Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[Ichneumonwasp]

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? Id 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.

Yes, I understand that it is a philosophical issue, but like virtually all philosophical issues, it rests on equivocation.

Evidence can only be of or for some conclusion. If it is not used of or for a conclusion, then it is not evidence, but mere data. I don't see how you could argue that evidence exists apart from a conclusion. Evidence is not defined by independent existence, but in its function. It is that which helps us to form a conclusion.

And, yes, the conclusion can be wrong.

The problem is not in the claim that we have evidence for something existing, it is in thinking that evidence for its existence is good or useful evidence or that the evidence somehow proves the object's existence. In other words, simply because there may be evidence for the existence of God does not necessarily move the argument foreward because there is equally compelling evidence against the existence of God.

This same issue arose in the interminable debates over Bayes' theorem. One side simply presented only the positive evidence and tried to draw a firm conclusion based on that positive evidence (the world is more likely to exist if there is a designer). That can be used as evidence for a designer; but there is equally compelling evidence against a designer and there are many other explanations for the evidence (the existence of the world) that are plausible than that the world was designed.

When you say that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) what you are really saying is that you do not find any evidence offered compelling. I get that and I agree with you.

I don't have any problem with you or anyone else using the phrase "there is no evidence for the existence of god(s)" because I understand that you are using a short-hand way of saying -- "the evidence that you have presented (mystical experience, for example) is utterly unreliable and can be interpreted in many other ways that do not lead to the conclusion that you have offered."

You use the same evidence (which is not independent of the conclusion) as cj and Egg in a different framework to arrive at a different conclusion. In your framework, the universe is comprised of a single substance and mind is a consequence of brain action. The experience of divine unity is simply a brain process that includes the same mechanisms that underly depersonalization in a simple partial seizure or some other similar phenomenon.

Cj argues from an entirely different framework, however. In his framework there are at least two entirely different types of substance in the world, with one being material and another being divine (generally there is a third that involves mind or soul). For him, a mystical encounter is evidence of the greater divine realm. So, yes, he can speak of evidence for the existence of God. He uses that evidence -- mystical experience -- to support his conclusion, that God exists.

The problem is not that there is no evidence. The problem exists in question formation. Which framework makes more sense?

I think that one is easy. Monism makes sense. Dualism doesn't. Dualism rests on a central problem that no one has ever solved. That is why his evidence is weak, because he interprets it within a framework that doesn't seem to work.

ETA:

Please don't think that I am accusing anyone of intentionally equivocating. There are many reasons why we equivocate over the use of words; I think this is one that depends on the underlying assumptions from each side. Evidence not only cannot be interpreted completely in isolation from a conclusion, but it also cannot be interpreted absent a supporting intepretive framework. You guys are simply using different frameworks to interpret the same data, so you see the evidence in different ways. You see no evidence for the existence of gods, and from your framework that makes perfect sense. CJ sees some evidence for the existence of God, and from the viewpoint of his framework that makes perfect sense.

Discussing whether or not there is evidence for the existence of God won't lift any of you guys out of the circle you are in. You need to start examining the interpretive frameworks. It is probably the case that one is consistent and the other isn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

There are rules regarding evidence. The rules developed as humans learned what was successful and what wasn't. It's true people don't all agree. Lot's of folks think their personal anecdotal experience is evidence of cause and effect. That's where critical thinking skills come in. That's where logic and the scientific process come in.

A bunch of people all agreeing they believe in gods or some mystical experience is not verification of evidence. Scientists repeating research, coming to the same conclusions time and time again using rigorous scientific methodology is one way to verify evidence 'of' a conclusion. Good critical thinking skills sort the wheat from the chafe.

And how do we know that? Simple, science is successful. The results are repeatable. Multiple disciplines reinforce conclusions. Radio carbon dating supports geologic evidence supports paleontological evidence which in turn is supported by genetic evidence. Win-win-win-win we all win.

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.

You have it backward. We prove lots of hypotheses and theories wrong. But only laws are proved right. Laws are in physics and math. With scientific theories, there is no need to prove them right. We simply keep improving on them and acting of the best evidence supported conclusions as we go.

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.

It is not I who is misled, my friend. I'll put my successful science up against your imaginary speculative mysticism any day.

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...

Again we have the confusion between no evidence, weak evidence, strong evidence, overwhelming evidence and proof. And you have confusion about how do we know?

Over time, scientific methodology, rules of logic, critical thinking skills have all proven their superiority over what you call mysticism, over god explanations for things, over rituals performed in an attempt to control the Universe.

