What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[3point14]

Your point about the default assumption is a good one and I agree. But it reminds me of a line of reasoning I find fault with.

When someone proposes what they see as a parallel by way of invisible unicorn, I already have some idea of what properties a unicorn should have to deserve the name, and that's what makes it dismissible, not the "no evidence" part.

Let us say I proposed that something exists in my garage, but I name it a mublarto. This is more akin to what is meant by God in that you would have to ask me what properties a mublarto had to test the idea and decide whether it exists or not.

A second point with these analogies is that I do not believe that the person bringing it up really believes there is an invisible unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. So I cannot evaluate the claim based on how rational a human being they are otherwise. A critique on someone's perception of God existing is at least partially a critique on their ability to report on a real world. With the unicorn I cannot do that. I cannot link what someone knows to be false and states it just to make a point, with their honest beliefs.

Maybe a better way to go would be to pin them down on what it means to say God, or anything, exists. What things about the world would it explain and how well? In what ways could I interact with it? What is permitted and what is forbidden? How can I differentiate it from other things that exist? What would the world be like if it didn't exist -- would there be a hole?

And just so you know, there is a mublarto in my garage.

Oh, I entirely agree. Without a definition of what we're looking for, how do we know when we've found it.

The trouble in this instance is that we're looking for 'something' with the quality 'created the universe' and that's the only definition given.

Once a definition is forthcoming, then my argument applies. Until that time, then your caveat applies.

The trouble arises when people are at liberty to just make things up and then declare that the 'default position' can be anything they want it to be. I don't think that's logic.





The dragon in my garage says hello.

 

[Pup]

Lets say I provided you with a god, a living breathing god who created a universe and you were able to hold a conversation with him/her. I can't see any way of proving to you that this being were a creator God. You would have to take his/her word for it.

People accept the existence of things, and capabilities of things, that they can't even communicate with, based on other sources of evidence. I don't think there's a need for special pleading that a creator god could only be taken on faith, when we can figure out continents are separated by plate tectonics, tides are caused by the moon, and so forth.

 

[Pup]

I thought the absolute proof of the existence of a thing was the thing itself?

So, say I wished to prove the existence of the tree in my front yard. There it is. Is this not absolute, or not scientific, or something else?

I think the problem here is how we collect evidence that the thing exists. With a tree, you can see it and feel it, and we're all familiar enough with difficulties such as hallucinations and lying witnesses that we know how to easily work around those problems.

With things like black holes, subatomic particles and distant stars, for example, evidence isn't so straightforward, and with things like ghosts or gods, there is violent disagreement on what would even hypothetically consist of evidence of their existence.

 

[Dinwar]

See above. It seems to me that you are defining what you consider 'intelligent discussion' by specifying that assumption. I think that default assumptions for intelligent conversation is entirely at the discretion of the people engaging in the discussion. It is that way for any other topic of speculative discussion.

This is NOT a speculative discussion. This is a discussion about whether or not a particular entity or class of entities exist. And in THOSE discussions, the default is "No, they do not". We don't assume that particular dinosaurs once existed in the absence of evidence, we don't assume that particular animals exist merely because we want to. Gods are no different.

Again, theists skip the first step: demonstrating that there's anything to talk about.

Lets say I provided you with a god, a living breathing god who created a universe and you were able to hold a conversation with him/her. I can't see any way of proving to you that this being were a creator God. You would have to take his/her word for it.

Your use of this null hypothesis assumes the non existence of anything which cannot be logically demonstrated.

You have adopted a position of wearing blinkers to address a question for which no one has provided an answer. There can only ever be speculation on this issue, nothing more.

No, I'm simply refusing to accept that an arbitrary claim--which cannot be supported even by those who assume it is true--is on the same level, epistemologically, as a well-supported claim. In other words, you don't get to simply say "Gods may exist", without providing evidence, and claim "You can't say it's false, therefore it's true", and still be taken seriously. It's simply rediculous, and should be treated as such. It's not blinders, but a rational epistemology.

 

[excaza]

You have adopted a position of wearing blinkers to address a question for which no one has provided an answer.

Interesting, this was what necessitated the creation of gods.

 

[marplots]

Oh, I entirely agree. Without a definition of what we're looking for, how do we know when we've found it.

The trouble in this instance is that we're looking for 'something' with the quality 'created the universe' and that's the only definition given.

Once a definition is forthcoming, then my argument applies. Until that time, then your caveat applies.

The trouble arises when people are at liberty to just make things up and then declare that the 'default position' can be anything they want it to be. I don't think that's logic.

There might actually be a way to make headway with the faithful here by examining properties instead of assumed definitions.

"What are you claiming God did, or does?"
"He made the Universe."
"How do you think He did it?"

