Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[RandFan]

Ever trying to stick god into the gaps of our knowledge.

There he is, quantum entanglment, Heisenberg's uncertainty, wave particle duality.

If we don't understand it then god did it. Which is why the Sun once rode accross the sky on a chariot.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure, there are plenty of such experiments. In fact I think I made reference to them with jokes about fruit flies and bananas in a previous post - but they show only that selection can occur, nothing like demonstrating that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. They represent predictions of part of the hypothesis, because evolution simply does not allow for experimentation any more than the Big Bang as its a huge overarcing theory that works over millions of years. I'm no creationist, as oyu may have gathered - I'm an adherent of the Darwinian/Wallace-Mendelian synthesis, but I still hold to my point - you are mistaking lab experiments confirming predictions made by the model with proof of the model. It simply can not be said to work like that - they are evidence for the model, nothing more, nothing less...

Of course they're not proof for the model. You don't get proof.

What we have is a naturalistic, predictive explanation for observed phenomena. It can be tested by experiment - and has been; it can be tested by predictions of new evidence - and has been, taking Tiktaalik as just one of the most prominent examples; it can be tested by predictions of the nature of entire new bodies of evidence - the molecular evidence for evolution was completely unknown by Darwin and his contemporaries, but it is actually stronger evidence for evolution than anything else.

 

[cj.23]

And has a god or gods ever been detected OR observed?

According to millions of people throughout history, across different cultures, yes, they have directly experienced the divine. I haven't, but then I have never experienced Peru either - or appearing on Top of the Pops, or many other things I know exist. The problem is that experience is just like most theories subject to the problem of underdetermination - it could be the evidence fits another hypothesis.

I don't follow your requirements for what is and is not a "tenable" position.

I'm saying that God not being directly observable but only knowable by indirect experience is not really that unusual, and that experimental science is actually a fairly limited subset of science anyway.

I reject your notion that anything that cannot be disproven (or determined "impossible") makes for a rational belief.

Did I ever assert that was the case? Because I certainly do not believe it.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Of course they're not proof for the model. You don't get proof.

What we have is a naturalistic, predictive explanation for observed phenomena. It can be tested by experiment - and has been; it can be tested by predictions of new evidence - and has been, taking Tiktaalik as just one of the most prominent examples; it can be tested by predictions of the nature of entire new bodies of evidence - the molecular evidence for evolution was completely unknown by Darwin and his contemporaries, but it is actually stronger evidence for evolution than anything else.

Yes, that is what I said. However that is all we have - predictions that provided evidence that theoretically like Fresnel's wave theory of light can be overturned, not direct observations of the phenomena. I can't remember how we go tin to this part of the discussion, but no disagreement here. My point is that experimental prediction does not confirm a theory is true - merely adds weight to the evidence. I fail to see how this is remotely contentious?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Ever trying to stick god into the gaps of our knowledge.

Nope, trying to point out our knowledge and how we know stuff is far more problematic than most people ever realize. Studying epistemology does that to you. I sometimes wonder if despite their generally high knowledge of confirmation bias, experimenter effects, etc, etc, sceptics are particularly susceptible to a belief that scientific methodology is a neutral and perfectly reliable knowledge-tool indpendent of human foibles and problems and limitations. It is certainly not so. That si not to say that I think there are questions our science will never resolve - Godel aside, I am not puttin any such limitation on sciences potential - but I do think many people have a rather idealistic view of the scientific enterprise without much understanding of the very real issues that exist in philosophy of science.

There he is, quantum entanglment, Heisenberg's uncertainty, wave particle duality.

As far as I know I only mentioned the latter, in the context of Fresnel? You will hardly ever find me discussing Quantum Mechanics, simply because i'm a quite well known advocate fo the suggestion that a great deal of nonsense is written on the subject, mainly owing to analogy errors. I'll explain that if you like - but basically, if you don't understand the math, don't claim to follow QM is my mantra - and I stick by it, and don't claim to understand QM adequately to discuss it.

If we don't understand it then god did it. Which is why the Sun once rode accross the sky on a chariot.

Not sure anyone believed it though.
cj x

 

[Oliver]

OK, this is not a parody thread. Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread) but what I want to see is a rational argument for atheism. I have always assumed such exist, and that atheism can be entirely rational, but following recent reading of Hume and various other writers I have come to seriously doubt if a rational argument outside of a cost/benefit analysis can be constructed for atheism. Yet I remain convinced there must be some - so go on atheists, if you feel like demonstrating the rationality of the atheistic hypothesis, go for it!

cj x

Atheists say "I don't know if God exists - but that's exactly why I don't believe in scriptures claiming otherwise".

