Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[Mojo]

Uhmm, CJ, could you please respond to my post #273?

Seconded.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

On second thought, I'm going to withdraw my own questions. It was never my intent to come across as bullying, since CJ is one of the more pleasant theists to debate with, even if I don't agree with him on certain things. I'm more interested in seeing his answers to Darat along the lines of the original subject regardless.

I just wish he'd be more careful about his analogies. And get his spacebar fixed.

 

[cj.23]

Hullo just a quick revival of the thread. I'm in my sick bed with severely ******* lungs so I will be a couple of days, but I will reply. Not up to typing much at moment but not evading.

cj x

 

[Darat]

We shall wait on your return like uncharacteristically patient harpies*...

(*Note this should not be taken as evidence that Harpies exists.)

Get well soon.

 

[cj.23]

CJ, I know that I haven't been on the thread for a day, but I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to my post...

What specifically distinguishes Zeus/God from Invisible Goblins? What is it that makes the IGs naturalistic but makes Z/G supernaturalistic? You need to be very clear and concrete in your definitions & descriptions here.

A naturalistic entity exists in nature, within time/space, and therefore its behaviour will appear lawful, that is in accordance with Natural Law. (We may not understand some of those laws yet, as with human consciousness.) So an Invisib;e Goblin will show up in a trap, leave footprints, possess mass, obey gravity, etc, etc.

A supernaturalistic entity exists 'outside' of our space/time, whether in another orthogonal time dimension, or in another universe, or in whatever the multiverses are contained within - a higher order of space/time I guess. The point is that it is outside of our space/time: the hows are beyond me I'm afraid, but that is the claim from cl;assical antiquity to the modern day of theists.

Having said that, outline an experiment that could test for your hypothetical IGs, one which uses methodological naturalism.

Sure. Study accounts of IG's find out what they seem to eat, their preferred environment, and any clues as to how their invisibility works. Then set up say cages or pit traps in the apppropraite areas lacced with custard cream doughnuts or whatever Invisible Goblins eat?

Also, please outline what kind of test you'd put forth for the Z/G hypothesis - if not one using MN, how would you do it in a manner that is repeatable and independently verifiable? How can you possibly invalidate either Zeus, God, or both? Please outline the protocols clearly.

Not experimentally verifiable though is it, for reasons I stated before. Nor is the Big Bang, Evolution or the assasination of JFK. I can't think of a way to falsify it completely and irrevocably.

And, lastly, I repeat my earlier questions...

1. If your test (whatever that may be) validates Zeus, will you start to worship Zeus?

2. If your test invalidates both Zeus and God, will you drop all religious belief and embrace atheism?

Sure, if i could design a test that would falsify the hypothesis beyond all doubt. Got any ideas? I have been asking for them since the beginning of the thread, but answer came there none.

cj x

 

[Molinaro]

Good point. Just make a rational argument for the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s) then...

cj x

It would be irrational to offer an argument against the existance of some things so long as said things remain undefined and without any evidence for their existance.

 

[MattusMaximus]

A naturalistic entity exists in nature, within time/space, and therefore its behaviour will appear lawful, that is in accordance with Natural Law. (We may not understand some of those laws yet, as with human consciousness.) So an Invisib;e Goblin will show up in a trap, leave footprints, possess mass, obey gravity, etc, etc.

Great. Outline an experiment then and go try to catch an IG.

A supernaturalistic entity exists 'outside' of our space/time, whether in another orthogonal time dimension, or in another universe, or in whatever the multiverses are contained within - a higher order of space/time I guess. The point is that it is outside of our space/time: the hows are beyond me I'm afraid, but that is the claim from cl;assical antiquity to the modern day of theists.

If it exists "outside" of our space and time, then how do you know that it exists at all, seeing as how we are constrained to our own space and time? What mechanism exists for allowing you to determine the existence of something inherently beyond the detection of our senses?

Sure. Study accounts of IG's find out what they seem to eat, their preferred environment, and any clues as to how their invisibility works. Then set up say cages or pit traps in the apppropraite areas lacced with custard cream doughnuts or whatever Invisible Goblins eat?

So tell me, what do IGs eat? What is their preferred environment? How does their invisibility work? I asked for specifics, not vague hand-waving, CJ.

Not experimentally verifiable though is it, for reasons I stated before. Nor is the Big Bang, Evolution or the assasination of JFK.