Science works, god beliefs do not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I understand that it is a philosophical issue, but like virtually all philosophical issues, it rests on equivocation.

Evidence can only be of or for some conclusion. If it is not used of or for a conclusion, then it is not evidence, but mere data. I don't see how you could argue that evidence exists apart from a conclusion. Evidence is not defined by independent existence, but in its function. It is that which helps us to form a conclusion.

I did not say evidence had no relationship to a conclusion. I said the conclusion had no impact on the evidence. If it is not evidence for gods, believing it is evidence for gods does not make it evidence for gods.

And, yes, the conclusion can be wrong.

The problem is not in the claim that we have evidence for something existing, it is in thinking that evidence for its existence is good or useful evidence or that the evidence somehow proves the object's existence. In other words, simply because there may be evidence for the existence of God does not necessarily move the argument foreward because there is equally compelling evidence against the existence of God.

This same issue arose in the interminable debates over Bayes' theorem. One side simply presented only the positive evidence and tried to draw a firm conclusion based on that positive evidence (the world is more likely to exist if there is a designer). That can be used as evidence for a designer; but there is equally compelling evidence against a designer and there are many other explanations for the evidence (the existence of the world) that are plausible than that the world was designed.

When you say that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) what you are really saying is that you do not find any evidence offered compelling. I get that and I agree with you.

No, I am saying the evidence does not exist. That someone else disagrees does not bother me. There is a way to sort out what constitutes 'evidence of' and what constitutes a false claim there is 'evidence of'. It goes beyond 'compelling', 'suggestive', 'possible', 'might be' and so on. It goes all the way to 'is not'.

I don't have any problem with you or anyone else using the phrase "there is no evidence for the existence of god(s)" because I understand that you are using a short-hand way of saying -- "the evidence that you have presented (mystical experience, for example) is utterly unreliable and can be interpreted in many other ways that do not lead to the conclusion that you have offered."

You use the same evidence (which is not independent of the conclusion) as cj and Egg in a different framework to arrive at a different conclusion. In your framework, the universe is comprised of a single substance and mind is a consequence of brain action. The experience of divine unity is simply a brain process that includes the same mechanisms that underly depersonalization in a simple partial seizure or some other similar phenomenon.

Cj argues from an entirely different framework, however. In his framework there are at least two entirely different types of substance in the world, with one being material and another being divine (generally there is a third that involves mind or soul). For him, a mystical encounter is evidence of the greater divine realm. So, yes, he can speak of evidence for the existence of God. He uses that evidence -- mystical experience -- to support his conclusion, that God exists.

The problem is not that there is no evidence. The problem exists in question formation. Which framework makes more sense?

In this case, the problem is I don't agree with your philosophy. I have a philosophy of a more certain Universe. I'm willing to say there is minimal evidence, but I am unwilling to say the condition of 'no evidence' does not exist. A conclusion does not create evidence in my Universe. If you want to argue that someone's internal mind experience is evidence for gods, then by all means, put your best case forward. But that isn't what you are claiming here. You are trying to claim we all get to define what is evidence of what.

By that argument, everything is true. I can't argue with your conclusions and you can't argue with mine. Should we determine reality by vote then? Does evidence determine reality or does one's conclusions determine reality?

I think that one is easy. Monism makes sense. Dualism doesn't. Dualism rests on a central problem that no one has ever solved. That is why his evidence is weak, because he interprets it within a framework that doesn't seem to work.

ETA:

Please don't think that I am accusing anyone of intentionally equivocating. There are many reasons why we equivocate over the use of words; I think this is one that depends on the underlying assumptions from each side. Evidence not only cannot be interpreted completely in isolation from a conclusion, but it also cannot be interpreted absent a supporting intepretive framework. You guys are simply using different frameworks to interpret the same data, so you see the evidence in different ways. You see no evidence for the existence of gods, and from your framework that makes perfect sense. CJ sees some evidence for the existence of God, and from the viewpoint of his framework that makes perfect sense.

I understand cj's and most other gods believers' frameworks. But I have no qualms stating that in this case, they are basing their conclusions on NO evidence. Not weak evidence, not evidence they believe exists and I don't, but NO evidence. There is NO evidence they can present, can show, can put forth to be examined, NO evidence that meets the minimum criteria to be called evidence of gods.

