Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

cj.23 said:
Actually I'm outlining the observation/detection difference that is crucial to Non-Realist theories of Science. The Realists would agree with you there is no real distinction - see my objection above concerning glasses etc.
Click to expand...
It sure seemed like you're saying that since quarks exist even though we have only detected but not observed them, that it is reasonable to suppose God exists.

I pointed out that in that sense God has neither been detected nor observed.

If "observation" of God is merely the stories of subjective experience, then would you accept someone's experience of a vision of a quark (something the guy experienced while alone, maybe in bed at night, but not a asleep and he swears it wasn't a dream) as evidence of the quark's existence?

However a look at the entry i linked on this debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
will show that I am not simply making this up to favour my point as you seem to suggest. The Stanford entry is much better, but as usual very densely written - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
I don't think many people ever bother to look at the links I provide, MM and Hokulele honourable exceptions, and i can understand why - reading my posts is quite a time expended in itself, and life is short - but I do try to reference my points and provide interesting links when possible to show that I am not making stuff up.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're making stuff up. I'm pointing out that you're taking advantage of two different uses of the word "observed".


No, of course not. Bertrand Russell's example is deliberately designed so that all the evidence can be accounted for, and absence of any evidence forms part of the theory, which is why it is rational (entirely logically coherent and internally consistent) and yet wholly unreasonable. However I can think of few other cases where this is true! Not many involve creating the whole universe to make it look like it's older.. :)
Click to expand...
Pixy addressed this better than I can.

If you think something that conflicts with all the known evidence is rational because it is not logically inconsistent (in some very few formulations and ignoring the way billions of people have used the term over thousands of years), then we are definitely using different notions of the word "rational".

I would agree that logical coherence is necessary but not sufficient.

Merriam Webster says it's synonymous with "reasonable".

ETA: If all you're saying is that it's possible to come up with some definition of God that is not impossible, I would agree. I think that observation is trivial and has little to do with theists in the real world or the actual existence of the God they believe in.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
It sure seemed like you're saying that since quarks exist even though we have only detected but not observed them, that it is reasonable to suppose God exists.
Click to expand...

I can see why, but in fact if you trace how we got to this, you will see the actual chain of argument was

1. I assert that mysticism is evidence of God: not compelling evidence, perhaps weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. This I said falsified Pixy's claim "there is no evidence for God."

2. It is then asserted that mysticism is not evidence, by TrueThat as I recall, because many people do not and can not it seems have this experience.

3. I then whittered on about Peru, and the limits of experience, and knowing and authority. We got in to a lengthy discussion of different types of knowledge, and underdetermination, hypothesis, induction and methodology as i recall?

4. At some point I pointed out that mysticism stands to God as say the Fossil record to Evolution, as someone challenged if it constitutes evidence.I forget the grounds of the challenge now, but it caused me to mention in passing Realism and non-Realism and the observed/detected distinction crucial to that debate in Philosophy of Science.

5. There was much messing about about Prediction, Popper, falsification, Kuhn, and context and justification, and we learned that Pixy is a positivist not as I feared an adherent of Scientism.

Of course we have discussed much more - methodological naturalism, the nature of the scientific enterprise, if God is a scientific question, and so on and so forth. I think it's been a fun and enjoyable discussion, though only Ivor has so far given me a rational grounds for atheism, and i'm still thinking about that - it does not exclude the rationality of theism after all, and I'm still looking at it. :)

So before I try and steer my contributions at least vaguely back on track, what I'm asserting is that mysticism is evidence for God. I see that as unproblematic, and have given a number of examples

CJ said:
On the contrary. It is not direct evidence of a God. It is evidence. Look back over the thread, and see my examples I have offerred...

i) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is eviudence for the Big Bang
ii) The Fossil Record is evidence for Evolution
let's add a few more
iii) The Gallic Wars is evidence for Caesar's campaigns
iv) The bending of light recorded in the Michelson-Morley experiments is evidence for Relativity
v) The presence of the bacterium heliobacter pylori in patients with stomach ulcers is evidence for a link.
Click to expand...