Sorry, CJ, I have to call b.s. on that claim. Both the big bang & biological evolution are testable via the scientific method, and they've been verified repeatedly in a large variety of tests. For you to claim otherwise shows you have a massive ignorance not only the subject matter of the big bang & evolution but also of how science works.

I can't think of a way to falsify it completely and irrevocably.

Okay, so you now admit that there is no way to falsify (or basically test) for your proposed supernatural entities. You cannot even think of a non-naturalistic method (such as through pure philosophical discourse) that could test it out? Well then, if there's no way to test it, then you are essentially making the argument that it exists simply because you say so. And that's a pretty lean argument, CJ.

Sure, if i could design a test that would falsify the hypothesis beyond all doubt. Got any ideas? I have been asking for them since the beginning of the thread, but answer came there none.

Bad form, CJ. I asked you to come up with the test - you make the claim that such supernatural entities exist, so you have to propose the test for them if you want to have a constructive conversation on this point. But seeing as how you just admitted that there is no way to test it, this looks like you're basically running in circles.

Btw, nice to have you back. I hope you're feeling better

 

[cj.23]

Great. Outline an experiment then and go try to catch an IG.

I've spent many years trying to catch Invisible Goblins. One day I might succeed, if they exist. If they do I will have achieved my goal because I bothered to look for them. Note however that your idea of an experiment is rather bizarre. It is almost as if you do not acknowledge any science outside of experimental physical science - how would you set an experiment to test for the continued existence of the Melamprosops phaeosoma??? Much science is in fact not experimental or hypothetico-deductive - it's empirical and based upon raw observations: then analysis follows??? How does the Melamprosops phaeosoma differ from an Invisible Goblin?

If it exists "outside" of our space and time, then how do you know that it exists at all, seeing as how we are constrained to our own space and time? What mechanism exists for allowing you to determine the existence of something inherently beyond the detection of our senses?

Approximately the same methodology that allows me to believe that quarks, electrons, Henry VIII, evolution and the Big Bang occurred. A Non-Realist might say none of those things are "facts" only hypothetical-models to explain things we can observe: fair enough. A Realist (and I'm using Realism and Non-Realist in the Philosophy of Science sense) would not doubt them, and god is tenable by the same proceedure.

So tell me, what do IGs eat? What is their preferred environment? How does their invisibility work? I asked for specifics, not vague hand-waving, CJ.

No idea. I made IG's up as an example -- ok, they like Girls Boarding School's sixth form dormitories (term time only) and supermodels dressing rooms, eat Belgian chocolates and fine single malt whisky, and are perfect chameleons. I intend to arm myself with their favoured food stuffs and camp out in situ looking for them...

Sorry, CJ, I have to call b.s. on that claim. Both the big bang & biological evolution are testable via the scientific method, and they've been verified repeatedly in a large variety of tests. For you to claim otherwise shows you have a massive ignorance not only the subject matter of the big bang & evolution but also of how science works.

I don't think so. Let's start with the Big Bang. Testable & repeatable hey? Nope. Falsifiable? How? Specific predictions can be falsified, but the models themselves will shift to accomodate the new data. A good example would be if helium was a lot less than 23% of the hydrogen kicking around: except then we would just reconfigure our hypothess to fit? This is how science works - we do not simply throw out a good idea because of one flaw, or Evolution would have died with Darwin f'rinstance. So the Big Bang has in it's short life shifted several times, and we have various models. Guth's fantastic breaktrhough of Cosmic Inflation is a pretty major development, but again, while we can test predictions from it, we can't test it. Now you seem to assume my problem is ignorance of the science - 'iz it becoz I'm a theist?' but far from it. My problem is that I have immersed myself in philosopy and methodology of science, and am simply asking the sensible and real questions that most people choose to ignore outside of class. Now specific predictions made by the Big Bang theorists have been very successful - the COBE data matched the thermal form expected, with temperature fluctuations in line with prediction, and neutrinos and deuterium both appear to be within the correct ranges - so no falsification. Yet none of these is really an experiment is it? They are just observations of data which matches some models of the BB, and falsified others. We have nothing like the particle acceleartor power to get back to the crucial early stages of the BB, and that could be a good thing actually - more on that another time - but nope, we have not got experimental evidence for the Big Bang.

