Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Speculating on the existence of ETs is based on the fact we have evidence of life in the Universe, (us), evidence of technology, (we've been to Mars and more), evidence of planets that could support life and so on.

All the evidence we have about gods is evidence people made up stories. There is no evidence real gods ever interacted with people.

I am not suggesting people stop imagining the possibilities of anything existing. But do we not as skeptics call woo on the folks who believe they were abducted by aliens? Those people have no supporting evidence and the evidence there is, (past abduction stories involved the creatures du jour, for example), suggests other explanations for the abduction experiences.

Why the double standard? The evidence there is suggests gods are mythical beings. No evidence suggests otherwise. Could gods exist? Sure. Aliens could be abducting people for anal probes. So what? 'Could exist' is not a reason to think gods do exist any more than abductions 'could occur' means they are occurring.

That we need to tread softly in light of the political ramifications of challenging god believers is a separate issue. I am not arguing against that issue. But tell me why, for scientific reasons, god beliefs deserve a double standard?

I concede my Star Trek analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. But I’m not all the way convinced that the myth argument can hold as much weight as your placing on it.

Specific God myths -- Yaweh, Jesus, Krishna, et. al. -- can be dismissed on evidence. But a vague, generic Deist God is less myth than concept. Often you can only wound a concept with evidence. To kill it, you need to show it’s logically impossible.

I think you understand this when you concede above that gods could exist. So maybe we’re in agreement, and I’m just not understanding what the “double standard” is. I've always thought specific God beliefs are considered woo among skeptics and scientists. The concept of God less so. Is that a double standard?

 

[Piscivore]

Assume that, in the distant future, humanity achieves knowledge of all that is knowable...

At that point, won't we be gods?

 

[fls]

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Their conclusion comes across as almost mystical:

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22

I looked at the description of this event in detail on a previous thread. It was clear that the timing of the NDE was unknown (i.e. whether or not it corresponded in some part to the flat EEG). Some of the specific events noted by the patient that did allow the timing to be known, were events that clearly occurred well before and well after the portion of her operation where her brain was shut-down.

Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30

If you actually look at the references, this statement is wrong. The EEG begins to show changes in many people about 10s from onset of syncope, but nothing even remotely like flat-lining is seen.

Linda

 

[fls]

That we need to tread softly in light of the political ramifications of challenging god believers is a separate issue. I am not arguing against that issue. But tell me why, for scientific reasons, god beliefs deserve a double standard?

Who are we looking at for the answer to that question? Or alternatively, who are we trying to persuade?

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'm not just any fool. I'm gentlehorse the fool.

(Grabs dunce cap and heads for the corner...)

Darn, my not politically correct use of the word, 'fool', did not help the communication. Sorry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who are we looking at for the answer to that question? Or alternatively, who are we trying to persuade?

Linda

Well this started when Dr Plait posted a SWIFT blog entry recommending a web site that promotes science. On that web site, the position was stated that is frequently used by many in scientific community that, science does not address god beliefs one way or the other.

This led to a discussion, which I have had before on the forum, that the position, science does not address god beliefs, is a fallacy. It bothers me that the "cannot test gods" principle is not just misused to support god beliefs, but also, that it ignores the other side of the coin here, if the god is imaginary, it does not exist. And one can look at the problem, are gods imagined?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea was that you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day.

I could also work the other way of course: a natural explanation could be found thereby disproving the deist god.

Meaning, also, that utimately the existence of the deist god could turn out to be a scientific question after all.

BJ

How do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I am saying we don't test all the potential evidence for much of anything when we come to a conclusion about what the evidence supports. Have we mapped every genome before saying evolution theory explains how we have the organisms we have today? Heck, for that matter, we had evolution theory long before genetic science confirmed it.

Do we need to test every god belief to determine they are all imaginary gods? Is there not sufficient evidence in the thousands of god myths and absence of god evidence that imagination explains god beliefs?

And isn't it on political grounds rather than scientific grounds that we ignore the above conclusion and instead apply different standards to god beliefs than we apply to everything else science addresses?

I am not objecting to the need for political measures to be used by scientists to address the god question. I am objecting to pretending these are scientific grounds by mis-applying the principle one cannot test things outside the Universe.

 

[gentlehorse]

At that point, won't we be gods?

How should I know? What do I look like? Buddha? (There is a striking resemblence, but that's entirely beside the point.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I concede my Star Trek analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. But I’m not all the way convinced that the myth argument can hold as much weight as your placing on it.