No one has yet shown why these do not constitute evidence. You can ignore the Detected/Observed bit Joe - that was a digression in to Philosophy of Science - it is irrelevant to the case I am putting here. If
vi). Mysticism is evidence for the existence of God
is not a true statement - how does it differ from examples i) to v)?

That is the real question. We can discuss Kuhn and Popper later - I'm sure we will - but for now let's see if we can establish that my position "there is some evidence for God" is incorrect.

Please though, note my claim is not
"There is so much evidence for God one must be compelled to believe"
It is simply "there is some evidence for God: therefore the claim there is no evidence for God is untrue".

And Hokulele made an excellent point, with which I have much sympathy, about mysticism - it's actually a the heart of my critique of Ken Wilber, and Washburne and Ferar's critiques as well, and is a serious objection to Perrenialism. However obviously I do not think it fatal, and as a strong exponent of the dangers of analogy error i hope to demonstrate to Hokulele i am not falling in ot those specific pits. It will have to wait though -- I need sleep. :)

cj x
 
Actually, that's wrong. Mysticism is evidence for God the way an Easter hat parade is evidence for the Easter Bunny.
 
Actually Mysticism is evidence for God the same way the smell of rotten eggs is evidence for the Giant Kallloookiinaki Monster that is a hundred feet tall and has wings, and big lizard eyes and but is invisible, but you can tell when he's around because he smells like rotten eggs.
 
Guess it depends on how you define mysticism. ;)

mys·ti·cism (mst-szm)
n.
1.
a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
Click to expand...

I've had this argument numerous times on this forum. It seems a number of people consider the 'feeling' of a god's presence to be evidence of gods existing. But that is akin to saying a conclusion is the evidence.

The 'feeling' is the evidence. That it is evidence of a god is a conclusion.

If I draw a false conclusion based on any evidence, the conclusion is not evidence. The evidence remains unchanged despite the conclusion. If the evidence was not evidence of the false conclusion before the conclusion was drawn, then it cannot become evidence for the false conclusion after the conclusion is drawn. Aside from quantum mechanics, such an event would defy the laws of physics.

Is the fact an anti-vaxer believes there is evidence for vaccines causing autism mean there is any evidence vaccines cause autism? If not then how does the fact a god believer believes some internal sensation/thought/emotion or whatever you want to label it results from contact with a god, somehow become evidence for gods?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
The 'feeling' is the evidence. That it is evidence of a god is a conclusion.

If I draw a false conclusion based on any evidence, the conclusion is not evidence. The evidence remains unchanged despite the conclusion. If the evidence was not evidence of the false conclusion before the conclusion was drawn, then it cannot become evidence for the false conclusion after the conclusion is drawn.
Click to expand...
How would that be different from saying "The fossils are the evidence. That they are evidence of evolution is a conclusion."?
 
Egg said:
How would that be different from saying "The fossils are the evidence. That they are evidence of evolution is a conclusion."?
Click to expand...
The difference is that with some conclusions about evidence, the conclusions have been repeatably verified to be correct conclusions. So we act on those conclusions as if the conclusions are correct making the evidence now "evidence of".

If it turns out our conclusions are wrong, as has happened many times in the past, then the evidence no longer can be said to be evidence of the false conclusion.

You have to understand the nature of evidence and conclusions to understand how "evidence of" differs from "evidence".

If I hold up my hand at a stop sign and say that is evidence I stopped the car that stopped at that stop sign, would you say that was evidence I stopped the car? If I claimed I ordered in my head for Bush to start a war, would that be evidence my thoughts controlled the ex-Pres? How about if I claimed that when I get dizzy, the oceans are draining into Middle Earth?

See how I can really get far fetched claiming anything is evidence of anything? Where do you draw the line? If there is no line then what is the value of evidence?

The value is, the evidence remains unchanged regardless of the conclusions drawn about that evidence. So if you claim a 'feeling' is evidence of gods, I can say, there is not sufficient evidence for that conclusion and until there is, your claim is not sufficient to say there is evidence of gods. My claim being dizzy means the ocean is draining into Middle Earth is not sufficient to say there is evidence of such a connection or even that the ocean draining is a fact.