In fact, if anyone does ever manage to create the Big Bang in their lab I will be concerned! What we have is a number of models of what happened, in a historical event. Certain aspects of that model have mad epredictions which have been verified - and others have been falsified, leading to changes in the model. The Big Bang is probably demonstrable enough to be called a theory, but it is not directly observable, and never will be. Only the pale ghost of its radiation spread over the heavens can be seen now, and the by products of it's amazing light and heat - the universe, and us within it. Yet every year new models which threaten to overturn the big Bang are produced an dpublished - I myself corresponded with on eof the authors a couple of years back, trying to understand - and some are pretty serious contenders. I personally think the BB theories will survive, based on the level of evidence accumulated - but maybe not, because of the problem that all the evidence is as almost always underdetermined - explicable by another hypothesis.

Lest this all seem hopelessly pedantic - and i assure you it's one of the most real issues in philosophy of science (no pun intended), in the Realist/Non-Realist debate, let's give an example from another discipline.

November 22nd 1963. JFK assasinated at Dealy Plaza, Dallas.
We have dozens of theories as to who was responsible - but the majority model, that I favour, is Lee Harvey Oswald, probably as a lone gun man. Yet almost any of the other theories can argue from the same facts, the same physical evidence - the Zapruder film, the men on the grassy knoll, the ballistics evidence. We can not shoot lots of JFK's in the lab - we can test certain predictions, by firing test shots in to a ballistics dummy etc, etc, but the evidence remains underdetermined. And if our key question was "who was responsible for JFK's death?" not "who fired the fatal shot?", then the experimental evidence doe not get us much closer.

SO I stand by my point. Evolution (yes, it would survive even the dreaded pre-Cambrian rabbit! ) and the Big Bang are not experimentally verifiable. Predictions form them are, and that grants us a weight of evidence which we adduce to the main hypothesis, but they are not directly so, and to claim otherwise is a nonsense. We might hope to one day see a Melamprosops phaeosoma or an Invisible Goblin (well hear the latter maybe) but we will never directly observe Evolution or the Big Bang. And the scariest bit of all, and the final problem with the experimentalist approach?

Imagine for a moment you are a superscientist of the future. You can set up in an empty region of space the right parameters, and recreate Earth as it was 4 billion years ago. You start the process of, with say the crystalline hypothesis of albiogenesis, and then sit back and observe. Will your experiment replicate life on Earth? All physical parameters at the start are the same - you can even mess about with the plate tectonics to match - but still, I'm guessing you will end up with something quite different to what we see now after your 4 Billion years. Evolution would have failed to replicate - not because it's a false theory, but because the outcome is not contained in the starting condition, so you could not predict the result, and you would end up with something different - maybe the dinosaurs would make it, or octopi would evolve to space travel, or plants would predominate - no idea. And ditto the Big Bang - you would if you set all the physical constants exactly right get a universe like ours, but the actual distribution of matter would be stochastic, and I have a feeling most high school students trying this would mess up Q or lamda or omega and end up with expansion too fast or too slow, no elements beyond hydrogen, no galaxy formation, etc, etc.


Let's fact it, most science, and ornithology, paleontology, geology cosmology, economics, medicine and psychology are the classic examples, are not really experimental disciplines are they? I find the notion of Scientism, the belief that all science should be based on Popperian style experimental proceedures drawn from som eof the life sciences rather amusing, but it was a 20th century fallacy which hardly persists outside of radical Dawkinite circles surely? Actually I don't think Richgard Would go anywhere near that far - Sue Blackmore and Daniel Dennett maybe.

Okay, so you now admit that there is no way to falsify (or basically test) for your proposed supernatural entities. You cannot even think of a non-naturalistic method (such as through pure philosophical discourse) that could test it out? Well then, if there's no way to test it, then you are essentially making the argument that it exists simply because you say so. And that's a pretty lean argument, CJ.

I'm not at all convinced there is no way to falsifty the hypothesis - that was my original question in the thread. After all claims of the irrationality of theism are somewhat premature if the rationality of atheism can not be demonstrated? I'm completely open to a philosophical disproof, or a historical one, or a personal one, or a scientific one if we can think of one. Just because I can not think of a test when horrendously unwell does not mean that one does not exist. I'm rarely at my best when feverish, so give me a couple of days to think on it.