Which, by the way, is the only rational approach to the issue.

On the other Hand: "There is a God because >MY< religion [out of hundreds of other religions] told me so" is irrational because of the variety of other religions and their scriptures.

What about that is so hard to grasp in your humble opinion???

 

[Hokulele]

Both. If you can directly experience it, as you can wind on your face, its observable. However you raise one of the key problems in the Realist/Non-Realist debate -- say I observe an ant hill, but being short sighted i use a pair of spectacles. I don'#t think many non-realists would say that was not direct observation. So I decide to examine an ant egg through a microscope - direct observation still. Now I follow an electron trail in a cloud chamber - the classic example - am I detecting or observing the electron? Non-realists insisted I'm detecting NOT observing the electron. Van Fraasen headed the nonrealist reply. simply noting that there are always borderline cases.

Just in case anyone wonders what I'm on about fairly weak but perhaps useful wiki article here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

cj x

Interesting philosophy. My problem with both the Wiki link and the way I am understanding your argument, is that it they both only consider objectivity and subjectivity. I believe that inter-subjectivity is even more critical than either.

If two or more people are standing in gale-force winds, it is very likely that the descriptions of the sensation will be very similar, or at least approach some commonality, even if they cannot see/hear/feel the others' reactions. The same does not appear to hold true for supernatural events, including the experience of the divine.

If you were to alternately put a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, atheist, and Shinto into a chapel, would they describe having the same experience? How about a temple or a mosque?

 

[cj.23]

Yes, that is partly true. But in the case of Einstein, when he proposed general relativity (GR) there were many people in the scientific community that didn't believe him. He was, in fact, considered a bit of a crackpot by many. It wasn't until GR successfully predicted the deviation of starlight by the 1919 solar eclipse that many of the skeptics were won over.

Sure, I guess every kid learns about the Michelson-Morley experiment in school? They fail in 1887, Einstein explains the failure, the 1919 experiment confirms Einsteins prediction. Of course we are less likely to learn of Dayton C Miller, who from 1927 to 1941 tried scrupulously time and time again, and for reasons as far as i know never successfully explained always got results that contradicted Einstein and Relativity. Experimenter error? Probably, but many people checked out his methodology and found it sound, so it's all rather a mystery.

So while many liked Einstein's GR due in part to aesthetics, to use your word, the real support for his theory came out of its ability to make successful predictions.

Yep, agreed.

ETA: Another prediction of GR, one which Einstein himself didn't accept originally, was that the universe should be expanding. This is one of the cornerstones of big bang cosmology. In addition, while you are correct in saying that no one was around to see the big bang, we are actually getting to the point where we're pretty close to replicating the big bang (or extremely close to it) in the lab. In addition, it seems there are aspects of string theory which will also soon be tested at the same facility. Linky.

Nah, not a chance. We would need to be able to get to 10²⁸ degrees, the temperature from the first 10^-35 seconds as I recall to see even the proposed GUT union of electromagnetic and weak forces. That's completely out of the LHC league I'm afraid - not even close. I seem to recall Martin Rees said it would take a P.A the size of the asteroid belt or something similar. We get close, but no cigar. Of course the CMBR gives us a snapshot of about 100,000 years in doesn't it? That's pretty close I guess.

Now I know full well Einstein came up with lambda, the 'cosmological constant' and understand why he created it - he rejected expansion, until about 1929. Of course it's back with a vengeance now.

Already covered that. You need to learn something about the science you are critiquing, CJ.

This was in response to my comments on Realists, Non-Realist and Instrumentalists, which leaves me rather puzzled. I actually think I'm fairly scientifically literate, well at least average for the UK anyway: bloke in the street level, but not ignorant. Do I come over as scientifically illiterate?

Yes, and all those weird aspects of quantum mechanics are testable in the lab. I've conducted many QM experiments myself. What is your point?

This in response to

So we adduce from secondary indirect observation all the time. We postulate entities never seen, on mathematics alone at times, and make predictions that sometimes seem to work. When we get in to Quantum Mechanics a lot seems bizarre and counter-intuitive to us at a macro-level - but it still works. Our perceptions and common sense work at human scale.

