence? In what? How? The only way a theory gains any confidence is by empirical evidence. Without evidence it's pure speculation.

Not true. Einsteins theory wasn't simply pure speculation. It was based on a framework of reason and some evidence (speed of light).

RF, I'm jumping into this thread and apologize if I missed a portion which already clarified things totally unclear to me.

That's ok.

The salient point is that the question of ET intelligent life is an empirical one. Like the bacteria in the pond in the example above we can use facts from one example (conditions of the pond, conditions of earth) and the existence of life (bacteria in the pond, humans on earth) to infer the possibility of an unknown proposition. Kinda like Einstein did.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

There is no known mechanism to explain why the universal constants happen to have precisely the values needed for life. That is not to say that there are no explanations possible, only that none are known.

<snip>

Then how could this observation possibly be used as support for any particular hypothesis from the set of hypotheses which are compatible with the observed evidence?

1) God tuned them.
2) Random chance.
3) Programmer No. 3 tuned them.
.
.
.
N) The constants always come out with the same values given the initial conditions.

All are consistent with the observed evidence of precise fundamental constants required for the type of life we see in our universe. Why is hypothesis No. 1 more likely than hypotheses 2..N?

 

[Paulhoff]

Little Mary is walking in the woods with her father, she loves her father, looks up to him to learn from, to him teaching her all that he knows, and, this is the important one, NEVER LIE to her.

Gee daddy, why is the sky blue?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is snow white?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is the sun hot?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is grass green?

Now, to I have to say what he will say. I think I know the answer he should give, do you?

Paul

 

[blobru]

Little Mary is walking in the woods with her father, she loves her father, looks up to him to learn from, to him teaching her all that he knows, and, this is the important one, NEVER LIE to her.

Gee daddy, why is the sky blue?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is snow white?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is the sun hot?
Because god made it that way.

Gee daddy, why is grass green?

Now, to I have to say what he will say. I think I know the answer he should give, do you?

Paul

Go ask your mother.

 

[Herzblut]

Not true. Einsteins theory wasn't simply pure speculation. It was based on a framework of reason and some evidence (speed of light).

Well, he described how the Universe functions. Theories with such an explanatory power tower high above anything related to aliens or what have you, doesn't it.

The salient point is that the question of ET intelligent life is an empirical one.

But what question do you exactly refer to?

 

[Darat]

What definition of the word "god" is being used at the moment? The Jewish defined god, the RCC defined god, a Hindu definition? Remember all those gods have different definitions.

 

[RandFan]

Well, he described how the Universe functions. Theories with such an explanatory power tower high above anything related to aliens or what have you, doesn't it.

The existence of intelligent life in our universe doesn't tower high? The explanations for that life, Abiogenesis and evolution, don't tower high? Astrobiology? Extra Solar planets? 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. 300,000,000,000 galaxies? The basis of life being, in part, water and carbon and the abundance of these elements in the universe.

To look at the facts and conclude that there is nothing to be inferred from the evidence is to look at one pond with bacteria and conclude that there is nothing to be inferred from the facts of the pond as they relate to other ponds. I sincerly think it takes a degree of arrogance to look at the facts and say that there is nothing that can be infered.

But what question do you exactly refer to?

Does ET intelligent life exist?

 

[cj.23]

And yet, you proceed to suggest none.

Because you posed the question to Bri. A theory that leads to God? OK, I'll name one. Ockham's Razor. Yes I am serious, and before replying, do consider why I might have said that, bearing in mind I am a historian, and in particular one concerned with the Medieval Church.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Name a theory* which incorporates one of these gods.

*As the word has been defined and used in this thread.

Ransom soteriology. I can offer thousands of other examples if you like. I do wonder how you are defining theory - can you pint me to the page at least?

cj x

 

[RandFan]

A theory that leads to God? OK, I'll name one. Ockham's Razor.

Occam's Razor isn't a theory. It's not even a law. Occam's Razor AKA Parsimony is a useful tool. To posit a god to answer anything one must assume unknown and unexplainable forces. God is by definition A.) unparsimonious and B.) void of any explanatory power that couldn't be envoked by the matrix.

 

[RandFan]

Ransom soteriology. I can offer thousands of other examples if you like. I do wonder how you are defining theory - can you pint me to the page at least?

To be fair, words are not physical laws that govern the universe. They are simply a means to convey ideas and information.

Since I introduced the word (I think I did) then I would like to say the usage is theoretical and defined as "Models and abstractions in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world."

To be "theoretical" the hypothesis must have some explanatory power and cannot simply evoke magic or miracles.

 

[cj.23]

Occam's Razor isn't a theory. It's not even a law. Occam's Razor AKA Parsimony is a useful tool. To posit a god to answer anything one must assume unknown and unexplainable forces. God is by definition A.) unparsimonious and B.) void of any explanatory power that couldn't be envoked by the matrix.

In the sense Betrand Russell employed it* and we normally see it on this forum sure. However, as my little note about being a historian was meant to suggest, I was using it in the sense of William of Ockham himself - Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - by which Ockham argued that there must be one necessary reality that underlies all epiphenomena, or contingent entities, and that entity was God. "God did it" was the ultimate in ontological parsimony, as it reduced all contingencies to one necessary self sufficient entity.

There is a theory, as FLS asked for.

(*Bertrand Russell took ontological parsimony but not the rest of the argument i think, though given his neutral monism maybe he did accept that, just not equating the one real substance that underlies "matter" and "consciousness" with God. It's amazing how many people seem to think that Russell was a materialist - mind you I finf the same of TH Huxley.)