Bad form, CJ. I asked you to come up with the test - you make the claim that such supernatural entities exist, so you have to propose the test for them if you want to have a constructive conversation on this point. But seeing as how you just admitted that there is no way to test it, this looks like you're basically running in circles.

As I said, it won't be a scientific experiment for the reasons I have given in earliers posts, but sure, I'll respond. After all, this was a major interest of Barth etc, and I have a fairly sound background in theology. Let me have a little while to get better and i shall propose some tests.

Btw, nice to have you back. I hope you're feeling better

Not too bad. I managed to sit upright for the time it took to compose this reply, which was a good 5 minutes I guess, so I'm getting there. Lungs make unpleasant noises, and my breathing is hoarse, but hell thank God for modern medicine*, and thank the Doctors most of all!

cj x

* Actually not as ridicolous a statement as it sounds. God played a direct hand in the creation of modern medicine - as the church set up the universities, the infirmaries, spread knowledge internationally, and endowed almost all schools and the libraries, and finally Bacon and others takes medicine away from Galen and towards the despised empiricus approach with Church backing. The churches formative role in Western medicine and Science is often forgotten, and even today in the uK many if not most hospitals and schools are still foundations of the church, now in State hands.

 

[cj.23]

Atheism is rational.

People do not know if beings which could be considered gods exist. There is no consistent body of good quality evidence which points at the existence of such beings being likely or even possible and there is plenty of good quality evidence gods have been used to explain what we now are natural, material phenomena. Therefore it is rational for people to not believe in such entities.

It is indeed Ivor, and this defends the weak atheist position admirably. It does not however show that Gods do not exist: so as I acknowledged back on page 1, the real challenge is to rationally demonstrate the non-existence of Gods. Until that can be done theism can hardly be said to be irrational?

I'm not actually very convinced by this bit btw

there is plenty of good quality evidence gods have been used to explain what we now are natural, material phenomena. Therefore it is rational for people to not believe in such entities.

Firstly, the fact something has been invoked falsely in an argument in no way disproves it. Evolution and Natural Selection were extensively invoked by Eugenicists and Racists, to prop up false ideas - but that in no way disproves the correctness of Evolution and Natural Selection.

Secondly the Historian (and my tiny bit of Cultural Anthropologist) in me says "did people really explain science in terms of Gods?" I know we all "know" this is true, but I'm seriously unconvinced. Religion as False/Primitive Science seems to me to enter public knowledge with Sir James Frazer to a large extent, though the idea is older, but I'm not especially convinced it was ever true in most religions. Maybe some of our classicists/historians and anthropologists could provide direct primary evidence of this sort of thing? I'm trying to think of Biblical examples and not getting anywhere. Anyway needs a new thread.

SO not much disagreement Ivor - nicely put, but as I have said from the start I think atheism, agnosticism and theism are all rational positions. I dispute theism is irrational however.

cj x

 

[Mojo]

It is indeed Ivor, and this defends the weak atheist position admirably. It does not however show that Gods do not exist: so as I acknowledged back on page 1, the real challenge is to rationally demonstrate the non-existence of Gods. Until that can be done theism can hardly be said to be irrational?

On the other hand, you have stated that it is not sensible (which I'm taking as synonymous with "not rational") to believe in invisible goblins. Have you managed to prove that they don't exist?

Proof that gods don't exist would certainly make theism irrational, but the lack of this proof does not necessarily make it rational. Such proof is in any case a logical impossibility, and your demands for it appear to be a strawman argument as atheists do not (as far as I'm aware) claim to have such proof, or that such proof is necessary for their position.

What determines whether theism is rational is the evidence (or lack thereof) for the existence of gods.

 

[RandFan]

Approximately the same methodology that allows me to believe that quarks, electrons, Henry VIII, evolution and the Big Bang occurred. A Non-Realist might say none of those things are "facts" only hypothetical-models to explain things we can observe: fair enough. A Realist (and I'm using Realism and Non-Realist in the Philosophy of Science sense) would not doubt them, and god is tenable by the same proceedure.

I'm a fan cj but no. Not even remotely close. If true then you could publish in a serious peer reviewed journal and your "methodology" could lead to a consensus.

 

[cj.23]

I'm a fan cj but no. Not even remotely close. If true then you could publish in a serious peer reviewed journal and your "methodology" could lead to a consensus.