It seems like you could use the same type of drill-down we use in scientific inquiry. In the same manner, you quickly get to the unknown. (How the heck do magnets work anyhow --> electrons/fields --> quarks, et al --> don't know.)

I think believers are let off the hook when they aren't required to answer everyday questions, the sort of things I'd like to know about anything that exists -- how much, how far, how long. Enough of that and the invisible unicorn starts to show its non-existent spots.

When we take them seriously, it soon becomes obvious that there's a lack of coherence and a strong current that pulls God away from anything I'd call real.

Some suggested questions:
"Do you think we could learn to create universes like God did?"
"How long do you think God waited before he created the Universe?"
"What do you think God did before Creation?"
"What do you think the purpose of all the other stuff that doesn't include us is?"
"Do you think God is still around creating stuff? Could we observe that?"

 

[PixyMisa]

Lets say I provided you with a god, a living breathing god who created a universe and you were able to hold a conversation with him/her. I can't see any way of proving to you that this being were a creator God.

Well, that's rather your problem, isn't it?

You would have to take his/her word for it.

No.

Your use of this null hypothesis assumes the non existence of anything which cannot be logically demonstrated.

If it can't be shown to exist, and can't be logically inferred, then yeah, it doesn't exist.

You have adopted a position of wearing blinkers to address a question for which no one has provided an answer. There can only ever be speculation on this issue, nothing more.

Nope. You are inventing magical fairies for no reason whatsoever.

Again, the problem is yours.

Oh apart from personal experience of God, which some folk claim.

And since the claims are not demonstrable and often mutually exclusive, the only sensible thing to do is discount all of them.

 

[Beth]

This is NOT a speculative discussion.

A conversation about the existance of god and you don't consider it a speculative discussion? May I assume that you also consider this a rational stance?

This is a discussion about whether or not a particular entity or class of entities exist.

Among other things. That isn't the only question under discussion for the past few posts between you and I and punshhhh. For example, punshhh claimed

I was posting to point out that there are rational folk who arrive at the existence of creator Gods through reasoned consideration.

I agree that belief in gods is irrational. The rational response is "I don't know".

I happen to agree that "I don't know" is a rational response. It is, in fact, my own preferred answer to that question. I do not, however, agree that belief in gods is therefore irrational. People who believe have their reasons. I see no reason that theism should be considered to imply irrational belief as you are claiming.

And in THOSE discussions, the default is "No, they do not". We don't assume that particular dinosaurs once existed in the absence of evidence, we don't assume that particular animals exist merely because we want to.

Actually, we don't assume that particular animals exist just because we don't want to. It wouldn't be particularly helpful to the goals of the typical paleontologist. If a scientist wanted to, there is absolutely no reason that he/she couldn't do that. 'Science' does not dictate which is the null hypothesis and which the alternative; the researcher decides based on their goals in setting up the test.

Gods are no different.

It seems to me you are the one insisting on special treatment for the god question. There are various reasons to assume all sorts of different hypotheses. I gave an example of case where it is advantageous to reverse the more traditional null and alternative hypotheses.

Can you offer a reason for insisting on that default other than it is your preferred assumption?

 

[Malerin]

or to rephrase what you just said, you fully accept that matter could be independent of mind, however you see no reason to dismiss your starting premise, that matter is dependent on mind.

Or to put it another way, you are starting with a positive belief and asking for it to be accepted as true until proven wrong.

No, I'm starting with agnosticism. I'm not making an ontological claim- that reality is one way or another. Nearly all skeptics here (or perhaps all) make such a claim: they believe in mind-independent matter and energy. Don't you?

 

[Malerin]

I think the 'default assumption' is not at the discretion of the arguer, if they want to maintain any credibility.

Try:

My default assumption is that an invisible dragon lives in my garage.

I have no evidence for said dragon, but as you cannot prove it doesn't exist, my default assumption is that it does. If there's no actual evidence for a thing, then the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. Unless you want to be able to just make stuff up, in which case there's no point talking about it.

This is true of any claim that goes from general to specific:

general: extra-terrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe (plausible)
specific: silicon-based quadreped life forms with three toes exist in the Andromeda galaxy. (not so plausible)

 

[OldBloke]

I sympathise with Beth's distrust of anybody relying on their own preferred "null hypothesis" as an argument.

Unlike some of the "strong atheists" my atheism doesn't rely on any null hypothesis or Occam's Razor, as my reason for saying that any ideas of a god or gods are not even worthy of consideration.
Here, I shall typify that position as a guy called Occam, who hates "unnecessary" complications. I admit I exaggerate his position a bit, as a straw man, to make my point.

