Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[cj.23]

CJ, you are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

Hi MM - you may well be right, though I suspect you think I am making an argument i am not - I may have worded it poorly - it is interesting that we both cited exactly the same link to the same part of the Wiki definition though. I don't think I'm conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I agree wholeheartedly with

The former has nothing to say about the reality or non-reality of the supernatural, just that there is no way we can use our scientific method (which employs natural techniques) to determine the existence of the supernatural. Read about the difference here.

Agreed totally. Employment of methodological naturalism in no way suggest that the scientist using it accepts philosophical naturalism - TH Huxley for example was philosophically an anti-materialist as far as I can make out, but a strong advocate of methodological naturalism in Science.

The problem as I see it is that if you predicate methodological naturalism for Science, you can not by definition scientifically observe or postulate supernatural entities? As I actually don't think Scientists generally worry about that, and often cross the line, or rather that methodological naturalism actually has nothing to do with supernatural entities, rather assuming causality and "uniformity of nature" to avoid the logical trap of the induction Problem, I don't think it's a very real problem anyway - but it can in a few very specific situations crop up. Unlike philosophical naturalism there is no default assumption in MN that the supernatural does not exist - but by excluding the potential of science ot provide evidence for it, it can lead to that inference by the unwary.

I hope that has clarified my position - I may very well be wrong, I'm a third rate ghosthunter not a philosopher, logician or decent scientist - but I don't think I'm conflating the two, and i think the issue stands.

**Side note: This begs the question of what is truly "supernatural". For example, most people would consider psychic phenomena to be supernatural; however, we can conduct tests for such phenomena and they end up with a null result. I suppose you can then argue that a phenomenon that was supposedly supernatural that is verified by scientific testing is then natural, but that gets into a semantic argument.

It's why I define supernatural very carefully indeed, and by that definition ESP etc would be entirely naturalistic phenomena, not supernatural. I think the problem here is no more than the fact the term supernatural is used exceeedingly loosely, and the problem is entirely semantic. So yep, you are right, but it's not really a problem to your case.

cj x

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

BTW, Curt, if you want an instant rebuttal to my claim on leprechauns you could probably employ Gord's SF analogy and predictiveness test - in his post above. I have not had time to reply yet, but I think it could be applied here. I try to see both sides.

cj x

I thought you had forgotten me. Sniff.

Waiting patiently.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Hi MM - you may well be right, though I suspect you think I am making an argument i am not - I may have worded it poorly - it is interesting that we both cited exactly the same link to the same part of the Wiki definition though. I don't think I'm conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I agree wholeheartedly with

Yes, I noticed that as well. However, you need to make sure to read the specific section to which I linked in my post, as it addresses my point in more detail.

Agreed totally. Employment of methodological naturalism in no way suggest that the scientist using it accepts philosophical naturalism - TH Huxley for example was philosophically an anti-materialist as far as I can make out, but a strong advocate of methodological naturalism in Science.

Exactly. To claim otherwise is akin to saying that one cannot be both religious AND a scientist. I find such a claim to be obviously false, seeing as how religious scientists exist.

The problem as I see it is that if you predicate methodological naturalism for Science, you can not by definition scientifically observe or postulate supernatural entities?

This again depends upon how you define "supernatural". And, according to history, the reason why methodological naturalism was embraced in the development of modern science is because the old way of doing natural philosophy led to so many issues of invoking the supernatural, as defined then, as an explanation. Of course, invoking the supernatural in those days was akin to saying "Poof! It's magic!"

Thus arose what I like to call the Baconian-Cartesian synthesis of modern science.

To insist that modern science incorporate supernatural entities would be taking a HUGE step backwards, because then the explanatory power (and verifiability) of science would be lost. And then we'd be back to about the year 1500 or so.

As I actually don't think Scientists generally worry about that, and often cross the line, or rather that methodological naturalism actually has nothing to do with supernatural entities, rather assuming causality and "uniformity of nature" to avoid the logical trap of the induction Problem, I don't think it's a very real problem anyway - but it can in a few very specific situations crop up. Unlike philosophical naturalism there is no default assumption in MN that the supernatural does not exist - but by excluding the potential of science ot provide evidence for it, it can lead to that inference by the unwary.