 

[Darat]

No it isn't.

 

[fls]

How is that not evidence that Bactrim improves the condition of people with Wegener's Granulomatosis?

In general, a hypothesis must be supported by evidence. If the evidence is strong and holds up to repeated testing, hypotheses may form the basis of a theory.

In the example above, the observation is evidence that Bactrim improves the condition of people with Wegener's Granulomatosis. It's just not conclusive evidence -- it's not as strong as a randomized-double-blind-placebo-controlled trial would be.

I think I understand how you are using 'evidence' and it seems reasonable. And what you describe works well with Bayesian analysis. A prior probability as to whether Bactrim may help is formed from the available evidence, a clinical trial is performed which serves as strong evidence, and a posterior probability is formed from that. And this is how I often see Bayes' theorem applied.

If you're talking about basis in scientific theory or hypothesis, speculation about a god has about as much theoretical or hypothetical basis as speculation about aliens does. Some of the variables are based on evidence, others on pure conjecture.

Can you give some examples of theories or hypotheses that suggest gods?

No, sorry. There is no known mechanism to explain why the universal constants happen to have precisely the values needed for life. That is not to say that there are no explanations possible, only that none are known.

Ignore the fine-tuning argument for the moment. We are talking about forming a prior probability of God.

We haven't even begun a discussion of whether belief in something without conclusive evidence (i.e. belief based on faith) is necessarily irrational -- you're merely asserting that it is. I'm fine moving onto that discussion if you like.

I have never asserted that.

I'm not sure how you're using the word "information" here. It seems to mean something other than "evidence" but yet somehow can be used to support a proposition.

There is no known information that can lead to the conclusion that aliens are probable. There is no known information that allows us to determine the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, much less how probable it would be for it to have occurred elsewhere.

What do you mean by "the actual formation of those variables?" There is no information upon which to base a value for many of the variables.

What I'm getting at here is that your criticism/dismissal of Drake's equation is that the value of the variables cannot always be determined with any degree of accuracy. You are not criticizing the name of the variable - that is, you seem to be in agreement that the probability of alien life depends upon the number of stars with planets and the propensity for evolution to lead to intelligent life (as examples).

Of course you can be agnostic about everything and not be irrational. The question is whether you're allowed to have an opinion about something for which there is no conclusive evidence without it being irrational.

So, sure, people who believe that aliens exist also admit that they don't know for sure. To label such a belief as necessarily irrational for gods but not for aliens seems to require some special pleading.

I still have no confidence that you are addressing what it is that I have been talking about. When considering the prior probability of both, the prior for God represents a measure of one's belief, while the prior for aliens represents a consideration of what names the variables have for Drakes's equation (something that has passed without challenge). That there are even named variables to take into consideration is a quite profound difference between the two, regardless of whether or not an accurate value can be assigned to each variable.

Abiogenesis is not a theory, it's the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. But yes, theories that can be used to support some of the variables of Drake's equation, but they do not form a theory of aliens. There are no theories or hypotheses dealing with other variables of the Drake equation, while there are theories and hypotheses such as the Rare Earth Hypothesis which seem to indicate that aliens may not exist. There is no evidence to support the notion that aliens or gods are probable.

You keep stating this, yet it doesn't seem to follow from what you say. Which variables do you think do not belong - i.e. they cannot be relevant as to whether or not intelligent life exists other than on Earth.

Please re-read my statement. I did not say that God is based on theories and hypotheses. What I said is that fine-tuning is in part based on theory and hypothesis, the same way that the number of stars (one variable of the Drake equation) is in part based on theory and hypothesis.

-Bri

I realize you said that, but since it has nothing to do with what I asked, I hoped to re-direct you. Prior to considering the issue of fine-tuning, are there any theories or hypotheses that suggest God?

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

The existence of intelligent life in our universe doesn't tower high?

It does. Otherwise we were not discussing.

The explanations for that life, Abiogenesis and evolution, don't tower high?

Those items should be analyzed on Earth, from a least-effort approach, shouldn't they?

Astrobiology? Extra Solar planets? 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. 300,000,000,000 galaxies? The basis of life being, in part, water and carbon and the abundance of these elements in the universe.

Yeah, but those numbers have not much statistical relevance as long as you don't know probabilities of developing intelligent life on a given earthlike planet. One case (Earth) doesn't make a statistics. And, unfortunately, I see no chances at all of ever getting to know anything about "extra-galactical life" (?), I mean outside our Milky Way. But I don't follow the research, so you might surprise me positively.

To look at the facts and conclude that there is nothing to be inferred from the evidence is to look at one pond with bacteria and conclude that there is nothing to be inferred from the facts of the pond as they relate to other ponds.

You cannot infer anything. Unless you checkout multiple ponds, which is quite difficult if those ponds are on other planets.

Does ET intelligent life exist?

Very interesting, indeed, but not scientific. You need to come up with falsifiable assertions. How long you want to continue SETI? 10 years? 100, 100.000?

If you're LOST on an ilse, lonely victim of a plane crash. For how long would you keep searching for other surivors? What's your strategy?

Science gives you one and eventually tells you "STOP! There ARE NO more survivors!". Otherwise, it's not science, but faith, hope, wishful thinking. Where I don't wanna say that one should ever lose hope, even against all odds.

I would actually be very curious to see a mission to Europe. To drill a deeeeep hole and then to look what the hell is there, under its frost crust.

H