That they believe they have evidence does not create evidence. You seem to think we should take their word for it. We should recognize it is evidence to them, therefore it is evidence. Your Universe is fair and generous. Mine is rigid and demanding. If you can't meet minimum standards of evidence 'of/for' something, you cannot by decree of your conclusion claim you have evidence 'of/for' something.

You think I don't get what you are saying. I get it. But I don't have the same philosophical approach to the Universe as you do. There is no right or wrong here, there are just different philosophies about interpreting our Universe.

Discussing whether or not there is evidence for the existence of God won't lift any of you guys out of the circle you are in. You need to start examining the interpretive frameworks. It is probably the case that one is consistent and the other isn't.

I'm not in a circle. I have no need to 'get along'. I have no need to reach a consensus here.

You seem to be arguing for equal rights when it comes to claiming to be right. But if two people disagree about the conclusion supported by the evidence, only one can be right.

With all this discussion you avoided the one thing I challenged you to answer, how do you account for something for which there is NO EVIDENCE? In your interpretation of what evidence is, you have no case for 'no evidence'.

"We are all welcome to our own opinions, but not our own facts" could just as easily be said as, "we are all subject to our own conclusions, but not our own claim evidence for our conclusions exists."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

My Chrsistian friends always seem surprised that I no longer believe the same things they do and I try to teach them about evolution. Like most theists they mistake evolution for abiogensis and thus I have to try and explain evolution to them. Of course no matter how much evolution is explained they always make arguments for the origin of life and don't seem to grasp evolution. So the try to dismiss evolution by claiming there is no evidence that life just came from nothing.

My response is generally to ask them how it started to which of course they respond that God created it.And to which I inform them that claiming God did it is not an explanation, it's an assertion. it does not answer the question of how it was done, it simply answers the question of who did it.

Then the evidence provided is "God spoke it into existence" as if that is a satisfying answer. Then they don't seem to understand why I don't see them telling me that god spoke the universe into existence is evidence. And keep in mind this is always after claiming that abiogenesis (which they call evolution) has no evidence.

I have tried hundred of methods to explain that simply making an assertion even if it includes a verb is not evidence, but I haven't met one that gets it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am all still laughing about the post that refers to evolution as a "hypothesis". Funny stuff!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I did not say evidence had no relationship to a conclusion. I said the conclusion had no impact on the evidence. If it is not evidence for gods, believing it is evidence for gods does not make it evidence for gods.

Um, yes it does because evidence is not proof. It is evidence. It is that which helps us to form a conclusion,not that which proves a conclusion true or false (though it may do that too if it is very strong).

No, I am saying the evidence does not exist. That someone else disagrees does not bother me. There is a way to sort out what constitutes 'evidence of' and what constitutes a false claim there is 'evidence of'. It goes beyond 'compelling', 'suggestive', 'possible', 'might be' and so on. It goes all the way to 'is not'.

OK, then you are simply wrong. That a claim is false does not mean that the evidence does not exist. It means that the evidence is not properly intepreted.

To sort out this issue we would have to get into the difference between correspondence and pragmatic theories of truth. In a pragmatic sense there is no such thing as no evidence of gods. If you are propounding a correspondence theory of truth, then please provide me with your proof for the absolute non-existence of gods, because that is what you are suggesting.

In this case, the problem is I don't agree with your philosophy. I have a philosophy of a more certain Universe. I'm willing to say there is minimal evidence, but I am unwilling to say the condition of 'no evidence' does not exist. A conclusion does not create evidence in my Universe. If you want to argue that someone's internal mind experience is evidence for gods, then by all means, put your best case forward. But that isn't what you are claiming here. You are trying to claim we all get to define what is evidence of what.

What best case? It is simply evidence. It is lousy evidence that can be better interpreted in a different framework, but it is evidence.

We do define what is evidence. Please do not confuse evidence with proof. That there is evidence of something does not mean that thing is proved. It means only that there is evidence of it.

By that argument, everything is true. I can't argue with your conclusions and you can't argue with mine. Should we determine reality by vote then? Does evidence determine reality or does one's conclusions determine reality?

If you are going to make that argument, I can only suggest that you completely misunderstand the point and that you are confusing evidence with proof.

I understand cj's and most other gods believers' frameworks. But I have no qualms stating that in this case, they are basing their conclusions on NO evidence. Not weak evidence, not evidence they believe exists and I don't, but NO evidence. There is NO evidence they can present, can show, can put forth to be examined, NO evidence that meets the minimum criteria to be called evidence of gods.