The fossils, on the other hand, have been repeatedly verified as evidence of evolution. So we can say with confidence the fossils are evidence of evolution.

Sometimes we will be wrong. We might believe there is evidence of something and later find out there isn't. But with feelings of gods becoming evidence of gods, that connection cannot be made from the get go. Until you have a bit more to give us, there is no evidence of gods anymore than there is evidence I control Bush with thought waves.
 
Last edited:
By "mysticism" do you mean some sort of subjective experience? If so, I reject that as evidence of anything.

What is in example of such evidence? Someone had a dream or a vision? Sorry--that's not evidence of anything. How about NDE or OBE? Are those evidence of the existence of discarnate consciousness?

If that were true then my dream of flying would be evidence of my ability to fly.

The mind can dream or imagine anything. It is evidence of nothing except the mind.
 
For example--on another thread someone said he has this subjective experience where he thinks he is hearing other people's thoughts and that he can sometimes make other people hear his thoughts. His question was, "If I'm not psychic, am I schizophrenic."

Is his experience evidence of psychic ability?

No. We've got a wealth of data that shows the ability to read minds does not exist. We know for a fact that hallucinations actually do happen.

If we wanted to answer the question, "Does this guy have psychic abilities?" would you take his subjective experiences (what I would call hallucinations) as evidence?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
No. We've got a wealth of data that shows the ability to read minds does not exist. We know for a fact that hallucinations actually do happen.

If we wanted to answer the question, "Does this guy have psychic abilities?" would you take his subjective experiences (what I would call hallucinations) as evidence?
Click to expand...
And don't forget parsimony. To assume psychic ability we would have to posit unkown supernatural abilities when there is another simpler explanation.
 
skeptigirl said:
The difference is that with some conclusions about evidence, the conclusions have been repeatably verified to be correct conclusions. So we act on those conclusions as if the conclusions are correct making the evidence now "evidence of".
Click to expand...

How have they been verified? I'm just curious really, I'm working today and don't have much time to engage. You could say that mystical insights have been repeatedly verified by other mystics. In fact there are things you could do that would allow you to have certain experiences of this sort, and change your perceptions. It's pretty simple stuff.

skeptigirl said:
If it turns out our conclusions are wrong, as has happened many times in the past, then the evidence no longer can be said to be evidence of the false conclusion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - it ceases to be evidence at that point. Of course we can almost never prove a theory wrong absolutely, but we need not worry about that here.

skeptigirl said:
You have to understand the nature of evidence and conclusions to understand how "evidence of" differs from "evidence".

If I hold up my hand at a stop sign and say that is evidence I stopped the car that stopped at that stop sign, would you say that was evidence I stopped the car? If I claimed I ordered in my head for Bush to start a war, would that be evidence my thoughts controlled the ex-Pres? How about if I claimed that when I get dizzy, the oceans are draining into Middle Earth?
Click to expand...

It's evidence you make the claim. I think what is misleading you her eis that you are reading "subjective personal individual experience" when I mention mysticism. I'm talking about loss of self identity, oceanic feeling, white light,noetic sense of authority, etc, etc - phenomenological states not contents of ideation. Yes you can think of all kinds of ideas, and that is not any more than the lowest grade of evidence. I'm not making that claim.

skeptigirl said:
See how I can really get far fetched claiming anything is evidence of anything? Where do you draw the line? If there is no line then what is the value of evidence?
Click to expand...

It ceases to be evidence if it is irrelevant, if it has no significance to the hyypothesis "london buses are red" is not evidence for life on Venus. It becoomes weak evidence if the evidence can be better explained by another theory, but note we have now left science and entered in to subjective value judgments about what is "better" as an explanation - and even if the evidence can be explained by another hypothesis, even if parsimony can be invoked against it, that does not actually stop it being evidence for rival hypotheses, as endless examples from the history of science show. Look at this artuicle, it';s an important concept in science, scientific method and scepticism --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

Got to dash, but more later if i have time

cj x
 
Last I checked Fossils were not "evidence" of "evolution" but rather evidence of a specific part of the theory. So lets not play fast and loose with the language here, makes it seem like ID at work.......oh............wait...........never mind.
 
skeptigirl said:
If I hold up my hand at a stop sign and say that is evidence I stopped the car that stopped at that stop sign, would you say that was evidence I stopped the car? If I claimed I ordered in my head for Bush to start a war, would that be evidence my thoughts controlled the ex-Pres? How about if I claimed that when I get dizzy, the oceans are draining into Middle Earth?