I was actually making the point about observation/detection and how often we actually predict epiphenomena of non-directly observable entities in Science, slowly steering the issue back towards my mysticism example which led to this tremendous tangent. Anyway time for bed I think, the rest can wait till tomorrow.

night
cj x

 

[RandFan]

Nope, trying to point out our knowledge and how we know stuff is far more problematic than most people ever realize. Studying epistemology does that to you.

One should avoid getting lost in the forest while studying it.

I sometimes wonder if despite their generally high knowledge of confirmation bias, experimenter effects, etc, etc, sceptics are particularly susceptible to a belief that scientific methodology is a neutral and perfectly reliable knowledge-tool indpendent of human foibles and problems and limitations.

Your characterization of science doesn't fit my understanding. Skeptics are human and are subject to human foibles. However the scientific method is about getting beyond the foibles. That's the whole idea. That is the foundation. If you are doing good science then you are less likely subject to human weakness. The better the science the better the methodology and higher the critical thinking and skepticism.

We can't get rid of the human element but we can limit it.

Beyond that there is nothing else but contradiction and confusion and millions of different ideas.

 

[cj.23]

Interesting philosophy. My problem with both the Wiki link and the way I am understanding your argument, is that it they both only consider objectivity and subjectivity. I believe that inter-subjectivity is even more critical than either.

Well I'm not really that inclined towards Realism or Non-Realism personally, seeing it as a non-issue - I'm an Objective Instrumentalist - I think we all experience an objective consensual universe, even though I can't show that, and that whether or not a scientific theory represents a reality or not is a pointless discussion - it is a after all a map of a territory, not the territory - so how useful the map is in getting from A to B is what matters, and whether the symbols on the map correspond to actual terrain only effects me in as far as that prevents me accurately utilizing the map to make predictions and build stuff.

If two or more people are standing in gale-force winds, it is very likely that the descriptions of the sensation will be very similar, or at least approach some commonality, even if they cannot see/hear/feel the others' reactions. The same does not appear to hold true for supernatural events, including the experience of the divine.

yet it does hold true for the mystical experience - the shared attributes are far greater than the faith content bits - which is why we suspect there may be neurological/brain architecture issues or common archetypal psychology stuff that accounts foir this, because its that or they really are cross culturally experiencing another reality, that seems to have some sort of objective reality. Hence my fascination!

If you were to alternately put a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, atheist, and Shinto into a chapel, would they describe having the same experience? How about a temple or a mosque?

Ah, we come to Otto and the numinous. I'll whitter about this tomorrow, I'm supposed to be resting as still reputedly very unwell. Persoanlly I find this far more relaxing though than laying in bed staring at the walls and wondering if they are really moving. (I'm feverish, not on acid! ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous - not a very good article i'm afraid, but the link ot Christopher Hitchens looks interesting...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

One should avoid getting lost in the forest while studying it.

There we can both agree, though sometimes it is harder than it sounds.

Beyond that there is nothing else but contradiction and confusion and millions of different ideas.

Nope I disagree. Your sound pragmatism, and use of intuition, plus friendly personality will carry you a long way without ever needing to conduct an experiment. You should know that often one can call BS long before the crystal hist the prayer mat, with never a test-tube in sight? Science is a bloody great way of knowing, and without it I'd be dead tonight - but its not the only one.

cj x

 

[Hokulele]

yet it does hold true for the mystical experience - the shared attributes are far greater than the faith content bits - which is why we suspect there may be neurological/brain architecture issues or common archetypal psychology stuff that accounts foir this, because its that or they really are cross culturally experiencing another reality, that seems to have some sort of objective reality. Hence my fascination!

Ah, we come to Otto and the numinous. I'll whitter about this tomorrow, I'm supposed to be resting as still reputedly very unwell. Persoanlly I find this far more relaxing though than laying in bed staring at the walls and wondering if they are really moving. (I'm feverish, not on acid! ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous - not a very good article i'm afraid, but the link ot Christopher Hitchens looks interesting...

cj x

And this is the point where I mostly strongly disagree. Most of the people making this type of claim tend to come from a European background, and I have noticed that they are severely shoe-horning things into the "mystical" category. Often times they use ambiguity in translation to make experiences share more than they really do. Japanese who practice Zen meditation often describe a different experience than those who were raised in a western culture. I really do think culture shapes mystical experiences as much as brain structure does.