Specific God myths -- Yaweh, Jesus, Krishna, et. al. -- can be dismissed on evidence. But a vague, generic Deist God is less myth than concept. Often you can only wound a concept with evidence. To kill it, you need to show it’s logically impossible.

I think you understand this when you concede above that gods could exist. So maybe we’re in agreement, and I’m just not understanding what the “double standard” is. I've always thought specific God beliefs are considered woo among skeptics and scientists. The concept of God less so. Is that a double standard?

How many fossils do you need to examine to decide they support evolution theory? How many genomes do you map to conclude they support evolution theory.

I have no problem calling it my, "All gods are myths" theory. The problem I am addressing is applying a double standard to the evidence for my theory over the evidence for other scientific theories. Do we typically discuss evolution theory with the caveat, but there could be some life on Earth that didn't evolve so the evidence doesn't "disprove" Creationism?

I will be happy to give you a definition of some organism that could exist but didn't evolve, analogous to the Deist definition of a god that could exist which isn't a myth.

Should we put that caveat definition of the life form which could exist but didn't evolve on science web sites and information pages describing how Creationists should not worry because the science of evolution theory doesn't address their Bible beliefs, science can't test Bible stories with any certainty worth offending their group by?

It's not that science claims evolution is proved or plate tectonics are proved yadda yadda. It's the other conclusion, the one that must not be mentioned, that is at issue. All the evidence supports the, All gods are myths' theory and no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory. All you are saying is well, there could be a god. That is not evidence. There could be an organism that didn't evolve. Why does that organism get so little air time in the science community?


As for showing a concept to be logically impossible: In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories? How many Thors, Peles and Zeus's do you need to screw in a light bulb?

 

[Malerin]

How do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I am saying we don't test all the potential evidence for much of anything when we come to a conclusion about what the evidence supports. Have we mapped every genome before saying evolution theory explains how we have the organisms we have today? Heck, for that matter, we had evolution theory long before genetic science confirmed it.

Do we need to test every god belief to determine they are all imaginary gods? Is there not sufficient evidence in the thousands of god myths and absence of god evidence that imagination explains god beliefs?

And isn't it on political grounds rather than scientific grounds that we ignore the above conclusion and instead apply different standards to god beliefs than we apply to everything else science addresses?

I am not objecting to the need for political measures to be used by scientists to address the god question. I am objecting to pretending these are scientific grounds by mis-applying the principle one cannot test things outside the Universe.

Why do you keep stating there is "absence of god evidence"? Everything I posted here

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

is evidence for god. It may not be evidence you find very compelling, but it is evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because, Malerin, your evidence is not valid. Conclusions have to be removed from what you are calling evidence. Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions. I can't look at your personal experience and come to the same conclusion you come to.

I can hook up an eeg or run a PET scan. If you had evidence that gods were communicating with people that could be consistently shown from person to person from message to message in a way that the evidence could be examined and others could verify the conclusion, that would be evidence of gods.

You simply cannot use a conclusion as evidence and that is what you are trying to do. Just saying it is not as convincing as other evidence does not make it evidence of the conclusion.

 

[Herzblut]

In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories?

"God exists" is not a scientific theory. Moreover, science deals with relevant things, your crusade against religion not being one of those.

 

[paximperium]

"God exists" is not a scientific theory.

It is. "God exist" is claim about reality. This can be tested.

Moreover, science deals with relevant things,

Science deals with reality. Unless you are claiming that God's existance is beyond the natural(ie. supernatural), is unreal(ie. fantasy) or is completely irrelevant, it is completely relevant question.

your crusade against religion not being one of those.

You make it seems as if a "crusade" against superstition is a bad thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"God exists" is not a scientific theory. Moreover, science deals with relevant things, your crusade against religion not being one of those.

What Paxi said.

And a couple more things.

'Gods exist' can be a scientific theory. Some people would like to see it as a parallel concept which I think is rather arbitrary. But rather than "god exists" being the issue here, I am saying there is another issue which is clearly within the realm of science and which is routinely addressed using the scientific process. That is, 'god beliefs are myth beliefs'.

We have evidence where god beliefs come from and it is not from people interacting with real gods. That evidence says something about the nature of 'gods'. It says gods are myths. The evidence using the scientific process supports the conclusion gods are myths.

It is not true there is 'no evidence' and therefore it is not correct for scientists to claim there is no way to draw any conclusions about gods.