That is why they are called the un-wary, because they aren't paying enough attention to detail.

It's why I define supernatural very carefully indeed, and by that definition ESP etc would be entirely naturalistic phenomena, not supernatural. I think the problem here is no more than the fact the term supernatural is used exceeedingly loosely, and the problem is entirely semantic. So yep, you are right, but it's not really a problem to your case.

Then let's get more clarity on the question. How, exactly, do you define "supernatural"?

 

[cj.23]

I define supernatural based on what the word says - Super (above/beyond) natural (the universe, space/time)

A couple of illustrative posts

"Yes so am I. I don't think that "universal consciousness, ESP, mediums, precognition" etc would be in any sense supernatural. If they exist they are perfectly natural, and follow internally coherent laws which must somehow mesh with how we understand the laws of nature already. Hell, if i did not believe that there would be absolutely no point to my interest in parapsychology: the subject would be incapable of study, outside the realm of science. Clearly I do not believe that at all!

These phenomena are what is known as "paranormal", an irritatingly meaningless term - they either exist, and will one day be incorporated in to our understanding of nature, or do not. I don't think they have anything to do with the concept of supernatural, which really only refers to supposed entities outside of nature entirely, but whose action upon/within nature, if they exist, would by definition be natural, just as the moons effect on the sea (tides) remains part of our earthly oceanography. A supernatural cause acting on us becomes surely a natural cause as the action manifests in nature?"

There are lot more posts on here somewhere where i play with the logical implications. On "paranormal" I wrote the following on RD.net

OK, I'm not going to sleep. We still have a few days before The Enemies of Reason Richard Dawkin's new Channel 4 documentary, and I still have several days to whitter about these topics in my Jerome way before the show. Easier to get in first - does not sound as much like carping! So far I have playfully written a defense of Astrology and The New Witch Trials, so tonight I will right something that sounds far more like Richard (But isn't!) - "My Problem with the Paranormal".

Now many of you know that I am twice damned as far as the Prof is concerned, for not only am I a dodgy Christian, I'm also by profession a dodgy ghosthunter/parapsychologist. Yep, if you did not know, you read that right... It's an odd mix I suppose. Most Christians don't seem overly keen on running ESP tests, or researching poltergeist cases or whatever, but I'm really quite comfortable with it. Long term readers of this forum are painfully aware of how passionately I defend proper academic parapsychology against its critics, while remaining a skeptic and supporter of Randi and the JREF. Anyway, I can't see Prof Dawkins taking kindly to my chosen path. I guess this series of essays may be nothing more than an attempt on my part to justify my own position: I don't like the idea of being dubbed an enemy of reason much!

OK, so tonight I'm going to talk about my problem with the paranormal. And here we have a problem straight away - what is the Paranormal? The term is used so loosely as to be almost meaningless. I tend to make a distinction between the supernatural - things above or beyond the universe and nature, and so presumably if they exist outside the scope of the naturalistic inquiry of science, or at least unfalsifiable - and the paranormal, which I would argue is simply a term used for those phenomena lacking any currently agreed hypothesis or theory as to their cause but which may one day be included in the scope of science, because they are part of currently undiscovered natural laws, or we understand the principles which govern them, but so far have failed to apply them correctly. So those laws may well include misperception, wishful thinking, or all kinds of naturalistic explanations. I think thsi is roughly what Professor Dawkins means when he refers to perinormal phenomena.

http://richard-dawkins.blogspot.com/2007/04/perinormal-introduced-by-richard.html

http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-and-Richard-Dawkins-Interview


This is where Prof Dawkins and I are in some agreement. I personally think many "paranormal/perinormal" phenomena will eventually become part of our knowledge as science advances. Why?

