Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd sooner think of exobiology as a science than theology.

At least exobiology, as a branch of biology, would have all the knowledge of biology. There's no reason at all to think that the physical processes that resulted in biology can only happen on the Earth.

I don't know what they do in exobiology, but I'm guessing that can generate testable hypotheses. For example, can a bacterium live and reproduce in a sealed environment of ammonia, at temperatures of 400° K under 4 Gs of acceleration? (I have no idea if these things are at all meaningful--just making the point.)

The God-did-it hypothesis is not an actual hypothesis. Any time it generates a testable hypothesis, the definition of "God" merely retreats to the gaps in our knowledge (and hides in untestable claims).

 

[RandFan]

Hmm, will probably be my bad English, but when I say "I'd be curious to see" I actually mean that ..eh.. "I'd be very interested to know the results of". You know "curious", like these:

http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&la...h&pinyin=diacritic&search=neugierig&relink=on

How do you come up with "surprise"?

PS. If that helps in any way, I just see the moon is called Europa in English, sorry for that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Darat]

I'd sooner think of exobiology as a science than theology.

At least exobiology, as a branch of biology, would have all the knowledge of biology. There's no reason at all to think that the physical processes that resulted in biology can only happen on the Earth.

I don't know what they do in exobiology, but I'm guessing that can generate testable hypotheses. For example, can a bacterium live and reproduce in a sealed environment of ammonia, at temperatures of 400° K under 4 Gs of acceleration? (I have no idea if these things are at all meaningful--just making the point.)

...snip...

Experiments like that are already being done. Even the experiments on board the various space-labs and space-craft over the years have been doing these experiments. Sure they are testing what happens to creatures evolved on the earth in space but what they do in fact support is that the change of environments even a creature like a human, or an ant and so on can survive in goes beyond the conditions on the earth.

Now cj seems to claim that mysticism is somehow evidence for his definition of god, which although he states he is an Anglican is not the god that the Anglican church defines and unfortunately I don't have an actual definition for his god. But since he claims mysticism is somehow evidence for his god, which I'll label cjGod (to make sure it is kept out of that meaningless infinite set of "God" definitions) we are talking about a god that interacts with the reality we experience. Therefore we can say that according to all current theories* that cjGod is "theoretically impossible" simply because no theory currently incorporates cjGod's in it and adding cjGod into those theories would destroy those theories.

Even if we go beyond how the word theory has been used in this thread and accept cj's usage of the word theory to simply be a narrative explanation the example he gave also doesn't provide support cjGod since that theory uses a different definition of god (than cj uses).

This is why it is very important when people want to talk about whether something supports the idea of "god", or the probability of god and so on that they must provide an actual definition for the word god, if they don't they cannot make any meaningful statements.







*As defined in this thread

 

[westprog]

Now cj seems to claim that mysticism is somehow evidence for his definition of god, which although he states he is an Anglican is not the god that the Anglican church defines and unfortunately I don't have an actual definition for his god. But since he claims mysticism is somehow evidence for his god, which I'll label cjGod (to make sure it is kept out of that meaningless infinite set of "God" definitions) we are talking about a god that interacts with the reality we experience. Therefore we can say that according to all current theories* that cjGod is "theoretically impossible" simply because no theory currently incorporates cjGod's in it and adding cjGod into those theories would destroy those theories.

We know that not to be the case if we just look at Isaac Newton. Newton, probably the greatest scientist who's ever lived, devised the theory of gravitation and found it entirely compatible with God - let's call it inGod. To talk about "incorporating God" into a scientific theory doesn't really make much sense. Scientific theories are by definition standalone propositions. Newton explained that gravitation was action at a distance, that all mass attracted other mass, that the force was proportional to the masses involved, and so on. He also believed that gravitation was part of the will of God. That wasn't part of his gravitational scientific theory. However, it in no way conflicted with it.

Even if we go beyond how the word theory has been used in this thread and accept cj's usage of the word theory to simply be a narrative explanation the example he gave also doesn't provide support cjGod since that theory uses a different definition of god (than cj uses).

This is why it is very important when people want to talk about whether something supports the idea of "god", or the probability of god and so on that they must provide an actual definition for the word god, if they don't they cannot make any meaningful statements.


*As defined in this thread

In the context of this thread, a theist might believe that the Universe is a created object, and that the creator should be given the designation God. That's a theory, obviously. It's not a scientific theory - and nor is any other theory about the fundamental nature of the universe.

 

[Bri]

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.

