Can theists be rational?

[fls]

Is this it...

I think it is a good one in any event.

That wasn't it, but you did discover the right author (sorry blobru for not remembering it was you).

This is what I was thinking of:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4322700#post4322700

Linda

 

[RandFan]

I thought I had. I posted the citation because it supports my statement.

It's useless. Unless of course you think Watson is an authority...

That's not exactly how I would use the phrase.

Be that as it may it is an appeal to authority. Otherwise it is useless. My uncle Bob believes it's likely that there is inteligent life in the universe outside of our solar system. That supports my claim that life is far more likely than god but it is still worthless, as is Watson's statement is worthless.

You'll have to show me where I implied that there is a basis to set an unknown value to zero. In fact, I've consistently said that the only basis for setting such a value to zero would be to indicate an impossibility.

I think this is disengenous. You are arguing two sides. It's not at all helpful and it would be nice if you could make up your mind.

So we DO know the conditions and circumstances necessary for the emergence of life? Do tell!

The EXACT ones? I don't know them but we have a damn good idea and we are getting closer all of the time. The notion that we don't know the exact conditions is eqivilant to having no idea is nonsense.

The probability of both are unknown (except that the probability is between 0 and 1).

Huge difference between the two.

From the book by John Allen Paulos (an expert in his field) Innumeracy. Page 53 (paperback) That there is at least one instance is a significant factor in figuring probability (paraphrased).

And we have more than that. We know that there are 100,000,000 stars in our galaxy and there are 300,000,000 + galaxies in our universe. We know what elements are needed for life. We know those elements are abundant throughout the universe. We are discovering exo planets and are finding that planets are common.

To state that the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system and god is the same (no matter how you express it) is absurd.

• There is no evidence that a god has ever existed.
• We don't know anything about what a god would entail or require.

There simply is no justification to equate the two.

They are both possible. And the probabilities of both are unknown. That's what I said.

While we can't exactly calculate the probability of extra solar inteligent life we can deduce that there is ever so much more probability of extra solar inteligent life for the reasons stated.

• We know what elements are requisite of life.
• We know that those elements of life exist through out the universe.
• We know that the probabiliy of inteligent life in our universe is "1".

God? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

They don't equate no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it.

 

[Bri]

I think this is disengenous. You are arguing two sides. It's not at all helpful and it would be nice if you could make up your mind.

Again, please show me where I implied that there is a basis to set an unknown value to zero, or else please stop accusing me of being disingenuous.

The EXACT ones? I don't know them but we have a damn good idea and we are getting closer all of the time. The notion that we don't know the exact conditions is eqivilant to having no idea is nonsense.

I never said we had no idea. What I said to which you responded "?" and later said was naive was "we don't know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life." The notion that "we don't know the exact conditions" is equivalent to "we know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life" is nonsense.

Huge difference between the two.

...

To state that the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system and god is the same (no matter how you express it) is absurd.

• There is no evidence that a god has ever existed.
• We don't know anything about what a god would entail or require.

There simply is no justification to equate the two.

I didn't equate the two or say that they are the same. What I said was that the probability for each is unknown but greater than 0.

While we can't exactly calculate the probability of extra solar inteligent life we can deduce that there is ever so much more probability of extra solar inteligent life for the reasons stated.

Unfortunately, the probability for each is unknown (somewhere between 0 and 1). I'm not certain how you calculate that the probability of one is "ever so much" higher than the other.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Again, please show me where I implied that there is a basis to set an unknown value to zero, or else please stop accusing me of being disingenuous.

I trust you're not saying that you think that Watson is the only person who believes that some of the terms are mere speculation are you?

The notion that "we don't know the exact conditions" is equivalent to "we know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life" is nonsense.

Perhaps overstated but NOT nonsense. We have a pretty damn good idea and the notion that we don't is nonsense. You are making the ID argument that we "just don't know". Sorry, we have some very good models and are working to nail it down.

I didn't equate the two or say that they are the same. What I said was that the probability for each is unknown but greater than 0.

Which implies that they are the same. God (depending on how you define it/him/her) isn't an impossibility. That's it. It's not a logical impossibility.

To state that not impossible is the same as the N probability of extra solar intelegent life is absurd. As Paulos notes, the very fact that there is a probability of "1" of such an instance is a significant factor as far as probability goes.

Unfortunately, the probability for each is unknown (somewhere between 0 and 1). I'm not certain how you calculate that the probability of one is "ever so much" higher than the other.