Well when I was a kid, Arthur C Clarke had a TV show called Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Worlds. It was actually probably rather good, and had a slightly sceptical edge, but I was never a fan as such things did not interest me - I thought what I know now to be Forteana, Cryptozoology, Parapsychology etc etc were utter bilge. Still I recall the episode when Giant Squid were discussed, and we were told there was some evidence in terms of sucker marks on whales. Yet Giant Squid back then were thoroughly "paranormal". That was what, thirty years ago? Nowadays Giant Squid are perfectly respectable, though i still would not take one home to meet mummy and daddy, well not unless you really don't like mummy and daddy! And the same with high altitude blue streaks, ball lightning, and a few other phenomena which in the 70's were considered paranormal, but now have made the jump over to scientific acceptance, if not yet full explanation. Others, like the legendary Sasquatch and Nessie are not looking so good after thirty years of research, and may well end up finally be accepted as myths. UFOs, well after Cartman got his anal probe and the bizarre excitement of the 90's Abduction craze, nuts and bolts ufology is well in decline, and Wicca and the Occult has suffered from over exposure and the harsh light of day - never a happy fate for a mystery religion. It end up less "The Devil Rides Out" and more Sabrina the Teenage Goth Wannabe Witch. Still my point is simple - some "paranormal" phenomena make it as science includes them, usually without any radical new breakthroughs or changes in our understanding of the laws of nature, others just fade away as they are explained as mistakes or fail to stand up to scrutiny at all, and swim away like Nessie seems to have (Well I expect Tim Dinsdale is still looking! good luck man, hope ya find her!) The thing is to keep an open mind without your brains falling out.

Anyway, so far hopefully so good. The problem I have with the paranormal is not people being interested in it -- even Most Haunted had the advantage of creating a generation of new skeptics and hard core researchers, so I'm not entirely unhappy with it (and won't decry my short association with the show - they paid me well, and I enjoyed the work) -- but the fact that I don't really know if the Paranormal works at all.

Let's starts with a list of "paranormal" claims --
ESP, Ghosts, UFOs, Zombies, Ball Lightning, Nessie, surviving Thylacines, Mediumship, Spoon Bending, Dowsing, Crystal Power, Atlantis, Witchcraft, Astrology, Poltergeists, Curses, Synchronicity, Astral Projection, Vampires, Werewolves, Psychic Pets, Auras, The Bermuda Triangle, Anglicani- er anyway you get the idea!

Now that's a pretty outrageous list, and i would not necessarily advocate the reality of any of those. However, what if say Poltergeists were real? The very fact they have been placed in this category makes them immediately suspect, and makes any decent scientist worth his salt (so not me) ignore them utterly. Guilt by association. And you know what? You try and do some research in to a poltergeist case, and suddenly people all link you with Auras, Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle - you are a nut. Why - because you study the paranormal! Yet my question -- what do any of these things actually have in common? What does Spoonbending tell us about Atlantis? How are Psychic Pets linked with Werewolves? (Er, don't answer that actually - I don't want to know!) This whole paranormal category is just a vast dumping ground for subjects we think lack credibility - and in many of the above examples, probably quite justifiably! However paranormal is just a term of abuse - it tells us nothing about the phenomena except they are not respectable. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena and anomalies out there which are taken seriously - its research on these anomalies, on the niggling problems with our best scientific models which leads to revisions and to the models improving, and hence scientific progress after all. Yet "paranormal"? It's meaningless. I'm even wary about "parapsychology". It's too close for comfort to the despised term"

Hope clarifies - and apologies ot everyone awaiting an answer from me - I'm working.

cj x

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Is Dinsdale looking down from Heaven for Nessie then?

Dinsdale's dead.

The cat got him.

 

[truethat]

This is a very interesting and sophisticated argument, but I don't think it works. I will never experience pregnancy directly: I'm a bloke. Yet I am happen to concur it exists. Millions of people will never see Halley's Comet - yet it exists. Now we can speculate on whether on not everyone experiences the divine reality, but I certainly agree with you that not everyone experiences mystical states - I do not. We can not logically argue that because only a small number of people wil experience Peru, Peru is an internal construct?




Firstly, can you cite research to demonstrate this? I think it likely, but I'd like to see the research.

Secondly brainwave activity and epileptic fits have been shown to have some effect on people's perceptions of their husbands, so is it apparent that the husband is a state of mind? Of course not. If a brain mechanism is involved as surely it must be as in any experience, say that postulated in d'Aquili & Newberg's hypothesis I outlined above, it would come as no surprise if it could be effected by organic problems in the brain.