And, my crusade is not against religion, it is against science pretending there is no evidence, and/or manufacturing a special category for some god beliefs and claiming there is scientific grounds for this position. There is indeed political grounds, but the scientific grounds argument does not hold up to closer scrutiny.

 

[Malerin]

Because, Malerin, your evidence is not valid. Conclusions have to be removed from what you are calling evidence.

What conclusions have to be removed? Do you dispute people report having spiritual experiences? Is God not an explanation for these experiences? Is it even possible to talk about evidence without there being a corresponding hypothesis in mind?

Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions.

Are you sure you want to go there? You forget the number of atheists in the world is extremely small. The vast majority of people come to my conclusion, not yours.

Besides, your point is wrong anyway. If 10 idiots on a jury don't know how DNA works, and 2 non-idiots do, does that mean DNA is not evidence because the jury members didn't all come to the same conclusion wrt DNA evidence left at a crime scene? Or look at it another way: everyone who examines the evidence of the fossil record and radioactive dating should come away with the conclusion the Earth is five something billion years old and animals have evolved over time. Does the fact that there are a large number of people who don't come to this conclusion mean the fossil record is not evidence?

I can't look at your personal experience and come to the same conclusion you come to.

Nor would I expect you to, having read your posts. That doesn't make the evidence invalid. There are people here who think 100 heads in a row isn't evidence for a two-headed coin. The fact they don't understand probability doesn't make 100 heads in a row non-evidence. Is it possible you don't come to the same conclusion as me because you're...wrong

Also, I can't look at my personal experience and come to the same conclusion you do. So who's right?

I can hook up an eeg or run a PET scan.

Which shows that my brain is working, not that the message isn't spiritually inspired. A PET scan is perfectly consistent with idealism or dualism: people have spiritual experiences because God created their brains to give them feelings of spirituality.

If you had evidence that gods were communicating with people that could be consistently shown from person to person from message to message in a way that the evidence could be examined and others could verify the conclusion, that would be evidence of gods.

That would be stronger evidence for gods. And others CAN verify the conclusion. As I said, if we were to stop 100 random people, the vast majority would agree with my conclusion. And suppose SETI picked up a message that was clearly non-random, but totally indecipherable. Wouldn't that be evidence that alien life exists, even though nobody could verify what the message said?

You simply cannot use a conclusion as evidence and that is what you are trying to do.

Not at all. Reported spiritual experiences, NDE's, accounts of past lives from children are actual phenomena (evidence). That evidence has to be explained one way or another. God is an explanatory hypothesis.

Just saying it is not as convincing as other evidence does not make it evidence of the conclusion.

What I listed exists as rea evidence that must be explained, one way or another. I conclude nothing when I say: so-and-so reported having an OBE while near-dead. That is simply evidence. From that point, we look at that hypotheses could explain the evidence. Is the person lying? Is there some materialistic cause we don't fully understand? Did their soul leave their body?

 

[Herzblut]

It is. "God exist" is claim about reality. This can be tested.
Science deals with reality. Unless you are claiming that God's existance is beyond the natural(ie. supernatural), is unreal(ie. fantasy) or is completely irrelevant, it is completely relevant question.

Work out a test plan and convince somebody to put his money into your research. Good luck.

You make it seems as if a "crusade" against superstition is a bad thing.

A crusade against human nature is preposterous.

 

[Herzblut]

'Gods exist' can be a scientific theory.

No.

We have evidence where god beliefs come from and it is not from people interacting with real gods.

Christians believe the opposite and there is no way to disprove them scientifically. That's why nobody is investing a single penny trying. Unfortunately, your assertions will remain pure speculations forever.

And, my crusade is not against religion, it is against science pretending there is no evidence, and/or manufacturing a special category for some god beliefs and claiming there is scientific grounds for this position.

You're trying to abuse science for your political agenda, you might better want to pay science instead. All you need is a convincing marketing concept to knock on the door of the White House for some money. All the best!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What conclusions have to be removed? Do you dispute people report having spiritual experiences? Is God not an explanation for these experiences? Is it even possible to talk about evidence without there being a corresponding hypothesis in mind?

First, I do not dispute they are having an experience, but yes, I do dispute there is any evidence these folks are having a real god experience. And that is the issue, scientific evidence. The issue is not the long thread we've already hashed over this supposed "not convincing, not scientific quality, not up to scientific standards" evidence. The issue here is about the 'science of gods are a myth' evidence. The issue is not about the theist communities' claims of what constitutes evidence.