So you are essentially claiming that they are raving lunatics who willy-nilly believe **** for no reason? Come on. There is a reason why they believe as they do. They have offered minimal evidence for why they believe as they do. They didn't just make all this up one day out of the blue and decide to believe it. If you want to argue against their position, it seems to me that it would make more sense to abandon the "they have no evidence" line and attack their assumptions. That is where they are weak.

That they believe they have evidence does not create evidence. You seem to think we should take their word for it. We should recognize it is evidence to them, therefore it is evidence. Your Universe is fair and generous. Mine is rigid and demanding. If you can't meet minimum standards of evidence 'of/for' something, you cannot by decree of your conclusion claim you have evidence 'of/for' something.

Again, you seem to be confusing "evidence" either with "proof" or "compelling evidence". My universe is what it is. The problem is that I recognize that cannot know what it is. Whether or not gods exist is not one of those things that I can prove, so I cannot speak as though I have absolute evidence/proof one way or another. I think there is virtually absolutely compelling evidence against the existence of personal gods and trivial evidence for them.

You think I don't get what you are saying. I get it. But I don't have the same philosophical approach to the Universe as you do. There is no right or wrong here, there are just different philosophies about interpreting our Universe.

OK, fair enough. It would help then if you could define what model of truth you are employing. If you think that there is a fixed reality that we can know absolutely -- if you are using that framework -- it leads to different conclusions from those of us who think we have to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and figure out this mess from the inside of our skulls and arrive at practical solutions. If you assume a pragmatic theory of truth, then it appears to me that you are using the word "evidence" to mean "compelling evidence". I don't see how else to make sense of many of your statements.

I'm not in a circle. I have no need to 'get along'. I have no need to reach a consensus here.

I didn't say that you were in a circle. I meant that the conversation was in a circle. We covered this ground and reached a consensus on or around the second or third page of this thread on this very topic. If you don't want to reach a consensus, then I don't really understand why you are discussing this. Conversation is not brow-beating. I thought it was supposed to be a meeting of the minds so that we can reach for better truths. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that, I don't know.

You seem to be arguing for equal rights when it comes to claiming to be right. But if two people disagree about the conclusion supported by the evidence, only one can be right.

I'm not arguing for equal rights. I think cj and Egg are simply wrong. I think they arrive at the wrong conclusion. I do not think they do so because there is no evidence. I think they simply do not properly interpret the evidence that we have.

With all this discussion you avoided the one thing I challenged you to answer, how do you account for something for which there is NO EVIDENCE? In your interpretation of what evidence is, you have no case for 'no evidence'.

Something for which there is no evidence cannot be discussed, so I'm afraid I don't get your point. If we have thought of something, then it is logically possible, so there is minimal evidence for its existence -- its logical possibility. That is not physical evidence, obviously, but it is a type of evidence.

Evidence is not only physical, in the sense that you can touch it and smell it. There is clear evidence for the possible existence of the FSM. I've seen the pictures. The FSM is logically possible because it was conceived in the mind. There is virtually certain evidence that the FSM is a figment of the imagination, so I do not believe that it exists in reality.

"We are all welcome to our own opinions, but not our own facts" could just as easily be said as, "we are all subject to our own conclusions, but not our own claim evidence for our conclusions exists."

I'm afraid I can't parse exactly what you mean there, but I think you mean that we cannot decide on our own what is and what is not evidence? Sure, we can. We can because evidence is not proof.

So, let's say that you meet someone who claims to believe in the great Kahuna. You rightfully ask why they believe the way they do. They give you reasons why -- that is their evidence for why they believe. It is simply not the case that they do not have evidence, for they clearly do. You may think the evidence poor and argue with them for a better interpretation of the evidence they have provided. The evidence can then be seen to back a different conclusion, but it is not the case that there was no evidence for their original conclusion because it was right there -- they gave it to you.

What there is is data. Mystical experience is an experience, a datum point. It becomes evidence when it is used to back a conclusion. It is data that is independent of a conclusion, not evidence. Evidence is data in a functional role -- being used to support or refute a conclusion. Within a framework that admits the probability of gods, mystical experiences can be used as evidence for the existence of gods. It can do this because we do not know absolutely if gods exist or do not exist.

What I am suggesting is that we can all move beyond quibbling over the definition of evidence to the real point -- what is the best framework for intepreting the data that we have?

Yes, one way of looking at the evidence works better than the other, so pragmatically, I think there is a pretty clear answer. My answer is that mysticism is very poor evidence for the existence of gods in large part because I reject dualism.