Nope for reasons given. The furthest one can logically go - as in my case - is that some people do not (like me) experience mystical states. Anything beyond that is inference. If Bob and Hilda have seen a rainbow and tell me about it, but I have never seen one and am sceptical, that does not mean that rainbows do not exist. I decide to argue that what they saw was a hallucination. If my friend Kate the meterologist then gives me a thorough explanation for the mechanism of rainbows, and I accept it, I then can't say to Bob & Hilda that does not stop rainbows existing.... it just means i know accept the phenomena and can ascribe a mechanism to it.



It is entirely possible that people can by the natural process of creating neural links set themselves up in a belief system that dognatically rejects all evidence sure. It's just as possible to program yourself inadvertantly to dogmatically except all parts of some faith, regardless of external evidence, or just to be incredibly credulous. Our brains are in a constant process of redrawing those links, but heuristics shows just how some people might end up unable to experience almost aything: in fact theoretically I wonder fi we could create people unable to perceive the colour blue, or able to see the colour octarine? I don't know, but it sound plausible.

cj x

Your argument fails because you have ignored something significant. Well two points actually.

One. A rainbow, pictures of Peru, the color Blue, Halley's comet, the state of pregnancy can all be documented and physically verified in some form or another. So you can't compare those things to God who is not able to be demonstrated in some way. Otherwise I will ask people to tell me who say they have experienced God, 'what does he look like? Take a picture next time!'

Next the crux of your argument is that God is evidence of some sort of dual reality. And again, I take issue with your blanket statement that ALL must experience this because you've only proven SOME people experience God.

Take color blindness. Blue exists to YOU if you can see it. While blue might exist for the whole rest of the world, it doesn't exist for you if you can't experience it. Even if you can be taught to perceive some sort of gradient indicator of what you actually see to distinguish it from what it looks like to you, you are still not experiencing seeing "blue" as everyone else does.

Lets take pregnancy. You say that you don't experience pregnancy but that doesn't negate pregnancy from occurring for others. This is true, but again this is a physical state. The physical state of experiencing God is not God, its the experience of God. You can not state that pregnancy exists for YOU personally, that you know what being pregnant means, you don't. You have to take other people's words for it.

Well I as an atheist take this stance. Just as a state of pregnancy doesn't exist for you a state of experiencing God doesn't exist for an atheist. Therefor it is rational to conclude that God doesn't exist for them. If God is NOT EXISTING for some, then to suggest that perhaps he doesn't exist at all for everyone, and that its some sort of confusion, would be a logical conclusion. No more illogical than a person who is convinced they've experienced God thinking God exists because he has experienced it.

What is called into question then is the dogma and definition of God which you seem to be brushing off. If you want to call God a dual reality, then it would only be a dual reality to those who can experience God. If the dogma and definition of God states that God is able to be experienced by everyone, well then it is illogical to accept this idea and definition of God because this is clearly not the case.

It seems like you want to ignore the other dual reality of NO GOD for some people?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Zeus is the god of thunder and lightning.

We now know that lightning is a meteorological phenomena, not hurled by a god.

Okay, one down. A billion to go.

And after a few thousand or more down, a pattern emerges.

We have evidence of god beliefs and no evidence of gods. So start with the question, did god beliefs come from humans interacting with real gods or did people make god beliefs ups? Follow the evidence and don't try to fit the evidence to either of those two conclusions.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, people made god beliefs up. The idea one source of god beliefs was real and thousands of other sources were not is not supported by the evidence.

And a deist god which doesn't interact with the Universe cannot be a god people are aware of. In addition, to those of us who are atheist like me, it's pretty clear deist gods are simply descriptions of moved goal posts. If one proves gods don't answer prayers, then move the goal post and describe your god as not answering prayer. If it is clear hurricanes are not punishment by the gods for a city's sinful homosexual population, describe your god as not sending hurricane punishments.

You, cj.23, have ignored this rational opinion and I expect you to continue to do so. I have yet to hear anyone address it with countering arguments. It is reasonable for agnostics to bring up the "can't prove the negative" argument against atheism. I find that to be an argument in semantics and a double standard regarding acceptance of other 'negatives' in scientific theory which one doesn't bother formally stating one is on the fence about. However, I understand their position and mine are both technically rational.

