What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[3point14]

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'?

Yes, actually, the child is basing it's belief on something their parents told them. Children have a predisposition to believe what their parents tell them, it's an in built survival mechanism, so for them, it's how they get their information. They're children, that's the point.

I don't think it's relevant, to be honest, what we're talking about are thinking adults with full reasoning capacity, not children. Any adult who believed in the tooth fairy would be worthy of ridicule.

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

I don't deny it. They're irrational, that's the point. I don't know why you say this.

'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.

And that's irrational behaviour and the worst form of wishful thinking. They don't have any evidence at all, they're basing a whole belief structure or inventing a very fantastic entity on the input from a nervous system and brain that's notoriously bad at giving us correct information, they are not (and neither would I be, in their place) reliable witnesses and if they were rational they would take this into account. They don't, they don't actually think about it, they decide what they would most like it to be and pick that. Not rational, not thinking, just (bringing us neatly round) an adult desperately trying to remain a child so they can keep believing in the tooth fairy in the hope they might find money under their pillow.

 

[Beth]

Yes, actually, the child is basing it's belief on something their parents told them. Children have a predisposition to believe what their parents tell them, it's an in built survival mechanism, so for them, it's how they get their information. They're children, that's the point.

I think we will simply have to disagree. The children are basing their belief on the credibility of the adults that told them that; I consider that basing their belief on evidence. Not the best evidence in the world, true, but they are not irrational for believing their parents.

And that's irrational behaviour and the worst form of wishful thinking.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't consider that 'zero evidence' nor do I consider it irrational to believe in such evidence. I'm sure you have a few beliefs of your own based on no better evidence than that.

Consider black holes. Have you actually examined the data from telescopes? Have you actually worked through the math to come to your own conclusions? If you haven't done that, then you are basing your belief on the credibility of the adults that claim to have done so and provided written testimony of their analysis regarding the data.

Different people rate the credibility of the various testimonies in the form of physics and math papers versus evangelicals attempting to convert others to their religion vastly differently, I don't feel it appropriate to condemn either of those as 'zero evidence'.

They don't have any evidence at all, they're basing a whole belief structure or inventing a very fantastic entity on the input from a nervous system and brain that's notoriously bad at giving us correct information, they are not (and neither would I be, in their place) reliable witnesses and if they were rational they would take this into account. They don't, they don't actually think about it, they decide what they would most like it to be and pick that. Not rational, not thinking, just (bringing us neatly round) an adult desperately trying to remain a child so they can keep believing in the tooth fairy in the hope they might find money under their pillow.

I simply think that's wrong. People believe for many different reasons. Some memes are quite difficult to rid the mind of. Basing a conclusion that believers are not only irrational, but also immature and childish based on nothing more than the action of holding a religious belief of some type...well, that seems rather irrational to me. In addition, it's completely contrary to the experiences I've had interacting with religious individuals.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. It seems a pity to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the human perspective, maybe. I did point out that I am not referring to any kind of God typically defined by a theist.
The creator God I am referring to may exist independently of what humanity can say of it. It may have existed before humans came along to deny its existence(the arrogance of the human psyche!).

Besides the gods of fiction, on what possible evidence do you base your speculation?

I am not claiming Goddidit, I am saying, we from our humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent creator, just by saying it.

Speak for yourself. I see zero reason to include gods in any cosmology or other Universe creation hypotheses. You are being very hypocritical claiming you aren't saying your hypothesis is "goddidit" but god could have done it. No, there is no evidence upon which to consider the hypothesis god did or could have done anything. Don't forget how much evidence we have that the 'god did it' hypothesis has failed time and time again. It's not a good idea to keep throwing good money after bad. Or to put it another way, it's obvious you are one of those goal post movers. As the god hypotheses fail you just keep moving the goal posts.

Oh, and BTW, you aren't fooling anyone. Your word choice screams "Christian theist". No one else uses language like "humble" humans in the context of intelligent creator.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....

We have evidence of intelligent entities which can create things, ie humans.

Why not larger intelligent entities creating universes?

For several reasons. One, life does not mirror technology that humans use to create things. You really should watch the following science lecture. It's worth an hour of anyone's time. It's a tad hard to follow but even if you don't understand the genetics, the gist is clear and the title sums it up: Lifeforms do not mimic intelligently designed things. "Unintelligent non-design suffices" quite well as a model for lifeforms:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices (starts at ~minute 4, after the intro)



Second, as I mentioned, all god hypotheses so far have failed.

Third, there is zero evidence any gods are operating in the Universe. The scientific process, (which is successful, BTW), starts with evidence. It has not been successful to start with a conclusion and try to fit the evidence to the conclusion.