I have even less respect for my other straw man, the theist who follows any of the 2000 year old religions, or any of the New Age fanciful notions. I'll exaggerate him too a bit, as a straw man I call the Creationist. In that camp I include punshhh's vague and ever shifting ideas of "god" (which are as hard to catch as soap in a bath).

The third way is my hero Agnos. I don't mean any of your favorite definitions about what "agnostic" should mean. His position is this:
"On closer inspection, nature and the universe always turns out to be more complicated than we had previously imagined, but is never complicated in the particular ways we had imagined it would be.
Also, with scientific progress, the most realistic explanations never turn out to require a god."

Three examples:

1: Termites
Before we had microscopes, we knew nothing of the termite's digestive system. Occam would imagine the termite just uses strong digestive juices which can dissolve wood. That would be simple and sufficient. The Creationist would believe there's a spirit being with five fingers and exactly seven green eyes inside the termite, performing the *miracle* of digesting the indigestible. Agnos would say: it's probably very complicated but I'm not going to guess how.

As it turned out, after inspecting with early microscopes, we found each termite has multicellular critters in its gut, who co-evolved with the host. With even better microscopes we discovered unicellular critters inside those symbiotic passengers' guts. It was like a set of three Russian dolls.

2: Volcanic vents in oceanic chasms
Before deep robot submersibles explored there, Occam would have assumed nothing could live in such conditions. The Creationist would have imagined fairies with pink dresses. Agnos would have said: it's probably complicated but I'm not going to guess how.
Now we have filmed evidence from submersibles, I'll leave you to look up the wondrous ecosystems discovered down there recently.

3: Quarks and quantum theory
Early in the 20th century we had a neat model of atoms being the smallest particle. Occam would have loved that model. Then to Occam's dismay we found subatomic particles - and the field is now so complicated with string theory etc, I can't even read about it all or understand the specialists. Needless to say, our Creationist's imaginings were way off the mark. Agostic was the only person who wasn't wrong, as he made no claims which he could be right or wrong about, neither too simple nor too detailed.

Conclusion:
Detailed fanciful explanations requiring an intentional creative god always turn out to be untrue, when we see how things seem to be getting along just fine without one.

But Occam's Razor is NOT the way to refute the explanations offered by religion. It is not a natural law like the first law of thermodynamics, or the theory of natural selection.
Nobody has ever claimed Occam's Razor is a natural law, just a guess, a good bet, that the simplest answer is probably correct. But it often turns out to be untrue in nature.

The religious person's distrust of Occam's over-simplifications ("nothing to see here so move along") is a good instinct. Scientists do keep discovering ever more layers of complexity (just ask weather forecasters). But the religious fools replace Occam with faith in the prettiest and most attractive idea. They don't want us to be alone in a heartless universe which doesn't care a damn about us.

But those new and always surprising complexities are always consistent with simple laws which we have rarely needed to extend or add to (recently: chaos, quantum and relativity theories have added complexity to Newton's simple mechanics which still hold true at certain scales).

That's why I called the hero of my story Agnos, not Agnostic. He says "I don't know how it all works, and I don't expect it will be the simplest possible explanation, but so far it has never turned out to be magic."

Theists have been in constant retreat, from advancing science, having now abandoned any right to explain biology (except for a few fundamentalist loonies) or geology or the age and development of the solar system, they have now retreated to the outer edges of time and space itself.

Punshhh is an amusing if pitiful example of this, cowering beyond the reach of natural science, in the mysteries of the ether before the big bang. "You can't catch me here. There could be a god out here at least."

 

[3point14]

I happen to agree that "I don't know" is a rational response. It is, in fact, my own preferred answer to that question. I do not, however, agree that belief in gods is therefore irrational. People who believe have their reasons. I see no reason that theism should be considered to imply irrational belief as you are claiming.

A fervent belief in something for which there is no evidence and which cannot be inferred by logic is not irrational?

By that logic a fervent belief in the tooth fairy is not irrational. In fact, a fervent belief in anything that someone decides to invent in in their own head is not irrational.

I can't see any reasoning at all that would make believing in that for which there is zero evidence a rational stance. Perhaps we're using different definitions of the word 'irrational'.

 

[Malerin]

A fervent belief in something for which there is no evidence and which cannot be inferred by logic is not irrational?

By that logic a fervent belief in the tooth fairy is not irrational. In fact, a fervent belief in anything that someone decides to invent in in their own head is not irrational.

I can't see any reasoning at all that would make believing in that for which there is zero evidence a rational stance. Perhaps we're using different definitions of the word 'irrational'.

Someone with a fervent belief in god most likely has an occasional spiritual experience (or perhaps frequent intense ones). For them, god is the best explanation for what they feel. I don't see where the irrationality is.