But it is irrational to continue to believe in gods when the belief itself is based on an irrational argument. That is, the reason there is no evidence of said god is because said god gets off on people believing without evidence. Faith based on NO EVIDENCE is some quality that is valued by said god. It doesn't make sense. Ah, but then the irrational argument is tossed out, we aren't supposed to understand. Eating from that tree of knowledge didn't include this.

It is irrational to believe in an inconsistent Bible; cruelty is OK, God has a plan; believing or not believing results in no quantitative difference in happiness, in wealth, in health and so on.

But none of this is news.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Damnit, a little late to the party.

I define supernatural based on what the word says - Super (above/beyond) natural (the universe, space/time)

In a previous post, in response to the argument that nothing requires a supernatural explanation, you insisted that there were certain phenomena that could have supernatural explanations. Are you asserting that the supernatural must necessarily be used to explain these things, or are you simply using supernatural as a placeholder?

Note that yes, I'm biased as hell. I tend to immediately equate "supernatural" with "bovine excrement." Also, I think the main point of the post you had responded to back there was that, while there's nothing stopping people from coming up with supernatural explanations, there isn't anything where the supernatural is the only conclusion we're forced to go with.

How are Psychic Pets linked with Werewolves? (Er, don't answer that actually - I don't want to know!)

Psychic pets would eat you if they could, since they know they're superior to you and thus regard you as potential food, albeit something that's not worth eating because you'd probably flee or put up a struggle. Werewolves would eat you regardless, since they know they're superior to you and thus regard you as food, and it doesn't make a difference if you try to flee or put up a struggle.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[PixyMisa]

FAIL? I'm glad you are not one of my supervisors!

On the contrary - we have plenty of evidence that might be explained in terms of supernatural causality

That in no way addresses what I said.

ALL evidence can be explained in terms of supernatural causality. Even if you know exactly how something happens, you can add a supernatural cause as well. We see this all the time. And it's total nonsense.

are you denying that methodological naturalism is a working assumption of science?

Yes, I deny it.

Methodological naturalism is not an assumption. It's a method.

Science does indeed not provide the evidence, but explain it - well it technically does not even do that, but I'll let that pass for now - but the explanation must be in the terms of methodological naturalism.

Yes.

So, ok, evidence is evidence - and as i have mentioned for example peoples mystical experiences of a divine reality are evidence for a divine reality

No.

First, "mystical experiences" don't happen. Experiences happen, and they are interpreted as mystical.

Second, any observation is, a priori, only data, not evidence. To be evidence, it must support one hypothesis better than another. If it supports two hypotheses equally, for example, it is not evidence for either.

Third, an experience is only direct evidence for that experience. You cannot validly postulate an entire alternate reality based on experiences alone.

And finally, we can not only explain this sort of experience, but generate it at will, via all the means I outlined earlier. This demonstrates that this sort of experience can be generated by the brain. That does not prove that all such experiences are generated by the brain alone, but it does tell us that no further explanation is required. Your "divine reality" is an unnecessary hypothesis.

a data point that can be used to argue for the reality of that premise.

As I said, no.

I'm afriad the failure is all yours, Pixy.

Not in the slightest.

Unless you can show where i am wrong of course?

In everything you have said so far, for starters.

OK, why? I am amused by your dismissiveness; surely you can say why thsi argument is flawed, rather than just call it nonsense? If you can't, dow do you know it's nonsense?

Already explained - before this post, too, and you ignored it.

Really? No one is aserting there is no God because they see no evidence for it?

One person is, apparently. Most of us, no.

Sorry, thought that was actually the argument you were making.

Yes, because you are not paying attention to what anyone is saying. There have been at least a dozen posts pointing out that your definition of atheism is incorrect.

Hence my reply. Maybe you would like to clarify...

Is there any point?

Oh, ok, so you are a Non-Realist.

No.

Okey doke, perfectly respectable position to take - atomic theory does not necessarily reflect the reality of atomic physics

Wrong.

and electrons may or may not exist

They most certainly do.

but the theory works and is justified on a utilitarian value.

There is no other value in science.