As an analogy, I recently had a discussion in another thread about the meaning of the word "soul". Polynesians have a concept called mana, which I have seen translated into English as soul. A better translation would be spirit power, which is quite unlike what most Americans or Europeans would consider to be a soul. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see other misconceptions or mistranslations as regards to mystical experiences.

 

[Oliver]

Atheists say "I don't know if God exists - but that's exactly why I don't believe in scriptures claiming otherwise".

Which, by the way, is the only rational approach to the issue.

On the other Hand: "There is a God because >MY< religion [out of hundreds of other religions] told me so" is irrational because of the variety of other religions and their scriptures.

What about that is so hard to grasp in your humble opinion???

You're not going to dodge my question, cj.23, are you?

 

[RandFan]

Your sound pragmatism, and use of intuition, plus friendly personality will carry you a long way without ever needing to conduct an experiment.

But only so far. Yes, our intuitions and common sense can do a lot to help us survive in the world get along with others and even be a productive member of society. I'll grant you that. However there are as many opinions as there are people. If you want to go to the Moon or figure out the structure of DNA or matter then you will need a bit more than that.

 

[PixyMisa]

According to millions of people throughout history, across different cultures, yes, they have directly experienced the divine.

Also ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, goblins, reincarnation, astral travel, angels and/or demons. Not to mention anally-fixated aliens, unexpectedly loquacious inflammable shrubberies, and improbably efficacious homeopathic remedies.

As is often remarked, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". People say - and believe - all sorts of stuff. Unless I can actually pick it up and hit you on the head with it, there's no reason to believe it is true.

This is pretty much the argumentum ad populum, just one of the logical fallacies your posts are riddled with.

I haven't, but then I have never experienced Peru either - or appearing on Top of the Pops, or many other things I know exist.

I can hit you on the head with Peru - or at least, hit Peru with your head.

The problem is that experience is just like most theories subject to the problem of underdetermination - it could be the evidence fits another hypothesis.

Which is why nobody who wants to actually learn anything uses anecdotes as anything but a starting point.

I'm saying that God not being directly observable but only knowable by indirect experience is not really that unusual

Indirect experience, is it now?

and that experimental science is actually a fairly limited subset of science anyway.

No, this is total nonsense, as has been pointed out to you already. The fields of science you claim do not use experiments do use experiments, and there is no difference between observational and experimental evidence except for convenience.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, that is what I said.

Then why did you bring it up?

However that is all we have - predictions that provided evidence that theoretically like Fresnel's wave theory of light can be overturned, not direct observations of the phenomena.

Except for the small problem that we do directly observe the phenomena - in exactly the same way we observe the wind. (And in a completely different way to that in which people "experience" the miscellaneous fictitious entities to which you subscribe.)

I can't remember how we go tin to this part of the discussion, but no disagreement here. My point is that experimental prediction does not confirm a theory is true - merely adds weight to the evidence. I fail to see how this is remotely contentious?

The problem arises when you attempt to equate your notions of God - which are, I'm afraid, just the standard apologetic fallacies that we've been subjected to for thousands of years - with actual science. The two are not comparable, and in trying to equate them you just introduce a boatload of additional fallacies.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope, trying to point out our knowledge and how we know stuff is far more problematic than most people ever realize. Studying epistemology does that to you. I sometimes wonder if despite their generally high knowledge of confirmation bias, experimenter effects, etc, etc, sceptics are particularly susceptible to a belief that scientific methodology is a neutral and perfectly reliable knowledge-tool indpendent of human foibles and problems and limitations.

No.

We merely observe that, unlike everything else, it works.

That's the point. It works.

Theology? Doesn't work.

Magic? Doesn't work.

Intuition? Well, it can keep you alive, barely, most of the time, because it's hardwired by a billion years of evolution.

Not sure anyone believed it though.

You realise that this is the exact same evidence you are claiming for the existence of God?

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure, I guess every kid learns about the Michelson-Morley experiment in school? They fail in 1887, Einstein explains the failure, the 1919 experiment confirms Einsteins prediction. Of course we are less likely to learn of Dayton C Miller, who from 1927 to 1941 tried scrupulously time and time again, and for reasons as far as i know never successfully explained always got results that contradicted Einstein and Relativity. Experimenter error? Probably, but many people checked out his methodology and found it sound, so it's all rather a mystery.