That is a very poor analogy in so many ways, most notably the line in bold. SETI is essentially listening for something for which there is no evidence it exists. In your analogy, there is plenty of evidence that the bacteria exists in other ponds because the conditions that led to the bacteria are known and are the same in all the ponds.

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

Why is it that you feel compelled to attack me rather than my argument? Do you really think that advances your argument in some way?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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?

The argument is that it would be more likely to have occurred with a god than by some natural means. A similar example would be if a building was found on Jupiter, it could be surmised that it is more likely there because of an alien than by natural means.

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?

I don't know that #1 is necessarily more likely, but that's the premise of the argument. As you pointed out, the chances of #2 are very low (possibly much lower than your estimate). But that doesn't mean the chances of #1 are necessarily higher.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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.

It seems that there is no theory of aliens by that definition.

-Bri

 

[westprog]

Why is it that you feel compelled to attack me rather than my argument? Do you really think that advances your argument in some way?

-Bri

So, can theists be rational.

No.

Haven't seen it with the ones posting here.

Telling someone he's not rational isn't quite as convincing as demonstrating his irrationality.

 

[Darat]

We know that not to be the case if we just look at Isaac Newton. Newton, probably the greatest scientist who's ever lived, devised the theory of gravitation and found it entirely compatible with God - let's call it inGod. To talk about "incorporating God" into a scientific theory doesn't really make much sense. Scientific theories are by definition standalone propositions. Newton explained that gravitation was action at a distance, that all mass attracted other mass, that the force was proportional to the masses involved, and so on. He also believed that gravitation was part of the will of God. That wasn't part of his gravitational scientific theory. However, it in no way conflicted with it.

...snip...

My comment was not about inGod, it was about cjGod. That aside I don't think your reasoning is correct, there is nowhere in Newton's theory (in regards to gravity at least) that incorporates inGod. Look at the math, there is no "and then a miracle happens". Another way of looking at it is that if inGod was meant to be an interactive God then like with cjGod, inGod renders Newton's work moot. (I don't know what definition Newton used for God and if Newton believed in an non-interactive god, i.e. what we usually refer to as a deist concept of god then Newton is out of this thread as he would a be a deist and not a theist.)

The above illustrates yet again why we have to know what definition is being used for "god" before we can make any meaningful statement about god (in terms of god existing).

In the context of this thread, a theist might believe that the Universe is a created object, and that the creator should be given the designation God. That's a theory, obviously.

...snip...

No it isn't, it is belief.

 

[Bri]

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.

Yes, exactly.

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

Yes, but not scientific theories. Science deals with the natural universe, not the supernatural.

The problem when comparing with aliens is that there are also no scientific theories or hypotheses that suggest aliens either.

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

I agree that there is no evidence by which to form any particular prior probability of God.

I have never asserted that.

I may have misunderstood when you said:

This is why theists have been reduced to frankly silly arguments about fine-tuning if they want to make God a rational choice - all the information they used in the past has been taken away.​

The part in bold makes it seem that if they believe in a god based on something other than a logical argument it would be an irrational choice.

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).

Sure, I'm fine with the names of the variables.

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.

You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no prior probability in the Drake equation. The Drake equation isn't based on Bayes Theorem. The names of the variables in the Drake equation have nothing to do with prior probability. The value places on prior probability in the fine-tuning argument is part of the premise, and would be comparable to the value placed on any of the unknown variables of the Drake equation in an argument for the existence of aliens.

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.

I didn't say there were variables that don't belong. I said that there's no evidence to support the values placed on some of the variables. In order to form a theory of aliens, you would have to have compelling evidence of aliens. Theories hold up to repeated testing, but there's no way to test a "theory of aliens" since it's unfalsifiable.

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?

I answered that above. Scientific theories and hypotheses deal only with the natural universe. If you're talking about evidence, there is no evidence to place any particular value on the prior probability of a god, just as there is no evidence upon which to place any particular value on the probability that an average planet will go on to develop intelligent life.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

There isn't a scientific theory that incorporates a supernatural being, as science tends to deal with the natural and not the supernatural. I think this is the third or maybe fourth time I've said that.

Can you name a theory* which incorporates aliens?

Abiogenesis. Next silly question.

 

[Belz...]

So, sure, people who believe that aliens exist also admit that they don't know for sure.

See ? This is just plain dishonest.

Saying we don't know if there are other life forms out there is not like saying we don't know if magical invisible flying miniature pink elephants are hiding under my bed.

 

[Bri]

Look, when a paleontologist or archaeologist goes into the field in search of evidence it IS inherently scientific. Your claim that paleontologists and archaeologists (or any scientist) who is searching in places where he or she doesn't know if anything will be found is unscientific is just dumb and for you to continue to claim, ad nauseam, that scientists like paleontologists or archaeologists or any such scientists are not conducting science is bordering on gross ignorance or dishonesty. Perhaps there is another choice but for the life of me I can't think of what it is.