Science is about predictive explanations of behaviours. That's all it does. If you go beyond that, you stop doing science.

Atomic theory, electrons, these are predictive explanations of behaviours.

How so?

Tell me: What is the difference between a deist God and an absence of said deist God?

Not so see - Principle of Relevant Difference.

You claim that rules that apply to nature don't apply to God. That's special pleading.

You claim that this rule doesn't apply to God, because God is different to nature. That is also special pleading.

It's special pleading all the way down.

 

[Big Les]

It’s a matter of definition.. very few people are “strong atheists” by your definition.. they don’t .. “Believe there is no God”

They simple find the notion of a God irrational and extraneous.

The reason they associate with “Strong Atheism” is because others definitions sound like they are weekly admitting the idea of a god makes some sort of sense… it s a bit like saying if you are agnostic about the Easter Bunny you are allowing the notion some credence.

In short there is NO need for a rational argument for atheism as there is NO rational argument for a God !

This is relevant to my interests.

 

[cj.23]

Thanks, now we've established that it's back to my first question to you i.e. you don't consider your atheism rational?

I don't disbelieve in any god(s) though?

cj x

 

[RandFan]

I don't disbelieve in any god(s) though?

cj x

Does that include the FSM?

 

[arthwollipot]

Do I believe in leprechauns? Not in the same way I believe in say poodles...

Wait - you believe in poodles? Do you really think that the phrase "I believe in..." is the correct phrase here?

 

[cj.23]

cj, I enjoy your posts, and I hope you don't take any of the arguments as a personal attack.....

Thanks Freethinker, I enjoy a good discussion and certainly would not dream of taking any argument personally. I'm glad someone enjoys my posts - I sometimes find people get intensely irritated by them, but generally I think it's all amicable. I've spoent a couple of years on the Richard Dawkins forum where i post as Jerome, though I have been on the JREF longer. I only really normally post here on parapsych related issues, but hey, I got sucked in to some Biblical Crit and historical issues a while back and so have been posting more. History is my first love i guess...

If you don't believe in the god that Christians describe, does that not make you an atheist of some flavor and limited scope? Haven't you just created your own personal version of god who doesn't have the flaws you've observed in old Yahweh?

Let me explain, because my answer to Darat my lat post lacked explanatory power. Imagine it's 1859, and I am sitting in my study reading books on Evolution, trying to educate myself. I read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species - I lilke the idea of Natural Selection, but his proposed mechanism for inheritance looks wrong to me (and it was). Then I read Lamarck, and think - wow! - but the hereditary issue still does not work out in real terms. Yet I still aceept Evolution as true - it's true that at thei point the physicists say the sun and earth can not be old enough for the time spans required, but in a flash of presccinede I decide to go with Buckland and Lell and believe in an ancient Earth anyway. I don't believe any of the models I have been offered possess a total account of the truth of evolution - but I accept the principle. After much haead scratching and some simple looks at breeding I decide Darwin is closer to the truth than Lamarck. (and fifty years later when I read Mendel's ideas, I see i made the right choice - Darwin's insight was sound, his mechanism for inheritance wrong - but the Mendelian-Darwinian synthesis is a great explanation for much...) OK, so the idea of Evolution was right - but I had to accept that all models were flawed. The Darwinian one made more sense to me than the Lamarckian one.

Now, that is roughly why I personally follow Christianity. I think Theism is generally true, and when I look at the competing models, I personally find Christianity tallies quite nicely with my understanding of how the universe works. However, one of the claims i find most useful is that of ineffability of God - Christians realise that we can not comprehend the whole truth about God.

Religions are humanly cultural manifestations of a quest for the divine - all are flawed to my mind, all are human. Future generations will know more than I do. However, I don't reject other religions insights - I have academically spent far more years on Islam and Judaism and the religions of India, and more recently the religions of the ANE and Graeco-Roman world than I have on Christianity. As I always say, I'm wrong on God, and so is everyone else, but I don't exclude any possible insight as to the nature of ultimate reality. I'm certainly not going to deny that the ancient Greek god Zeus exists, in the sense that I just think they were comprehending the same reality I do, and expressing it as i do in line with the cultural zeitgeist and expectations of their era.