From Wikipedia:

In 1955, Robert S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti performed a re-analysis of Miller's results. Shankland, who led the report, noted that the "signal" that Miller observed in 1933 is actually composed of points that are an average of several hundred measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is more than 10 times smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were recorded. Miller's extraction of a single value for the measurement is statistically impossible, the data is too variable to say "this" number is any better than "that" -- the data, from Shankland's position, supports a null result as equally as Miller's positive.

Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to statistical fluctuations and partly due to local temperature conditions and, also, suggested that the results of Miller were due to a systematic error rather than an observed existence of aether. In particular he felt that Miller did not take enough care in guarding against thermal gradients in the room where the experiment took place, as, unlike most interferometry experiments, Miller conducted his in a room where the apparatus was deliberately left open to the elements to some degree.


In Shankland's analysis, no statistically significant signal for the existence of aether was found. Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to error rather than an observed existence of aether holding radiant energy. Thus, a large number of mainstream scientists today hold the conviction that any signal that Miller observed was the result of the experimenter effect, which was a common source of systematic error before modern experimental techniques were developed (ed, Miller did publish an early textbook on experimental techniques; cf., Ginn & Company, 1903).

There goes your "never successfully explained".



When a lone researcher comes up with experimental results that contradict an important scientific theory, that's very interesting. When it turns out that no-one else in the world can replicate his results, that's a lot less interesting.

Miller might not rate a mention in high-school science classes, but the Luminiferous Aether in general certainly does, as do Blondlot, Lamarck, the Phlogiston theory, and by now, probably Jacques Benveniste.

Yep, agreed.

Hmm.

Nah, not a chance. We would need to be able to get to 10²⁸ degrees, the temperature from the first 10^-35 seconds as I recall to see even the proposed GUT union of electromagnetic and weak forces. That's completely out of the LHC league I'm afraid - not even close. I seem to recall Martin Rees said it would take a P.A the size of the asteroid belt or something similar. We get close, but no cigar. Of course the CMBR gives us a snapshot of about 100,000 years in doesn't it? That's pretty close I guess.

We're not close to replicating the Big Bang, that is true, but you don't need to do any of that to test many aspects of string theory, such as the prediction that there are six or seven additional dimensions to spacetime. You can test that just by carefully measuring gravitational effects over short distances. This is finicky work, but can be conducted just fine at room temperature.

Now I know full well Einstein came up with lambda, the 'cosmological constant' and understand why he created it - he rejected expansion, until about 1929. Of course it's back with a vengeance now.

Because of that evidence stuff.

This was in response to my comments on Realists, Non-Realist and Instrumentalists, which leaves me rather puzzled. I actually think I'm fairly scientifically literate, well at least average for the UK anyway: bloke in the street level, but not ignorant. Do I come over as scientifically illiterate?

Not illiterate, no, but you have a bad habit of being both certain and wrong. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope I disagree. Your sound pragmatism, and use of intuition, plus friendly personality will carry you a long way without ever needing to conduct an experiment.

These forums are full of people who believe they are using sound pragmatism, intuition, and friendly personality, and believe in invisible bigfoots, giant sea serpents in San Francisco Bay, global conspiracies of immortal alchemists, or that they can jump off a skyscraper and bounce.

Science is very simple in essence. It says, forget your pragmatism. Forget your intuition. Your personality is irrelevant. Test your ideas against the facts. If you want to know how the world works, there is only one method that will get you there: Test your ideas against the facts.

 

[cj.23]

You're not going to dodge my question, cj.23, are you?

HI OLiver!

You mean

Atheists say "I don't know if God exists - but that's exactly why I don't believe in scriptures claiming otherwise".

Which, by the way, is the only rational approach to the issue.

On the other Hand: "There is a God because >MY< religion [out of hundreds of other religions] told me so" is irrational because of the variety of other religions and their scriptures.

What about that is so hard to grasp in your humble opinion???

a) It's an irrelevant critique to my given personal position as a theist, as I thought was obvious from the thread

and

b) Lmarck, Darwin, Buffon, Lysenko, Chambers, Kammerer all produced varying understandings and models of Evolution. None were wholly correct, and some were very wrong - but evolution remains objectively true. Logically the plethora of revealed religions tells us nothing about the validity of the God hypothesis.

Hope helps!
cj x