Hey Randfan! I know I still have to reply to you from earlier, but let's have a look at your very reasonable objection.

I wrote

Approximately the same methodology that allows me to believe that quarks, electrons, Henry VIII, evolution and the Big Bang occurred. A Non-Realist might say none of those things are "facts" only hypothetical-models to explain things we can observe: fair enough. A Realist (and I'm using Realism and Non-Realist in the Philosophy of Science sense) would not doubt them, and god is tenable by the same proceedure.

(bolding yours.)

Note I say tenable -- that is capable of being held, maintained, or defended, as against attack or dispute: a tenable theory. I think God is a tenable theory in the same way and for the same reason Quarks - to choose one of the things from my list are... Tenable - not demonstrable.

Now why? Well firstly all my things I listed above are not now directly observable by us - they pass the limit of observation, which is rather a big deal in philosophy of science. We can see the action of say electrons, we can see the cosmic afterglow of the Big Bang in the CMBR, we can easily see evolution occurring all the time, or watch it ourselves with a little effort with Drosophila melanogaster - remember if you try "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" - (and hopefully most people will spot that joke, but if not in context of a reference to Drosophila most people miss it! ) and we can certainly read accounts of Henry VIII and handle artifacts associated with him. I don't doubt any of these things.

So how do we know about them? MM will doubtless claim by experimental science - not the case in Henry VIII, and evolution was partially confirmed by experiments but grew from the naturalist tradition of direct observation, and is mainly confirmed by the fossil record and arguably DNA evidence. Yet no one has ever seen these things, at least no one living today - unless they are 3 billion years old for evolution, or c.14 for the Big Bang. So in fact we know an awful lot by direct theorizing - and theories are often accepted at least partly on the grounds of rather surprising criteria. Why did Einstein persist with Relativity, in the face of some major issues? Aesthetics. He felt a theory this classically mathematically beautiful had to be right. One often sees the same argument for Superstring theories, and eleven/six dimensional space - I think it may well have something, and the grounds are at least partly aesthetic.

And quarks, that so neatly reduce the quantum zoo to manageable proportions? Aesthetics, simplicity, parsimony - sure there are issues with the model, but it pretty much works, and it allows predictive utility. A Non-Realist will say "there is no such thing it's just a model for an unknown reality", a Realist will say "Quarks exist", and Instrumentalist will say "does it predict? Does it work? Can I do stuff with it?"

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

So why do I think one can argue a God this way? Because people do. There are hundreds of journals filled with thousands of pages, indeed millions upon millions of pages of academic theology. Much of it is beautifully almost mathematically worked out systematic theology, where if you programmed a computer with it the logic would flow flawlessly given the a priori premises. And that where it all falls apart. I spent a bit of time when ill reading Mormon theology - I like to read books from other traditions - and it is coherent in many ways, but if you doubt like me the basic premises, then its all just endless wild speculation.

Still, I'm revising my position slightly (not on Mormonism, though as I said it seems to have a good cost/benefit outcome) -- because if we can't apply scientific evidence to the question of God, what are we left with? The Kalam Cosmological Argument? Nothing to do with God - just an argument for a Necessary entity. Anselm's classic arguments all presume God - they are not really proofs - though they try to demonstrate a God. History? Maybe. The whole bloody problem is that God is defined as a person, and persons are not susceptible to investigation the same way that say the inverse square law is.

Imagine we are trying to prove the existence of the old grey bearded wise one who watches over us all? Could we use psychology? What miight prove to us his benevolent presence? OK it's a challenge. How would we prove that we had really found HIM?

Serious question. There he is. How do we set about this task?

cj x

 

[MattusMaximus]

Note I say tenable -- that is capable of being held, maintained, or defended, as against attack or dispute: a tenable theory. I think God is a tenable theory in the same way and for the same reason Quarks - to choose one of the things from my list are... Tenable - not demonstrable.

CJ, you do know that we have experimental evidence for quarks, don't you? And you do know they were predicted to exist before they were detected in particle accelerators, right? They were predicted to exist in 1964, and the first quarks were detected in 1968 - with the last quark (the top quark) having been detected in 1995.

So how do we know about them? MM will doubtless claim by experimental science - not the case in Henry VIII, and evolution was partially confirmed by experiments but grew from the naturalist tradition of direct observation, and is mainly confirmed by the fossil record and arguably DNA evidence.