 

[nois forme]

You could say that mystical insights have been repeatedly verified by other mystics.

I would say that one mystic has never, and could never, verify another mystic's subjective experience. This is what is required for verification- third person perspective - and that is the point I believe. Something subjective cannot be verified by another.

I'm talking about loss of self identity, oceanic feeling, white light,noetic sense of authority,...

...all of which are unverifiable subjective experiences, at least with respect to being evidence (proof) of something 'mystical'. There are of course tests that can be made to show the very real, very physical mechanisms at work during such experiences. They lead toward nothing mystical, quite the contrary.

...and that is not any more than the lowest grade of evidence.

It seems you've opted for the lowest grade of definition for the term evidence. Perhaps the definition used in law? This is not the same as that used in science.

It might be fair to say that in a court of law, 'everything' that is thrown up would constitute evidence (whether ultimately helpful for the case or not). The same is not true of science. 'Evidence' in this context actually (tends to) prove or disprove something. Not everything imaginable that is regurgitated is to be considered 'evidence' in science.

Granted you qualify this further on, referring to that which can't be considered evidence (if it is completely unrelated to the hypothesis, etc.), but it seems where you draw this line of what constitutes valid or relevant evidence is quite different than where I (and those interested in testing something scientifically) might.
The completely subjective experiences you refer to can be evidence of nothing to anyone other than those experiencing them as they are not measurable, testable or even verifiable in any way that would suggest something mystical.

...we have now left science and entered in to subjective value judgments about what is "better" as an explanation

No, we use 'better' in this context not in the subjective sense in which you
interpret it here. The case is rather 'that which most closely mirrors or explains that which is observed/known' ('known' to be read: repeatedly testable with same results) is loosely called 'better' (simply, more accurate according to observed phenomenon - not a value judgment).

The 'better' of the subjective, value judgement sort would be used in reference to things which cannot be tested (or observed from third person perspective) - i.e., the things you listed above, or the taste of chocolate ice cream vs. that of vanilla. Different breed of 'better' I think.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It seems you've opted for the lowest grade of definition for the term evidence. Perhaps the definition used in law? This is not the same as that used in science.

It might be fair to say that in a court of law, 'everything' that is thrown up would constitute evidence (whether ultimately helpful for the case or not). The same is not true of science. 'Evidence' in this context actually (tends to) prove or disprove something. Not everything imaginable that is regurgitated is to be considered 'evidence' in science.

Granted you qualify this further on, referring to that which can't be considered evidence (if it is completely unrelated to the hypothesis, etc.), but it seems where you draw this line of what constitutes valid or relevant evidence is quite different than where I (and those interested in testing something scientifically) might.
The completely subjective experiences you refer to can be evidence of nothing to anyone other than those experiencing them as they are not measurable, testable or even verifiable in any way that would suggest something mystical.

Welcome to the forums and excellent post!

Yes, that seems to be exactly how cj is using the term. As I have been trying to tell SK, another poster (fls) much earlier in the thread mentioned that when we we say things like "you have no evidence" we are really using short-hand for "you have not presented any compelling evidence". I think that is perfectly fine short-hand for the way we use the word here and in science, but it leaves open the possibility for equivocation over the use of the word.

I just wish we could all get beyond discussing this word and get to the meat of the matter -- what the frameworks mean and why one works and the other doesn't.

As you so rightly point out, subjective evidence is never going to be inter-subjective (or objective). And I am still waiting for the evidence that there is so much commonality amongst these "mystical experiences" that we could even try to talk about them as though they are describing another actual reality. I've heard the claim numerous times, but so far no one has supplied the actual evidence that this is true. Whenever I try to look at mystical experiences I don't come away with the notion that everyone is describing another reality in the same way that we can all describe a tree in the same way. Perhaps it's just me?

 

[Mister Agenda]

God is an explanation for mystical experiences, but we have other explanations that are more parsimonious, just as we have more parsimonious explanations for epilepsy than demon possession.

 

[fls]

I just wish we could all get beyond discussing this word and get to the meat of the matter -- what the frameworks mean and why one works and the other doesn't.

I have used the word 'symmetry' to refer to the idea that there is no way to distinguish between two different frameworks, and the 'breaking of symmetry' when some way is found to distinguish the two. And this idea has always fascinated me - from the solving of cryptograms, to Indeterminacy of Radical Interpretation, to String Theory. But symmetry is broken in this case by consideration of what is useful. Scientific theories are useful - they can make predictions, one can proceed based on the results of the theories rather than depending upon empirical information (e.g. sending rockets to Mars, GPS satellites), they can lead to technology that works, and most importantly (to me) they can suggest novel connections (that is, they free us from the limitations of human imagination).