Are you sure you want to go there? You forget the number of atheists in the world is extremely small. The vast majority of people come to my conclusion, not yours.

Yes, I'm sure I want to go there. The scientific process is not about majority rule. It is about reproducible, evidence supported conclusions.

Besides, your point is wrong anyway. If 10 idiots on a jury don't know how DNA works, and 2 non-idiots do, does that mean DNA is not evidence because the jury members didn't all come to the same conclusion wrt DNA evidence left at a crime scene? Or look at it another way: everyone who examines the evidence of the fossil record and radioactive dating should come away with the conclusion the Earth is five something billion years old and animals have evolved over time. Does the fact that there are a large number of people who don't come to this conclusion mean the fossil record is not evidence?

Again, the scientific process and what qualifies as evidence is well established. It is not majority rules. I have no problem deferring to the scientific consensus based on the consensus of what constitutes scientific evidence. I do have a problem with double standard applications of what constitutes scientific evidence.

Nor would I expect you to, having read your posts. That doesn't make the evidence invalid. There are people here who think 100 heads in a row isn't evidence for a two-headed coin. The fact they don't understand probability doesn't make 100 heads in a row non-evidence. Is it possible you don't come to the same conclusion as me because you're...wrong

We have waaaaaay more than 100 mythical gods in a row.

Also, I can't look at my personal experience and come to the same conclusion you do. So who's right?

Your personal experience is only valid evidence if it can be confirmed.

Which shows that my brain is working, not that the message isn't spiritually inspired. A PET scan is perfectly consistent with idealism or dualism: people have spiritual experiences because God created their brains to give them feelings of spirituality.

Put your brain scan/PET/eeg/MRI or similar evidence forward that supports your claim it is evidence gods are communicating with people and let's evaluate it. Until then, there is no scientific evidence of gods existing.

That would be stronger evidence for gods. And others CAN verify the conclusion. As I said, if we were to stop 100 random people, the vast majority would agree with my conclusion. And suppose SETI picked up a message that was clearly non-random, but totally indecipherable. Wouldn't that be evidence that alien life exists, even though nobody could verify what the message said?

The evidence of ETs would need peer review, it would need to be credible, and if there was only a single incident it would likely be considered inconclusive. I have no problem applying the scientific process to any evidence you wish to propose. But you must present the evidence, not the conclusion as if that were the evidence.

Not at all. Reported spiritual experiences, NDE's, accounts of past lives from children are actual phenomena (evidence). That evidence has to be explained one way or another. God is an explanatory hypothesis.

I'm confident "god did it" is not a viable hypothesis. I have no problem you disagree. I welcome this discussion within the scientific community using the accepted standards of the scientific process. The issue here is that such dialog is ignored. Gods are claimed by many in the scientific community to be outside the realm of science for the simple reason you can define an untestable god. Never mind only Deists define such a god and the scientific community makes no claim it only accepts a Deist god.

I can define an organism that did not evolve. Does that mean we need a caveat every time we mention evolution theory?

What I listed exists as rea[l] evidence that must be explained, one way or another. I conclude nothing when I say: so-and-so reported having an OBE while near-dead. That is simply evidence. From that point, we look at that hypotheses could explain the evidence. Is the person lying? Is there some materialistic cause we don't fully understand? Did their soul leave their body?

If you are proposing to address the existence of gods based on scientific standards of inquiry and evidence, go for it. The objection I have here is claiming science has nothing to say about the existence or not of gods because they are outside the realm of science.

 

[paximperium]

Work out a test plan and convince somebody to put his money into your research. Good luck.

Why should I? I'm not the one claiming some super powered being gives them the right to force others to believe their crap.

A crusade against human nature is preposterous.

So crusading against war/genocide/polygamy/canibalism etc etc etc. is preposterous because it is part of "human nature"(as you have arbitrarily decided based on what exactly?)

 

[paximperium]

No.

Wow...what an intelligent "reply".

Christians believe the opposite and there is no way to disprove them scientifically.

False. Any claim on reality can be tested and disproved.

That's why nobody is investing a single penny trying.

Wrong again. You haven't read of all those prayer studies have you?

Unfortunately, your assertions will remain pure speculations forever.

False again. The data shows how myths and religions develop. Your hand waving doens't magic it away.

You're trying to abuse science for your political agenda, you might better want to pay science instead. All you need is a convincing marketing concept to knock on the door of the White House for some money. All the best!

Yawn...nothing beats a raving ad hominem when you have nothing relevant left.