You do realize, of course, that since Darwin's time there have been numerous experiments performed which confirm evolution, right? In fact, the theory of evolution actually has predictive power which can be tested under lab conditions. A perfect example of the predictive power of evolution was the successful discovery of Tiktaalik.

Yet no one has ever seen these things, at least no one living today - unless they are 3 billion years old for evolution, or c.14 for the Big Bang. So in fact we know an awful lot by direct theorizing - and theories are often accepted at least partly on the grounds of rather surprising criteria. Why did Einstein persist with Relativity, in the face of some major issues? Aesthetics. He felt a theory this classically mathematically beautiful had to be right. One often sees the same argument for Superstring theories, and eleven/six dimensional space - I think it may well have something, and the grounds are at least partly aesthetic.

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.

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.

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.

And quarks, that so neatly reduce the quantum zoo to manageable proportions? Aesthetics, simplicity, parsimony - sure there are issues with the model, but it pretty much works, and it allows predictive utility. A Non-Realist will say "there is no such thing it's just a model for an unknown reality", a Realist will say "Quarks exist", and Instrumentalist will say "does it predict? Does it work? Can I do stuff with it?"

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

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

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?

So why do I think one can argue a God this way? Because people do.

Name the experiment to test for God then. Or name some kind of non-naturalistic test. Come up with something.

There are hundreds of journals filled with thousands of pages, indeed millions upon millions of pages of academic theology. Much of it is beautifully almost mathematically worked out systematic theology, where if you programmed a computer with it the logic would flow flawlessly given the a priori premises. And that where it all falls apart. I spent a bit of time when ill reading Mormon theology - I like to read books from other traditions - and it is coherent in many ways, but if you doubt like me the basic premises, then its all just endless wild speculation.

I will agree with that statement.

Still, I'm revising my position slightly (not on Mormonism, though as I said it seems to have a good cost/benefit outcome) -- because if we can't apply scientific evidence to the question of God, what are we left with? The Kalam Cosmological Argument? Nothing to do with God - just an argument for a Necessary entity. Anselm's classic arguments all presume God - they are not really proofs - though they try to demonstrate a God. History? Maybe. The whole bloody problem is that God is defined as a person, and persons are not susceptible to investigation the same way that say the inverse square law is.

Tell that to someone on trial for murder.

Imagine we are trying to prove the existence of the old grey bearded wise one who watches over us all? Could we use psychology? What miight prove to us his benevolent presence? OK it's a challenge. How would we prove that we had really found HIM?

[qimg]http://www.randi.org/images/photos/randi-shirt.jpg[/qimg]

Serious question. There he is. How do we set about this task?

If you go to TAM7, you can meet Mr. Randi in person. That should be enough.

Get better, CJ.

Cheers - MM

 

[RandFan]

Note I say tenable -- that is capable of being held, maintained, or defended, as against attack or dispute: a tenable theory. I think God is a tenable theory in the same way and for the same reason Quarks - to choose one of the things from my list are... Tenable - not demonstrable.

The two just don't equate. Not even close.

Now why? Well firstly all my things I listed above are not now directly observable by us - they pass the limit of observation, which is rather a big deal in philosophy of science. We can see the action of say electrons, we can see the cosmic afterglow of the Big Bang in the CMBR, we can easily see evolution occurring all the time, or watch it ourselves with a little effort with Drosophila melanogaster - remember if you try "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" - (and hopefully most people will spot that joke, but if not in context of a reference to Drosophila most people miss it! ) and we can certainly read accounts of Henry VIII and handle artifacts associated with him. I don't doubt any of these things.

My best response comes from another.

But rationality as typically understood is a property not so much of arguments but of claims and beliefs (arguments advanced as most probably true, or absolutely True). A belief maintained because of anything other than the likelihood it is true is said to irrational. So rationality is the property of beliefs maintained solely because they are most probably true (best describe whatever the belief refers to). Rationality is reason properly applied.

So, let's keep that in mind and please to read the entire post if you have the time. It's really splendid.

So why do I think one can argue a God this way? Because people do.

Dude, this is one of the oddest statements I've ever read at JREF and if you look at my post count (assuming I read roughly what I post) you will see I've read a lot. People argue for many irrational things. It's what people do. It's fallacious.