So are they the same or not? What do you mean when you deny that you claim they are the same? Let me ask you, what is the difference if you do in fact deny that they are the same?

 

[RandFan]

Again, please show me where I implied that there is a basis to set an unknown value to zero, or else please stop accusing me of being disingenuous.

I trust you're not saying that you think that Watson is the only person who believes that some of the terms are mere speculation are you?

The notion that "we don't know the exact conditions" is equivalent to "we know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life" is nonsense.

Perhaps overstated but NOT nonsense. We have a pretty damn good idea and the notion that we don't is nonsense. That's the ID crap we keep hearing about. We are making significant progress and to pretend that we are not or to simply state that we don't know is what is disengenous.

I didn't equate the two or say that they are the same. What I said was that the probability for each is unknown but greater than 0.

Which implies that they are the same. God (depending on how you define it) isn't an impossibility. That's it. To state that the probability is anywhere near the probability of extra solar intelegent life is absurd. As Paulos notes, the very fact that there is a probability of "1" of such an instance is a significant factor as far as probability goes.

Unfortunately, the probability for each is unknown (somewhere between 0 and 1). I'm not certain how you calculate that the probability of one is "ever so much" higher than the other.

So are they the same or not? What do you mean when you deny that you claim they are the same? Let me ask you, what is the difference if you do in fact deny that they are the same?

 

[Bri]

Perhaps overstated but NOT nonsense. We have a pretty damn good idea and the notion that we don't is nonsense. You are making the ID argument that we "just don't know". Sorry, we have some very good models and are working to nail it down.

Unfortunately, until we "nail it down" the truth is that we don't know. And I suspect we're a long way from "a pretty damn good idea and notion" of many of the variables.

Which implies that they are the same.

Again, there are obviously differences between the two. They may even have different probabilities of existence. Unfortunately, there's no real way to know the probability of either since at least one variable for each is largely or entirely based on conjecture.

God (depending on how you define it/him/her) isn't an impossibility. That's it. It's not a logical impossibility.

In other words, the probability of a god is greater than 0 (i.e. not impossible).

To state that not impossible is the same as the N probability of extra solar intelegent life is absurd. As Paulos notes, the very fact that there is a probability of "1" of such an instance is a significant factor as far as probability goes.

There isn't a probability of 1 that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. There is a probability of 1 that there is intelligent life here. But unless and until we know the conditions and events by which life emerged on our planet, we can't assign a probability that those events occurred under those conditions elsewhere. The value for that variable in Drake's equation falls somewhere between 0 and 1, depending on who you ask. And that's just one of the variables.

So are they the same or not? What do you mean when you deny that you claim they are the same? Let me ask you, what is the difference if you do in fact deny that they are the same?

Are you asking if the probability is the same? They're both unknown. Once known, it's not likely that they'd be exactly the same. But I'm not sure it makes logical sense to try to speculate which of two unknown values is larger.

If you're asking whether there are differences between the beliefs, you've listed several and I pretty much agree with most of them. The problem is that even if we had complete data on some of the terms of Drake's equation, there are still several for which we have little or no data, meaning that they are currently speculation, meaning that any conclusion made from Drake's equation is speculation. Because most of the terms multiply the result between 0 and 1, not knowing even one variable makes the result unknown.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Unfortunately, until we "nail it down" the truth is that we don't know. And I suspect we're a long way from "a pretty damn good idea and notion" of many of the variables.

It doesn't work that way. We don't go from absolute ignorance to absolute certainty. Science works by hypothesizing models and ever working to improve the models. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. We actually have a very good understanding. However it is incomplete. Wiki.

In other words, the probability of a god is greater than 0 (i.e. not impossible).

We agree. As possible as unicorns, leprechauns and faieries.

There isn't a probability of 1 that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Agreed.

There is a probability of 1 that there is intelligent life here.

Which according to John Paulos is very significant.

But unless and until we know the conditions and events by which life emerged on our planet, we can't assign a probability that those events occurred under those conditions elsewhere.

We only need know that it happned once and that there is no reason to assume that it can't happen again. Given the high number of possibilities. 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000 (galaxies in the universe) stars and exo planets showing up pretty much everywhere we look.

You've listed several differences, pretty much all of which I've agreed to. The problem is that even if we had complete data on some of the terms of Drake's equation, there are still several for which we have little or no data, meaning that they are currently speculation, meaning that any conclusion made from Drake's equation is speculation. Because most of the terms multiply the result between 0 and 1, not knowing even one variable makes the result unknown.

Let me ask you this. Is god plausible? Is inteligent life outside of our universe plausible?

 

[RandFan]

For those following along I want to make clear that the notion that we are largely clueless as to abiogenesis is completly wrong. And the argument that we have to have complete and absolute knowledge before we can have a pretty good understanding is just nonsense. That fact is that we have filled in much of the puzzle and it is becoming clearer year after year.

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis


How Abiogenesis Works (forgive the extraneous cat photos).


These two videos are a bit redundant but I highly recomend watching them both. Note that organic molecules are actually common in our universe.

 

[fls]

Unfortunately, the probability for each is unknown (somewhere between 0 and 1). I'm not certain how you calculate that the probability of one is "ever so much" higher than the other.

-Bri

It has to be. If we start with 'everything is possible', we can remove bits and pieces here and big chunks there of those possibilities. For example, some of the numbers are derived empirically, and so almost all of the possibilities for that are removed. Other numbers have limits (for example, the average number of life-supporting planets per star is not greater than one million), which also removes possibilities.

There aren't any possibilites removed for God, so you're working with the whole piece - i.e. the denominator's as big as it can get.

Linda

 

[Bri]

It has to be. If we start with 'everything is possible', we can remove bits and pieces here and big chunks there of those possibilities. For example, some of the numbers are derived empirically, and so almost all of the possibilities for that are removed. Other numbers have limits (for example, the average number of life-supporting planets per star is not greater than one million), which also removes possibilities.

The problem is that some of the unknown variables are multipliers from 0 to 1, which means that they change the results somewhere between none and completely.

There aren't any possibilites removed for God, so you're working with the whole piece - i.e. the denominator's as big as it can get.

Not really. For example, the argument cj posted before assumes a fine-tuned universe. There are certainly scientific opinions on how fine-tuned it is (see the article I linked to on the Rare Earth hypothesis). The problem is that other variables are pretty well unknown, which changes the result somewhere between none and completely.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It doesn't work that way. We don't go from absolute ignorance to absolute certainty. Science works by hypothesizing models and ever working to improve the models. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. We actually have a very good understanding. However it is incomplete. Wiki.

We have a relatively good knowledge of parts of the puzzle (i.e. some of the terms of Drake's equation), and a very poor knowledge of other parts, which means that any conclusion drawn from the Drake equation is speculation. That's the nature of arguments based on a series of terms like Drake's equation. The confidence we can have in the result is only as high as the weakest term.

Which according to John Paulos is very significant.

Significant, sure. But not particularly significant to our confidence in the result of Drake's equation without the missing pieces.

We only need know that it happned once and that there is no reason to assume that it can't happen again.

The probability of it happening again is unknown.

Given the high number of possibilities. 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000 (galaxies in the universe) stars and exo planets showing up pretty much everywhere we look.

There are most likely a lot of planets, for sure. How many of them are exactly the same as earth? How many of them are "close enough" for intelligent life? What does "close enough" even mean? If the conditions necessary are extremely narrow (as some hypothesize) there could be a billion times more planets than are currently estimated and the probability of any of them having the same conditions could still be minute.

Let me ask you this. Is god plausible? Is inteligent life outside of our universe plausible?

Define "plausible."

-Bri

 

[fls]

The problem is that some of the unknown variables are multipliers from 0 to 1, which means that they change the results somewhere between none and completely.

Which ones (assuming you are still talking about the Drake equation)? Not that it really matters, since other parts of the equation constrict the possibilities.

Not really. For example, the argument cj posted before assumes a fine-tuned universe. There are certainly scientific opinions on how fine-tuned it is (see the article I linked to on the Rare Earth hypothesis). The problem is that other variables are pretty well unknown, which changes the result somewhere between none and completely.

-Bri

How does that constrain anything if the fine-tuned universe can occur in the absence of gods?

Linda

 

[RandFan]

We have a relatively good knowledge of parts of the puzzle (i.e. some of the terms of Drake's equation), and a very poor knowledge of other parts, which means that any conclusion drawn from the Drake equation is speculation. That's the nature of arguments based on a series of terms like Drake's equation. The confidence we can have in the result is only as high as the weakest term.

Significant, sure. But not particularly significant to our confidence in the result of Drake's equation without the missing pieces.

The probability of it happening again is unknown.

There are most likely a lot of planets, for sure. How many of them are exactly the same as earth? How many of them are "close enough" for intelligent life? What does "close enough" even mean? If the conditions necessary are extremely narrow (as some hypothesize) there could be a billion times more planets than are currently estimated and the probability of any of them having the same conditions could still be minute.

Define "plausible."

You deny that you equate the probability of god and inteligent life on exo planets. Yet you can't tell us what that difference is. I think that god is not impossible and the chance of ET Inteligent life is plausible and to some significant degree greater than god.

Plausible: Seemingly or apparently valid

I don't know how to quantify the difference I only know that what we know about inteligent life is significantly greater than what we know about god which is zero.

• We know that inteligent life has occured.
• We know that inteligent life is composed of organic materials.
• We know that these organic materials are common in our universe.
• We know that there are 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000 (galaxies in our universe) stars.
• We know that planets which is also likely required for life are everywhere we look.

That inteligent life could happen again somewhere in our unverse outside of our solar system is seeminly valid.

God? Not so much.

 

[Bri]

Which ones (assuming you are still talking about the Drake equation)?

Any of the variables that have an "f" followed by a subscript are between 0 and 1. For example:

f_ℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
f_i is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
​

Drake's equation doesn't actually return the probability that intelligent life exists -- it concludes the number of planets in our galaxy with which we might communicate. You'd have to reformulate it somewhat to come up with a probability of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere.

According to Wikipedia:

The value of R* [the average rate of star formation in our galaxy] is determined from considerable astronomical data, and is the least disputed term of the equation; f_p [the fraction of those stars that have planets] is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in n_e [the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets] was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems.​

Not that it really matters, since other parts of the equation constrict the possibilities.

I'm not sure what you mean by "constrict the possibilities." Depending on the values for some of the least certain variables, the result will range between 0 and whatever value is estimated for the number of planets in the galaxy (which itself is far from certain). So there isn't much constriction at all if for example you place a very large value on n_e (the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets).

How does that constrain anything if the fine-tuned universe can occur in the absence of gods?

I'm not entirely sure how you're using the word "constrained" here. But because at least one of the variables is unknown, it can return any value between 0 and 1 depending on what you speculate for the unknown variables. Although some of the values in cj's argument aren't entirely speculation (it would be possible to use actual data to come up with a "reasonable" number), others are pretty much completely speculation. Which means that the results are speculation.

-Bri

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Can someone quickly summarize for me why theists can't be rational? I don't think many people actually hold that position on this thread, but I can't see it.

cj x

To sum it up? No, they cannot summarize why theists are irrational.

 

[blobru]

That wasn't it, but you did discover the right author (sorry blobru for not remembering it was you).

This is what I was thinking of:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4322700#post4322700

Linda

First, the response that occurred to me second at being forgotten, a calm, considered, deftly nuanced, equanimous and rational response, all things considered, I think:

"Better the poster remain but an anonymous vessel for the post; egoless; damp, yielding earth into which the post's well-hewn point is driven home; barbed argument strands separating tame syllogisms from wild-eyed appeals to baser nature; moon-fed monsters eye the photon fruits of reason and howl their strange hunger; the hired mind moves on; each post she hopes a stake through the heart of sacred unreason, and the alien idols it succors."

And second, my first response:

To sum it up? No, they cannot summarize why theists are irrational.

The excellent parting gifts?

 

[RandFan]

One of my first threads I started on this forum was an argument that theists can be rational and in fact some of our greatest thinkers were theists:

Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, George Boole, Emanual Kant, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, etc.

Of course they can.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The excellent parting gifts?

Actually I was attempting to state that the issue is far too complex to be summed up. I'm still waiting for the existence or non-existence of gods to be demonstrated as knowable.

 

[blobru]

Actually I was attempting to state that the issue is far too complex to be summed up. I'm still waiting for the existence or non-existence of gods to be demonstrated as knowable.

Sorry, I was just funnin'. Sort of.

More seriously, for rationality I think the issue isn't just whether something is knowable (though that's part of it), but what sort of obstacles does the belief-system present to claims and arguments for and against it being fairly and impartially evaluated.

 

[RandFan]

Actually I was attempting to state that the issue is far too complex to be summed up. I'm still waiting for the existence or non-existence of gods to be demonstrated as knowable.

Are you waiting to find out whether the existence of extraterestrial tea pots orbiting the Sun is knowable? Does it really matter?

I used to be agnostic but once you get away from the peer group and thought patterns that hold onto the possibility and you realize that in the end we are all non-believers about an infinite number of things. It's no big deal to throw god into the works.

Most people don't believe in Xenu but perhaps they should be agnostic...

Not me. You?