Fourth, "god did it" explains nothing. It merely adds a fantasy layer to the story. If there is no answer to where these gods came from, why bother adding this superfluous layer to the story?

And finally, the god did it hypothesis has a serious flaw in that a god should be more evolved than humans are. Therefore, gods should evolve later in the chronology, not before less complex beings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I'd disagree with your assesment that a belief in unseen forces and entities is the "default state" that is an inherent part of human nature.....

Yes. TShaitanaku is confusing 'majority position' with the 'rationally based' default position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

'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.

Not to repeat our pages and pages of discussion on this, rather, I just want to state my position in contrast to yours and leave it at that, agreeing to disagree.

The problem with your position is your are conflating conclusion with evidence. We agree the people you are referring to have had their 'experience'. But just because those people conclude the 'experience' arises from a god does not make it evidence that gods exist. It is evidence that 'experiences people interpret as having a god etiology' exist.

When you look at the rest of the evidence it only supports the conclusion that these experiences are internal and gods are fictional creations. Once again following the evidence leads to the conclusion that said 'experiences' are definitely not evidence of real gods.


As for the rational child, that supports my point. You can come to the wrong conclusion and still be using a rational process. Whether the child is using a rational process is a separate issue from the conclusion that is drawn. Of course coming to the wrong conclusion doesn't create evidence for tooth fairies. The evidence was the parent's statements the the child, which the child misinterpreted as valid truths. The statements were not valid truths. They were statements, but not evidence of the tooth fairy.

You define evidence as the thing a conclusion is based on regardless if the conclusion is correct. We agree to that point. Where we part is when you add "of" to the term. Evidence, yes, evidence of [X], not necessarily. 'Evidence of' to that individual only, sure but that moves into the realm of irrational thinking. In rational thinking, that evidence exists outside the conclusion. That's the basic premise of the scientific process. That's how the scientific process differs from the 'faith based' belief processes. In the scientific process, conclusions are amenable to correction, improvement, refinement. The evidence has an external existence. The actual Universe exists.

 

[punshhh]

Besides the gods of fiction, on what possible evidence do you base your speculation?

All life forms are creaters, life evolves towards greater intelligence and more sophisticated creations.

These creators arise naturally in existence.

Speak for yourself. I see zero reason to include gods in any cosmology or other Universe creation hypotheses. You are being very hypocritical claiming you aren't saying your hypothesis is "goddidit" but god could have done it. No, there is no evidence upon which to consider the hypothesis god did or could have done anything. Don't forget how much evidence we have that the 'god did it' hypothesis has failed time and time again. It's not a good idea to keep throwing good money after bad. Or to put it another way, it's obvious you are one of those goal post movers. As the god hypotheses fail you just keep moving the goal posts.

I should define this god I am talking about, so I don't move any goal posts.

god = an intelligent entity capable of creating the known universe.

Oh, and BTW, you aren't fooling anyone. Your word choice screams "Christian theist". No one else uses language like "humble" humans in the context of intelligent creator.

Your wrong here, I am not a religious person. I draw my ideas from all schools of thought.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All life forms are creaters, life evolves towards greater intelligence and more sophisticated creations.

These creators arise naturally in existence.

I should define this god I am talking about, so I don't move any goal posts.

god = an intelligent entity capable of creating the known universe.

Your wrong here, I am not a religious person. I draw my ideas from all schools of thought.

You'll have to forgive me but regardless of what you think you believe about gods or a god, you sound like a Christian theist, in both your logic and your predictable word choice.

As for life evolving "towards greater intelligence and more sophisticated creations", that is evidence against gods not for them. You are suggesting a more evolved life form (as you are defining a god able to create a universe) came first and that is out of chronological order. So your own logic contradicts your own conclusion.

 

[Malerin]

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.

There are all sorts of mystical experiences people report. Many people report mystical experiences that they feel directly comes from god. Why is it then irrational for them to believe there is an actual god and they are feeling its presence?

 

[Malerin]

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.

All theories are a result of "people making stuff up to explain things". Did you think Einstein found theory of relativity written on golden plates?

 

[Prometheus]

All theories are a result of "people making stuff up to explain things". Did you think Einstein found theory of relativity written on golden plates?

By removing the word "just" from the line you quote, you alter its meaning and create a straw man. Scientific theories are not the result of just making stuff up; they're the result of making up a hypothesis and then testing it.

 

[Pixel42]

life evolves towards greater intelligence and more sophisticated creations.

A common, but incorrect, belief.