There are hundreds of journals filled with thousands of pages, indeed millions upon millions of pages of academic theology. Much of it is beautifully almost mathematically worked out systematic theology, where if you programmed a computer with it the logic would flow flawlessly given the a priori premises. And that where it all falls apart.

Agreed.

Imagine we are trying to prove the existence of the old grey bearded wise one who watches over us all? Could we use psychology? What miight prove to us his benevolent presence? OK it's a challenge. How would we prove that we had really found HIM?

Well, we could assume first principles and avoid an infinite regress and hold provisionally the evidence that best models existence. By this Randi is easy. God? Not so much.

 

[Tricky]

Several uncivil posts and responses to them moved to AAH. Please refrain from making charicterizations of each other. (Another way of saying "stay on topic") and remember the zeroth law.

"The JREF wishes the Forum to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) Forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavor to ensure that civility will be the norm"

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[cj.23]

CJ, you do know that we have experimental evidence for quarks, don't you? And you do know they were predicted to exist before they were detected in particle accelerators, right? They were predicted to exist in 1964, and the first quarks were detected in 1968 - with the last quark (the top quark) having been detected in 1995.

Yep, I know about quarks - I always thing they sounds like a BDSM orgy of particles, Top, Bottom, Strange, Up, Down and Charm. Yes of course. George Zweig and Murray Gell-Mann. My history of Science is I think pretty average to OK, well passable anyway. However detected is not the same as observed, any more than electrons which are as I noted constantly detected by their predicted interactions are not directly observed. Of course we have experimental evidence, based upon predictions made by the model - there were 9 confirmed quarks and 3 hypotheticals last I heard, plus antiquarks? -- but w ehave no direct observation of said beasticles. They can only be inferred from their actions in other experiments - which leads to the classic [problem of whether our theory, while predictably sound, is actually representative of a reality. (ie. Exactly what I said in my previous reply!).

You do realize, of course, that since Darwin's time there have been numerous experiments performed which confirm evolution, right? In fact, the theory of evolution actually has predictive power which can be tested under lab conditions. A perfect example of the predictive power of evolution was the successful discovery of Tiktaalik.

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... You are I assume familiar with Auguste Fresnel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel and his theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens'_principle

Fresnel's work made a large number of predictions that were later experimentally confirmed, apparently showing he was correct in his belief that light was a wave. You see the problem? Or what about Vulcan? This hypothetical planet made perfect sense in terms of certain orbital issues with Mercury. Le Verrrier found his observations matched the hypothetical - and Lescarbault and others observed it, confirming the prediction. And who was it who based his ideas on drawing dodecahedrons, ubes etc, etc, and despite being totally wrong was actually uncannily right in matching orbits, till it led to a prediction that was once again confirmed despite the absence of a planet? So as I keep mentioning, predictiveness and utility are by no means actually "proof" of a theory - they are strong evidence, but as almost any theory can be underdetermined (again I seem to recall making this point) all this hsows us is what I said - we have experimental evidence supportive of these theories, but can not directly observe them.

Going to have to take a brief break take pills etc. Be right back.

cj x

 

[Hokulele]

Yep, I know about quarks - I always thing they sounds like a BDSM orgy of particles, Top, Bottom, Strange, Up, Down and Charm. Yes of course. George Zweig and Murray Gell-Mann. My history of Science is I think pretty average to OK, well passable anyway. However detected is not the same as observed, any more than electrons which are as I noted constantly detected by their predicted interactions are not directly observed. Of course we have experimental evidence, based upon predictions made by the model - there were 9 confirmed quarks and 3 hypotheticals last I heard, plus antiquarks? -- but w ehave no direct observation of said beasticles. They can only be inferred from their actions in other experiments - which leads to the classic [problem of whether our theory, while predictably sound, is actually representative of a reality. (ie. Exactly what I said in my previous reply!).

Now I am confused. What is the difference between detecting something and observing it?

Would you consider wind to be detectable or observable?

 

[cj.23]

Now I am confused. What is the difference between detecting something and observing it?

Would you consider wind to be detectable or observable?

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

 

[PixyMisa]

Both. If you can directly experience it, as you can wind on your face, its observable.

You observe the wind in exactly the same way you observe electrons. In fact, when you observe the wind you are observing electrons. (And observing them via photons, which are, after all, the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force.)

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.

Well, he's wrong. There are no borderline cases. All observation works the same way.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

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

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