Dunno if that clarifies, but I hope it makes some sense...

This is something that I've always felt was the most irrational part of religion. As technology has progressed and our knowledge of how the universe works has progressed, religious people have redefined their gods to fit into humanity's new understanding.

I regard that as inherently healthy! If we had resisted Mendel on the grounds of the truth of Darwin, or DArwin on the grounds of the sacred writ of Chambers, or Chambers because he disagreed with Lamarck, or Lamarck because he differed from Buffon, I hate to think where we would be now. Theology develops, makes advances, creates new schools, new ideas, and slowly progresses - like philosophy, like history, like science.

That's only rational IF you are operating under the preconceived notion that god(s) exist.

Well yes: doing theology becomes little more than a fun branch of philosophy without that. No argument there. I think you mean though that theist engage in top down reasoning - they start with assumptions and try to fit the evidence to them, rather than arguingg from the evidence up? (Grounded theory). Is that what you mean?

The bible says that the Earth is surrounded by a "firmament" which god made, upon which the stars, the moon and the sun are fixed, and which separates the celestial waters from the terrestrial waters. God called this firmament "Heaven".

Ug.... we could easily spend all night on this one issue. The picture you are givving is closer to the High Middle Ages model than the Biblical one, and the biblical one is by no means consistent. I'll go in to this in depth if you want, but we would have to talk about how the terms are used in the Bible, with reference to specific texts. Heaven for example is used in two distinct sense therein - as where God is - not actually a place, as in where God is is Heaven - so in God was in Las Vegas, that would be Heaven, because Heave is the presence of God - and in the wway we use "the heavens opened" -- simply to mean the sky. Did the Biblical writers believ God lived in the sky? Probably not. In fact I don't think many of the religions of the latter first millenium BCE saw it like that. God did not live in the sky, he lived in his Temple after all! That was certainly the hittie belief, and we see it mirrored in many pasages of the Tanakh?

We know better now. Christians couldn't believe that or preach it now in literal form without being ridiculed, so they decided god didn't really do it that way. Did god change to accommodate our new understanding? Did the bible change? No, only the claims made by believers changed. Whether they admit it or not, their belief was wrong, so they changed it to something different, something that they just made up, and most importantly, something that can't be disproven by telescopic observation or space travel.

I don't think though mainstream Christians or Jews ever regarded it as literal like that. Let me give an example -

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."​

That quote is over 1700 years old now - and I think it shows that from the very Early Church the idea that faith should be held sensibly and with reference to facts was dominant. Part of the issue here is possibly the very strong misunderstanding one finds about how the Church has historically used the bible -- but that must wait till I am less busy.
​

Drat, I have to go do some stuff -- be back in a while...
cj x

 

[cj.23]

Does that include the FSM?

Did Bobby Hendersen not feel His Noodly Appendage?
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Have we not seen his likeness miraculously appear in plates of spaghetti and meatballs?
http://www.venganza.org/

Oh ye of little faith!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Wait - you believe in poodles? Do you really think that the phrase "I believe in..." is the correct phrase here?

Yes I think so - I think they are fairly heavily evidenced, and I was bitten playfully by one once, and so I would say I had a very high degree of confidence in the Poodle hypothesis. Do you not believe in poodles?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

That in no way addresses what I said.

ALL evidence can be explained in terms of supernatural causality. Even if you know exactly how something happens, you can add a supernatural cause as well. We see this all the time. And it's total nonsense.

And pretty much any theory can be underdetermined, we know that as well. So even if a naturalistic hypothesis works, how do you know invisible goblins aren't the real cause? You rationally don't. You seem to ascribe a remarkable degree of confidence to things which can never be certain. Now I'm not postulating invisible goblins - well not tonight - because we have insufficient evidence for that to be sensible - but my original point is rather more sensible than pointing out to you the limits of rational knowledge. I guess i had better explain it more clearly!

Oh yeah, just in case anyone not know what I am on about -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
It's only an issue normally when two theories can both explain the evidence.