 

[OldBloke]

Someone with a fervent belief in god most likely has an occasional spiritual experience (or perhaps frequent intense ones). For them, god is the best explanation for what they feel. I don't see where the irrationality is.

It's not only those who believe in god who can have what some would classify as a "spiritual experience". Realising that god is not really plausible, doesn't make the world turn gray.

Walking in a rainforest, I can sense "the energy of nature" as the plants strive to reach up to the light, and be moved by the subjective experience of wonder, as much as an animist can. Without believing in tree spirits, I can still experience the same feelings that "prove" to the believers that tree spirits exist.

I still feel awed and grateful for "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small" without believing there is an intentional god who actually created it all. A deep feeling of gratitude doesn't prove there is actually anybody to be grateful to.

And I'm sure I'm just as deeply struck by the mysteries of my personal experience of my being, and my conciousness, as those who imagine they know an explanation for it. I am amazed every day of my life at having what some people call a soul, even though I guess it will end when the body dies.

I assure you that intense experiences are not the monopoly of the religious - but those experiences need not make one abandon rationality or scepticism, or fall back on bronze age explanations for it all.

 

[3point14]

Someone with a fervent belief in god most likely has an occasional spiritual experience (or perhaps frequent intense ones). For them, god is the best explanation for what they feel. I don't see where the irrationality is.

The irrationality is that, once again, people are just making stuff up. They don't know the answer so they invent one. Or borrow one someone else has invented.

Making stuff up to explain things is not rational.

 

[Beth]

A fervent belief in something for which there is no evidence and which cannot be inferred by logic is not irrational?

By that logic a fervent belief in the tooth fairy is not irrational.

Is it irrational for a small child who has been told by his/her parents that the tooth fairy exists and experienced the 'magic' of her visits to believe in such a being? is the child basing their belief on 'zero evidence'?

In fact, a fervent belief in anything that someone decides to invent in in their own head is not irrational.

I think you're going a bit too far with this statement. Irrational beliefs do exist.

I can't see any reasoning at all that would make believing in that for which there is zero evidence a rational stance. Perhaps we're using different definitions of the word 'irrational'.

'Zero evidence' is incorrect. For example, while you likely don't consider either personal experience or testimonials about other people's personal experience to be evidence with respect to god, many other people do. Hence, they are not basing their belief on 'zero evidence' but on the evidence of their own and other people's experiences and weigh that evidence differently than you would.

 

[PixyMisa]

Someone with a fervent belief in god most likely has an occasional spiritual experience (or perhaps frequent intense ones). For them, god is the best explanation for what they feel.

Far from being the best explanation, God is not an explanation at all.

I don't see where the irrationality is.

HTH. HAND.

 

[Pup]

Is it irrational for a small child who has been told by his/her parents that the tooth fairy exists and experienced the 'magic' of her visits to believe in such a being? is the child basing their belief on 'zero evidence'?

At a certain point, willful ignorance must kick in. An adult who still believed in the tooth fairy based on childhood evidence, would no longer be holding a rational belief, despite the fact that the childhood experience would be just as real as the day the person had it.

As OldBloke said, "I assure you that intense experiences are not the monopoly of the religious - but those experiences need not make one abandon rationality or scepticism, or fall back on bronze age explanations for it all."

An adult can still recall, and continue to have, the sensation of "magic" experiences, without needing to believe they're caused by actual magic.

 

[Beth]

At a certain point, willful ignorance must kick in. An adult who still believed in the tooth fairy based on childhood evidence, would no longer be holding a rational belief, despite the fact that the childhood experience would be just as real as the day the person had it.

I have no argument with you there. It's true for our culture. My point was that the belief itself is not sufficient to justify that the individual holding the belief is irrational. What is rational or irrational is dependent on the individual and the reasoning process that led to their belief.

As OldBloke said, "I assure you that intense experiences are not the monopoly of the religious - but those experiences need not make one abandon rationality or scepticism, or fall back on bronze age explanations for it all."

Yes, it's not necessary to believe that such experiences are caused by "magic". But just because it is not necessary, that doesn't imply it is also irrational.

An adult can still recall, and continue to have, the sensation of "magic" experiences, without needing to believe they're caused by actual magic.

Adults that are part of a community of people who all attribute a particular explanation for a certain type of experience are not being irrational to believe the explanation they are provided with or to conclude that their own experiences are due to the same cause.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....Lets say I provided you with a god, a living breathing god who created a universe and you were able to hold a conversation with him/her. I can't see any way of proving to you that this being were a creator God. You would have to take his/her word for it.
.........

Providing such a god would be an excellent starting point , and you proving anything, would be completely unnecessary ...