In any event, you are wrong. Flat out wrong. Gathering evidence in an attempt to answer an empirical question IS science. That's not controversial in the least. Please stop trying to make it so.

Paleontologist or archaeologists have evidence that what they are looking for exists, and usually have a pretty good idea that it is likely to exist where they're looking. Scientists rarely look for needles in haystacks without any evidence that there is actually a needle there (much less without evidence that needles actually exist).

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

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.

Aliens are unfalsifiable ? So I can't build a spaceship and go to a planet to test if there are aliens there or not ?

By definition, god cannot be tested for. I don't think the word means what you think it means.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I don't think you understand what parsimony means, then. "Less words" doesn't mean "simpler", and to posit God is the most complex thing you could ever imagine. I mean, the damn thing's supposed to be infinitely everything. You have some explaining to do.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't know that #1 is necessarily more likely, but that's the premise of the argument. As you pointed out, the chances of #2 are very low (possibly much lower than your estimate). But that doesn't mean the chances of #1 are necessarily higher.

-Bri

So we have a single data point which can be accounted for by N different hypotheses, yet hypothesis #1 gets given a greater weighting than hypotheses #2 to #N combined?

Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Bri]

No need to apologize. All you're doing is shutting me off, though.

I'm not intending to. I'm answering your questions honestly and consistently.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So we have a single data point which can be accounted for by N different hypotheses, yet hypothesis #1 gets given a greater weighting than hypotheses #2 to #N combined?

Does that seem reasonable to you?

I think I've said several times that I disagree with the premise of the argument. However, in some circumstances (such as finding a building on Jupiter) even though there are N possible explanations (and probably some that nobody has thought of), not all of them are equally likely:

• aliens on Jupiter
• the weather patterns on Jupiter creating a natural structure that happens to look just like a building
• a conspiracy
• a prior human mission to Jupiter
• ...

The problem is that there is no evidence of any of them, so which you think is most likely is subjective rather than objective.

-Bri

 

[fls]

Yes, but not scientific theories. Science deals with the natural universe, not the supernatural.

This is quite disingenuous of you, since you are invoking the natural world as evidence of God. If God does not relate to the natural world, then the fine-tuning argument is entirely invalid from the get-go. You cannot have it both ways.

I may have misunderstood when you said:

This is why theists have been reduced to frankly silly arguments about fine-tuning if they want to make God a rational choice - all the information they used in the past has been taken away.​

The part in bold makes it seem that if they believe in a god based on something other than a logical argument it would be an irrational choice.

This seems to be yet another example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Sure, I'm fine with the names of the variables.

You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no prior probability in the Drake equation. The Drake equation isn't based on Bayes Theorem.

This is the point I have made on numerous equations. The Drake equation represents an attempt to form a prior probability. There is no prior probability in the Drake equation. The Drake equation isn't based on Bayes' Theorem.

The names of the variables in the Drake equation have nothing to do with prior probability.

Only to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for.

The value places on prior probability in the fine-tuning argument is part of the premise, and would be comparable to the value placed on any of the unknown variables of the Drake equation in an argument for the existence of aliens.

Exactly. And the value for God is a measure of degree of belief, and the value for aliens is a measure of those variables whose names were arrived at from a theoretical and hypothetical consideration of the question.

I didn't say there were variables that don't belong. I said that there's no evidence to support the values placed on some of the variables.

Yes. And I have stated several times now that that is what you are saying.

In order to form a theory of aliens, you would have to have compelling evidence of aliens.

Exactly.

I answered that above. Scientific theories and hypotheses deal only with the natural universe. If you're talking about evidence, there is no evidence to place any particular value on the prior probability of a god,

Then you finally agree that the fine-tuning argument is invalid.

just as there is no evidence upon which to place any particular value on the probability that an average planet will go on to develop intelligent life.

-Bri

So the development of intelligent life on the average planet is entirely a supernatural phenomenon?

Linda

 

[fls]

Okay. And can you also elaborate on the vast explanatory power of Mysticism (or whichever example you wish to use)? I may be confusing your meaning with 'useful' or 'predictive', though.

Linda

And while you're at it, can you explain how one makes the determination a priori which observations represent data taken of the supernatural world, and why anyone would make a connection between your Anglican God and these observations or between fine-tuning and these observations.

If it's too much to ask in one go, don't worry. I can ask them again, later.

Linda