My point was you asserted "there is no evidence for God". I have already falsified this, by providing evidence for God. Sure it's not compelling evidence - no one is going to rush out and say "hey, studies of mystical experience show there must be a God!" It's evidence though -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4227141#post4227141 is LossLeader's excellent definition, or you could use the dictionary definition of evidence
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

It may be weak evidence, it may be strong evidence, but my initial point is entirely vindicated - there is at least some evidence for God - but no "proof", by which I simply mean compelling evidence. Now of course I could go on to list all manner of other evidence, as I have playfully before, but it's just evidence - data that can be used to draw a conclusion.

The notion "there is no evidence for God" is clearly falsified. I'll return to the rest of your post later.

cj x

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes I think so - I think they are fairly heavily evidenced, and I was bitten playfully by one once, and so I would say I had a very high degree of confidence in the Poodle hypothesis. Do you not believe in poodles?

cj x

What has belief got to do with the existence or non-existence of poodles?

You can try disbelieving in them all you want but, as you have found, they bite just the same.

What has belief got to do with the existence or non-existence God?

You can try believing in Her all you want but the World caries on exactly as if She does not exist.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes I think so - I think they are fairly heavily evidenced, and I was bitten playfully by one once, and so I would say I had a very high degree of confidence in the Poodle hypothesis. Do you not believe in poodles?

No, I don't think I do believe in poodles. They demonstrably exist - there is no belief necessary. I also don't believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that the earth is made of rock and not cheese. These things are demonstrable, and no belief is required.

 

[cj.23]

CJ wrote
"are you denying that methodological naturalism is a working assumption of science?"

Yes, I deny it.
Methodological naturalism is not an assumption. It's a method.

Both innit? So to get back to the point, hopefully clarified in discussion with MM above, methodological naturalism discounts supernatural explanations for phenomena in science. And then you tell me there is no evidence of supernatural explanations for phenomena in science? How is this not perfectly circular reasoning exactly?

So, ok, evidence is evidence - and as i have mentioned for example peoples mystical experiences of a divine reality are evidence for a divine reality

No.

Yet by any definition of evidence they are evidence. Evidence does not make something true. Evidence merely helps us construct a hypothesis that creates an explanatory model for the evidence.

First, "mystical experiences" don't happen. Experiences happen, and they are interpreted as mystical.

OK, no problem with that, accept i think either formulation is not value neutral. How about "experiences of the type called 'mystical'"? I actually think though "mystical experience" does not suggest any given ontological status to the reality of the experience. Regardless of what term we use, how does this develop your argument?

Second, any observation is, a priori, only data, not evidence. To be evidence, it must support one hypothesis better than another. If it supports two hypotheses equally, for example, it is not evidence for either.

Ah! I see. Not so in the way "evidence" is usually employed in science. Now at least I understand your previous claims better. Where dd you get this definition from? I'm interested, because it is quite unknown to me, and indeed most of the philosophers of science I read. (see Underdetermination issue f'rinstance). OK, the mystical experience is on the face of it data that supports the existence of God more than the opposite hypothesis - so evidence. People claiming to experience god can hardly be argued to be data that can be used to support the hypothesis God doies not exist - so by your own definition it is evidence....

Third, an experience is only direct evidence for that experience. You cannot validly postulate an entire alternate reality based on experiences alone.

Sure, it's direct evidence for the experience, and i am completly aware of the Induction Problem. As you deny being a Non-Realist however, I assume that does not trouble you. Is the CMBR evidence for the Big Bang? If so, you accept non-direct evidence. Is the fossil record evidence for evolution? Ditto. Do you believe this forum's server exists, based on your sense perceptions? You have no diorect evidence for any of these.

And finally, we can not only explain this sort of experience, but generate it at will, via all the means I outlined earlier. This demonstrates that this sort of experience can be generated by the brain. That does not prove that all such experiences are generated by the brain alone, but it does tell us that no further explanation is required. Your "divine reality" is an unnecessary hypothesis.

You have asserted you can generate this kind of experience. If you can by the methods suggested in a double blind study can I suggest you head over to the Laurentian University and give Persinger some help,, or maybe apply for the Million Dollar Challenge. For now citing me some peer reviewed research not subsequently shown to be deeply problematic will do. So far the only person to cite papers I think has been me, and none were actually on inducing the states by artifical means.

Time for a break - more follows...
cj x