See how I can really get far fetched claiming anything is evidence of anything? Where do you draw the line? If there is no line then what is the value of evidence?
Click to expand...


I think it is important not to get lost in the possible equivocations.

Technically, holding up your hand at a stop sign is evidence that you stopped the car. It is not proof that you did so, but it is evidence. It happens to be terrible evidence for that conclusion, but if someone wanted to think the process through in a different way, your holding up your hand could serve as useful evidence for them. They would be wrong, and we would have to show how and why their thinking is wrong, but I don't think we could technically say that they were acting on no evidence. I mean, they saw you hold up your hand, and they saw the car stop.

We need to remember that the way we communicate this stuff is by short-hand, as fls mentioned earlier in this or some other thread. When we say that we have evidence for some proposition, generally what we mean is that we have good evidence for that proposition, evidence that strongly supports it.

Evidence is any statement or fact that helps you to form an opinion or prove a proposition. Technically, anything is evidence of anything.

But some evidence is **** and some evidence is good.

Technically, there is evidence for the existence of God. I happen to think the evidence is either complete or nearly complete garbage (and I am still waiting for the evidence that all mystical experiences converge on one reality), but I personally wouldn't say that there is no evidence. I also happen to think that there is very good (in fact, much better than the positive evidence for God) counter evidence that personal gods do not exist. I do understand what you are saying though, and I agree with you perfectly in spirit.

Equivocating over the term really doesn't help either side.
 
cj.23 said:
How does Tiktaalik falsify the relationship Egg and I suggest? A successful prediction from morphology, yes, so?
Click to expand...
Yes. So.

To make a successful prediction - short of pure luck - you need a predictive model and a base dataset. We have both. You have neither.

I don't see how the difference can be made any more plain.
 
It's not about equivocating, Ichne. This is a philosophical argument. It is about one's concept of what evidence is.

I understand what people mean when they call something evidence 'of/for' but the fact is, 'of/for' is added to the word for a reason. It is added because the evidence itself exists without the conclusion.

In our debates, one side felt the 'of/for' was inherent in the definition of 'evidence'. An object, for example, became something else when you called it evidence. Calling the object evidence means it has a relationship with a conclusion.

If one takes that philosophical position, however, then one runs into difficulty with the very thing we are discussing here, is claiming something is evidence of/for something mean evidence for that thing exists?

With that position, you could argue there is evidence for everything anyone ever believed in. Your concept of evidence then becomes less useful. The definition of evidence would be anything one used to draw a conclusion about. So far so good, but.... does that also mean evidence exists for false conclusions? Does just saying the evidence is unconvincing or weak really describe the condition of 'no evidence supporting'?

Suppose you do some research and you draw an unsupported conclusion. Can I say there is evidence for an unsupported conclusion? No, I can say the conclusion was a non sequitur. In my concept of evidence the evidence exists apart from the conclusion. I don't run into the problems one has by using a concept that the conclusion is an inherent part of the evidence even if the conclusion is wrong.

There is no evidence of gods. There is, however, lots of evidence people generate mythical beliefs about gods. That is much more accurate than saying there is evidence for gods but there is more evidence for myths. Can you point out the evidence for gods? Is the fact people believe in gods evidence for gods? How could you ever state there was a condition of 'no evidence for' something?

This is about how one conceptualizes the meaning of evidence. A conclusion is not evidence for that conclusion. Just saying something is evidence for something does not create evidence however weak, for that something. It should be obvious which concept makes more sense.


Another thing, just because I am insisting on the condition of 'no evidence' existing, that does not preclude conditions where 'unconvincing' and/or 'weak' evidence exists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom