Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why separate out the messy parts of science – the imagination, the contemplation, the wild-ass speculation? It's all integral.

Um, because the thread is about the specific issue of overusing the "can't prove gods" and underusing the "evidence for gods being invented by humans".

You seem to be ignoring the discussion in favor of your unrelated one.

...

God is a wormhole in the novel of religion. Because it's based on fiction, and there's no observation requiring it, does not mean science should stop considering the possibilities. And considering possibilities, however far out, does not a double standard make.

Considering the possibilities is not what I'm talking about here and if you weren't off on your own discussion you might have noticed that.

Earth to Ryan: I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. In your contemplating, they are not.

The conclusion I draw is that God is not required to explain anything, and all gods defined by religion are fictional. The conclusion I do NOT draw is that science has a double standard because in spite of everything, it's willing to entertain notions of God.

(emphasis mine)

Earth to Ryan: I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. What you've just said is the polar opposite!

Have I not, in this thread, given an example of a god that falls outside the only two god categories you seem to be considering? My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

Ultimately, I don't think you and I have different ideas about God. I think we have different ideas about science, and what makes for a double standard.

Earth to Ryan: No one is objecting to testable god hypotheses here.

Calling it “wishful thinking” is poisoning the well. Calling it hypothesizing is better. It may be a crazy hypothesis, it may have no evidence for it, it may be unnecessary. But so were wormholes. So were matter waves. So were many things.

Wishful thinking is claiming gods exist and ignoring the evidence which says only that god myths exist.

You are off on your own discussion and think people are objecting to things they are not debating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....There was a discussion about certainity and science.

And you apparently ignored what I posted about the certainty concept in science. If you ignore the post that addresses your problem, that indicates you may not want to learn anything new.

Let me try again before I assume that is correct.

I've found a good discussion of the issue of certainty of facts in science. These are common definitions in science. We all use them. That's called the scientific process.

Facts Are Well-Confirmed Observations

This point troubles people - sometimes a lot. Aren't facts things that we know to be absolutely true? Isn't that the meaning of "fact"? Well, it is the common conception of the word, but let's think about this...

Can a Fact Be Wrong?

YES!! Can "many competent observers" be wrong? Of course! For instance, according to the definition of "fact":

# At about the same time, it was a fact that the sun orbited the earth. Ask any 15th century astronomer!
# A little over a century ago, it was a fact that disease was caused by "bad blood". Therefore, the most common treatment for illness was bloodletting. If you were ill, your doctor (or barber, who treated a lot of illness at the time...) would open a vein in your arm in order to drain out the "bad blood". This was just as common as prescribing antibiotics today!
# At one time, it was a fact that major calamities were caused by the stars. In fact, the word "disaster" comes from the roots "dis", meaning bad, and "aster" meaning star. Any competent adviser would advise you to consult the stars before any major undertaking!
# In 1491, it was a fact that the earth was flat. If you asked any competent scientist, sailor, or map maker in 1491 - they would tell you that the earth was flat!
(Note: Actually, this isn't true - many, if not most, of the competent scientists of antiquity knew that the Earth wasn't flat. The Alexandrian Greek Eratosthenes made an ingenious calculation of the circumference of the Earth, for instance. However, it is a fact that most modern physics students believe that everyone before Columbus thought that the Earth was flat, so it makes a really convincing example, nonetheless! For more information on the flat earth idea, check out this article. (Link furnished by Chase Harwell))

How can we know that something is absolutely true? Nature has no answer book (as far as I know) that we can look in to "check our answers" - like we commonly check our assignments in school.

About all we can do, as rational beings, is make the best observations that we can, and try to ensure that competent observers confirm the observations. A fact is a well-confirmed observation

(emphasis mine)

The point is science is always open to the possibility new information may change the certainty of an old fact. Are all facts that uncertain? No, but the principle is to treat all facts the same. It is possible new discoveries will change current conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Provide examples in the history of science where a phenomenon has been explained by "magical powers".

The only event I can remember ad hoc is Uri Geller, ....

Are you serious? The roots of science all began with magic explaining everything that was not understood. This evolved erratically into modern science. Only in the last 100 years has the real essence of the scientific process developed uniformly across most scientific fields.

Astrology was long considered a science. Was there a mechanism for the effect of the planets and stars on people?

 

[babbits]

Could we define a 'true' god as factor x that we hypothesize to 'explain' the unknown cause?

Let's take Jehovah as our first model.

Some of us personalize it, and ascribe all sorts of human attributes to it -- literally creating god in man's image. We can infer the the attributes of power and wisdom came from the notion of the ideal, strong but wise chief/king; but we also infer that such a being would make a very dangerous enemy. So we find out how to please it.

That's why the first commandments are how not to piss it off. Only secondarily do we have a list of common sense rules for co-operative living.

It not only created the universe, but also accounts for all unexplained biological phenomena. It follows that it controls our crops, the animals, diseases, reproduction, -- and the fate of our tribe.

Other cultures have found it hard to ascribe all the faces of the natural world to just one god. How could the loving protective nature of the parent birds toward the nestlings co-exist with the indifferent cruelty seen in nature? So, one god is a thunderer and another in charge of the crops. That version has fewer inherent contradictions -- but also less elegance.

But as science grows in knowledge and power, the god's role shrinks. A theist will pray at the bedside of a child, but he/she will also administer modern drugs. And if that theist forgets one measure, odds are it will be the prayer.

Superstitious dread may have a survival value -- for the tribe, certainly not for the individual. But it would encourage the survival of our genes, via our closest relatives. It would unify the tribe, and lead to the acceptance of authority. (Just as god is based on the model of the tribal chief, the tribal chief takes his authority from the god.)

So it's not sufficient that most people ascribe the cause of mysteries to the god. There must also be an almost panicky need for the god to exist. So the impersonal deist-god, sort of a creative clockwork, has not nearly the emotional appeal that a loving, attentive, strict but fair, enemy-smiting personal god has.

The personal god is only relinquished with reluctant trepidation. "Existential angst"? How now to rationalize the unknown?

As for those who don't have the god-gene, they are in the minority. And if they get too loud in their protests against the 'wasteful' killing of so many young animals for sacrifice, well, maybe it's best to just snuff them, too. Don't want to irritate IT, and risk vengeance against the entire tribe. Which probably explains why atheists are in the minority.

So I don't think the god(s) will go away soon. Not as long as there's any genuine mystery about the natural world, and the fearful need not to offend it.

And given our intellectual limitations, being the product of evolution in an environment in which we could survive with the minimum 4-dimensional model, the mystery may never go away -- for humans.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm trying hard to relate your comments to the thread topic, babbits. It isn't happening.

 

[Herzblut]

Are you serious? The roots of science all began with magic explaining everything that was not understood. This evolved erratically into modern science. Only in the last 100 years has the real essence of the scientific process developed uniformly across most scientific fields.

Oh. You want to prefix your fascinating claim that science would credit you with "magical powers" if the "evidence" led it there with ..eh.. "If I lived centuries ago"?

Astrology was long considered a science.

You have the funny habit of justifying one bold claim (life after death is considered unnatural just because it's lacking evidence) by another, unrelated, one. And no, astrology has absolutely nothing to do with science. You probably confuse it with "astronomy", but that's no problem.

 

[BillyJoe]

She said was. Past tense

 

[BillyJoe]

How would we know?

How would we know what?

Are you interested in some book recommendations?

My daughter just gave me Alice in Wonderland.
I think you might find that hard to beat.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Um, because the thread is about the specific issue of overusing the "can't prove gods" and underusing the "evidence for gods being invented by humans".

You seem to be ignoring the discussion in favor of your unrelated one.

You seem to be ignoring what I was specifically responding to.

Considering the possibilities is not what I'm talking about here and if you weren't off on your own discussion you might have noticed that.

What you're talking about is science having a double standard...

...snip...
I am once again addressing the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs.
...snip...

I'm merely pointing out there isn't any.

Earth to Ryan:

How did you figure out I'm not on earth! Very perceptive. But can you tell me where I am? (Er... loaded question. I withdraw it on fear of the answer.)

I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. In your contemplating, they are not.

From the OP:

Belief such things [gods --ed] exist is not evidence they exist. Widespread belief could be argued as a reason to ponder these things might exist outside the Universe, but I am arguing that is not the case because once we examine the nature of that widespread belief, nothing is left supporting a reason to ponder the actual existence of gods.

(Your bolding.)

My point: we can examine that widespread belief, dismiss it, and still have something left “supporting a reason to ponder the actual existence of gods.”

From your first post after the OP:

I don't need to test for the existence of something the evidence supports is imagined to conclude it doesn't exist. And I don't have to test every single god belief to draw that conclusion. I can support the conclusion that all god beliefs are imaginary with overwhelming evidence by looking at a sufficient number of god beliefs and finding no variation from the conclusion.

(Your bolding.)

You've left out a whole class of god beliefs. As I've shown.

Wishful thinking is claiming gods exist and ignoring the evidence which says only that god myths exist.

(Your bolding.)

Not entirely. Wishful thinking also implies an emotional investment. Thus, poisoning the well.

You are off on your own discussion and think people are objecting to things they are not debating.

Nonsense.

I've been holding off asking this because it puts you on the spot a little, skeptigirl, but perhaps I can be forgiven at this point.

It may be helpful if you were to give a concrete, specific example or two from the real world where you see this double standard actually being exercised (“the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs”). Perhaps, by moving away from these poorly expressed abstractions, we can get to firmer ground.

If that's asking too much, then I'm not sure you and I are going to get anywhere. Which is fine. I've enjoyed the discussion.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I know the difference between the uncertainty principle and the uncertainty in scientific language I speak of.

You used the phrase "The uncertainty principle in science" (post 258), which almost invariably means Heisenberg's.

No doubt you knew what you were talking about, but others may have been understandably confused.

 

[BillyJoe]

Because that's the criteria by which we reject the hypothesis of random chance. If an observation or set of observations has a sufficiently low probability, the null hypothesis of random chance deviation is rejected.

Yes.

Does that make buying a lottery ticket a good bet?

No, but at least you have a small chance but, if you don't buy a ticket, your chance is even less.

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works...

One entry in a lotto of a trillion trillion trillion tickets.

...but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

But, in the multiverse lotto draw, we know that there is at least one ticket. How many gods do you see.

 

[Beth]

...but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

But, in the multiverse lotto draw, we know that there is at least one ticket. How many gods do you see.

Gods are rather tricky to define and thus are hard to spot. Intelligent designers, however, abound.

 

[BillyJoe]

Have any of them designed a universe?

 

[Beth]

Have any of them designed a universe?

Only small ones