ETA: 'Parsimony' falls under 'useful'.

When I think of 'evidence', I think of something that helps to break symmetry; something that constrains an idea so that it can only go one way and not another; something that is not merely descriptive.

Linda

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have used the word 'symmetry' to refer to the idea that there is no way to distinguish between two different frameworks, and the 'breaking of symmetry' when some way is found to distinguish the two. And this idea has always fascinated me - from the solving of cryptograms, to Indeterminacy of Radical Interpretation, to String Theory. But symmetry is broken in this case by consideration of what is useful. Scientific theories are useful - they can make predictions, one can proceed based on the results of the theories rather than depending upon empirical information (e.g. sending rockets to Mars, GPS satellites), they can lead to technology that works, and most importantly (to me) they can suggest novel connections (that is, they free us from the limitations of human imagination).

ETA: 'Parsimony' falls under 'useful'.

When I think of 'evidence', I think of something that helps to break symmetry; something that constrains an idea so that it can only go one way and not another; something that is not merely descriptive.

Linda

I think that is a very good way of looking at the issue. Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with multiple meanings for words, so we get caught in these definitional issues over and over again. I think everyone knows what everyone else means here, so we can perhaps move on? Personally, I love the idea of symmetry breaking. I think that would add a very useful way of moving forward in this debate.

What about it, cj? Egg?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, that seems to be exactly how cj is using the term. As I have been trying to tell SK, another poster (fls) much earlier in the thread mentioned that when we we say things like "you have no evidence" we are really using short-hand for "you have not presented any compelling evidence". I think that is perfectly fine short-hand for the way we use the word here and in science, but it leaves open the possibility for equivocation over the use of the word.

No, it goes much deeper than that. CJ has no way to differentiate between supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, and observations that neither support nor contradict his claims.

If you can't do that, then you can't claim any evidence at all.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it goes much deeper than that. CJ has no way to differentiate between supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, and observations that neither support nor contradict his claims.

If you can't do that, then you can't claim any evidence at all.

He does within his own framework. Mysticism is supporting evidence for the existence of God in a framework based in dualism. It is not supporting evidence in your and my framework.

 

[nois forme]

Welcome to the forums and excellent post!

Thanks very much.

I just wish we could all get beyond discussing this word and get to the meat of the matter...

Indeed! Sadly, esp. in this case it seems, semantics are forced to the forefront. It needs to be dealt with as the idea of 'evidence' has become central to the argument. *sigh*

I suspect that those insistent on using a very generalized definition of a term, or one that is not the commonly excepted one, do so because when we do get to the meat of the matter, they will find their plate rather...empty.
If you need to craft highly specious definitions to make your hypothesis appear viable, you might want to reevaluate your stance.

And I am still waiting for the evidence that there is so much commonality amongst these "mystical experiences" that we could even try to talk about them as though they are describing another actual reality.

I await this as well. Although I should say, if it were somehow possible to show that every single 'mystical' experience ever experienced by a human being were in fact exactly identical to one another, this would do nothing to help suggest that it were supernatural in any way, only that our brains contain the same chemicals. This is of course, not surprising in the least.

Perhaps it's just me?

Nope. Thanks for the welcome.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I await this as well. Although I should say, if it were somehow possible to show that every single 'mystical' experience ever experienced by a human being were in fact exactly identical to one another, this would do nothing to help suggest that it were supernatural in any way, only that our brains contain the same chemicals. This is of course, not surprising in the least.

Yes, most definitely. I suspect, however, that we haven't been given clear evidence because a close examination of the mystical experiences does not produce a clear view of a single reality. Without that, the whole thing seems to collapse in worse shape than it was in to begin.

The existence of a world behind this world seems to me a very extraordinary claim. "Mystical experience", is not extraordinary evidence since a parsimonious explanation awaits in neuroscience.

 

[Darat]

There is a step we have to take before we can even get to considering if a "mystic experience" is evidence for god (no matter what definition of evidence we are using) and that is the definition of the word "god". Without that you can't make any meaningful statement about whether a "mystic experience" is evidence of/for god.

Sorry to keep hawking back to this pinning down of the definition for the word "god" but it is essential if anyone wants to have a discussion like we are trying to do in this thread.