 

[Pixel42]

There are all sorts of mystical experiences people report. Many people report mystical experiences that they feel directly comes from god. Why is it then irrational for them to believe there is an actual god and they are feeling its presence?

Because there are more likely explanations for their experiences. Also the god explanation does not explain why such experiences give different "revelations" to different people.

For example I've argued online with a Mormon who seems to be able to generate such experiences pretty much on demand. He dismisses all the evidence that Joseph Smith was a con man, the DNA and other evidence which proves the Book of Mormon is a fake, the constant changing of supposedly revealed doctrine by his church's "prophets", because when he asks God if it's all true God sends him one of these experiences to confirm that it is. Do you really think that is a rational conclusion for him to draw?

 

[punshhh]

You'll have to forgive me but regardless of what you think you believe about gods or a god, you sound like a Christian theist, in both your logic and your predictable word choice.

As for life evolving "towards greater intelligence and more sophisticated creations", that is evidence against gods not for them. You are suggesting a more evolved life form (as you are defining a god able to create a universe) came first and that is out of chronological order. So your own logic contradicts your own conclusion.

Thankyou for telling me what I think and believe.

I suggest you throw out all your thoughts regarding christian theology and just go on the dictionary definitions of the words I use. You might then get what I am saying.

I am not suggesting an evolved life form god came first. Only that it came before the big bang event. The big bang event was its creation.

I am not talking of a first cause, I am talking of an endless existence in time and space.

 

[punshhh]

A common, but incorrect, belief.

The evidence is there/here.

This keyboard is quite good evidence.

It probably won't be many years before AI is invented/created. A nice little pandoras box of evolution/creation potential.

 

[Twiler]

The evidence is there/here.

This keyboard is quite good evidence.

It probably won't be many years before AI is invented/created. A nice little pandoras box of evolution/creation potential.

No, the issue is not 'evolution can result in more sophistication' but rather 'evolution will result in more sophistication'. The fact that sophistication does exist does not indicate that it must exist.

 

[Pixel42]

The evidence is there/here.

The evidence is that evolution produces lifeforms which are best suited for their environment. That does not necessarily mean more intelligent and/or sophisticated. There are numerous creatures which have evolved to suit particular niches which have barely changed at all for millions of years, let alone become more intelligent. Whether intelligence of the order we have is an evolutionary advantage has not yet been established. If we end up wiping ourselves out (a distinct possibility) it will have been yet another of nature's many mistakes.

The belief that there is an "onwards and upwards" direction to evolution, whilst understandable, is mistaken. Check any textbook on evolution for confirmation.

 

[Malerin]

By removing the word "just" from the line you quote, you alter its meaning and create a straw man. Scientific theories are not the result of just making stuff up; they're the result of making up a hypothesis and then testing it.

I was referring to the last line of 3point14's quote:

Making stuff up to explain things is not rational.

Besides, religious people don't "just make stuff up". They have evidence (their subjective experience) and a theory that explains the evidence (theism).

 

[Malerin]

Because there are more likely explanations for their experiences.

Such as?

Also the god explanation does not explain why such experiences give different "revelations" to different people.

Nor should it. The god explanation only explains why people report feeling the presence of a supernatural being in their life.

Suppose SETI recieves a message from space: "you are not alone". Various pro-extraterrestrial groups might interpret that "revelation" various ways. "Good alienists" might take it to be evidence of aliens who will help us.
"Bad alienists" might take it as a threat. Pro-extraterrestrialism itself, however, would be confirmed to a high degree. It wouln't matter that there are subsets of the pro-extraterrestrial movement who would be at each other's throats over what the "revelation" means and what to do about it (see the movie "Contact": should we or should we not build the device?)

So the same applies to theism: people feel a profound spiritual experience towards god. But then they want to saddle the concept with everything they think the "revelation" entails. This muddies the waters because we now have many different theistic groups (just as we had different pro-alien groups). However, none of the groups would dispute that God exists and they're feeling god's presence. They'll just start fighting it out over who God is, exactly, which is neigther here nor there when it comes to theism itself.

 

[Pixel42]

Such as?

http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind/

During moments of neuronal imbalance in the left hemisphere of the temporal cortex (an area concerned with the sense of self), the brain interprets the presence of the right hemisphere as a personified ’other entity’, or God (Ford 2002).

We know of many ways in which the brain can malfunction. Schizophrenics often believe the voices they hear are coming from supernatural entities.

Nor should it. The god explanation only explains why people report feeling the presence of a supernatural being in their life.

The Mormon I mentioned insists that he only gets these experiences when asking for confirmation that his beliefs are true. His beliefs are provably not true. Surely that's evidence that his experiences - and therefore all such experiences - are not coming from God?