Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Beth]

But you are saying extremely complex and rare implies design and I am asking you to justify that implication. Lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

That's not what I'm saying. Yes, lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

(I admit there's no reason to believe in such a god, but it would give science a reason to keep its hat in the ring, so to speak.)

I think your speculation is still going back to the, "yes but, you can't prove it", and that is not what I am saying at all.

Maybe if I review the history and the issue....

Religious organizations made the false accusation science is out to disprove god.
Theists who embrace science also have some cognitive dissonance to deal with.

Rather than call 'disproving god' a false accusation, and in order to address the cognitive dissonance, some scientists developed the response, science and religion are parallel, they deal with separate issues, science looks at how, religion looks at why, science doesn't address the supernatural, faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs, yadda yadda.

The website which prompted this discussion had a typical, have your religion cake and eat your science too, statement. From the site:

Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God. ...

From my science based perspective, this argument is full of holes. You cannot make a case on scientific grounds for the above. You can make a case for taking the position religion and science don't contradict each other based on political grounds, but close exam of the argument on scientific grounds finds it is an unsound argument.

What makes it unsound? In a nutshell, fitting the evidence to the conclusion, "god(s) exist(s)"; rather than following the evidence to its conclusion, how does the evidence best explain god beliefs?

Do we want politics interfering in what science has to say about anything else? How about global warming? If the evidence supports a conclusion that is not politically correct what should we do? Make up new definitions for faith based climate change and evidence based climate change? If I think about it, maybe I could come up with a definition of an untestable climate.

In order to fit the evidence to the conclusion, (clearly not acceptable in science), special categories need to be created.

• Why and how become two different things implying morality is magical instead of biological in nature.
• Faith based evidence is claimed to be different, yet defining the difference between faith in homeopathy and faith in the current god du jour cannot be articulated on scientific grounds.
• The little matter that gods of the past are myths is rarely mentioned as possible evidence gods of the present are also myths.
• The fact one discounts all god beliefs that differ substantially from one's own is not addressed even though one might use scientific evidence to discount the incompatible god beliefs.
• And, the fact one can describe an untestable god is tossed around as if that means science can have nothing else to say about any evidence for or against gods, that is of course, unless one is addressing gods already concluded to be myths.

Getting back to your comments, Ryan, is it possible there could be a god we could not detect? Sure. Is it possible we could encounter evidence gods exist in the future? Of course. Do those two possibilities change what the evidence we currently have says about the nature of god beliefs? No.

You can consider anything you want when you hypothesize about possible explanations for the evidence which supports a conclusion about god beliefs. But the fact you can hypothesize untestable gods does not change the evidence. How does someone's hypothesis about the potential for an untestable god limit science so that it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities? Nonsense! Defining an untestable god does not negate all the evidence that exists which does allow us to evaluate claims of the supernatural. There is no evidence suggesting science need create a parallel universe to avoid evidence based conclusions about things people choose to believe in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not what I'm saying. Yes, lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

So explain how/why evidence of a rare combination of elements/events implies design?

Undesigned rare complex things exist. So how is the existence of a rare complex thing evidence for or against a design?

 

[BillyJoe]

It isn't that I don't get what you said, BJ. I'm saying that without any rational reason, I'd just opt to leave the last unknown unknown rather than faking an answer.

As a matter of fact so do I.

I'm just trying to come up with a scenario for a deist god about which science could have nothing to say. That's about the closest I can get: Everything is known - hoping that that is even possible - except something from nothing and 10,000 years with no further progress.
But you're really difficult to please, Skeptigirl so I'm going to pass now.

Apart from which, it is clear from that site that it is actually a theistic god that they are being politically correct about. I mean who really cares about deists or the deistic god. It created us, then ignored us, and then doesn't even provide us with an afterlife. Goddamn cheek!

BJ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Circular reasoning.

This is one of the sillier things you've said.

The evidence supports the following conclusion:
The conclusion is: god beliefs are the result of human imagination.
In addition, there is no evidence supporting the following conclusion:
That conclusion is: god beliefs are the result of humans interacting with real gods.


I take it you are oblivious to the fact there is any evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I'm just trying to come up with a scenario for a deist god about which science could have nothing to say.

But science already supposedly has nothing to say about a Deist god. And I'm saying the pattern of god myths applies to all gods including a deist god. Your scenario did not make a difference in my logic structure of this problem.

....But you're really difficult to please, Skeptigirl so I'm going to pass now....

BJ

Pass is fine. I can't blame me in this case, however, for being unconvinced.

Though in other cases..... I'm sure there's some mia culpa around somewhere.

 

[paximperium]

Especially if it's true.

Now that was "intelligent" for a troll. Are you actually trying to even sound intelligent or are you going to keep playing the wannabee pseudo-philosopher?

Why wrong? And: no, I haven't.

Let me see.
You make a false claim based on your ignorance and you ask "why wrong"? Wow.

Data as such doesn't show a thing.

More hand waving. Nope, the evidence is still there.

Good luck again collecting your research budget.

Wow...amazing...a rehash of an already used ad hominem. Can't think of anything new or original?
BTW: The Templeton Foundation and a few other groups have already spent quite a bit of money of these religious research and I found a few grants online. Thanks for airing your ignorance in public again.

 

[Egg]

That's the point, once the evidence supports it, it is 'natural'. Thus the idea science does not look for supernatural explanations is misinterpreted to mean certain explanations are ruled out. What is ruled out are baseless explanations.

Presumably science cannot (not does not) look for supernatural explanations, since it deals only with the natural. I guess it depends how you define "natural" and "supernatural".
Science doesn't rule out baseless explanations. That would be making the assumption that we already have all the evidence we're ever going to have.

God did it by magic. Whether you call it magic or say god did it is the same thing.

It is? On what are you basing that assumption?

Either you can explain how something occurred based on the evidence, you cannot explain it, or you say it happened by magic. Who performs the magic doesn't matter.

I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. I would have thought "magic" was usually just another way of saying you cannot explain it. Could you please explain how you are defining "magic" and "supernatural"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I use magical thinking and magical explanations synonymously with claiming things happened without explanation. Gods, invisible sky daddy, it's all the same to me.

So I guess I need to know why you think, 'god did it', differs from, 'it happened by magic'?

Either things happen by means we can determine (now or in the future), (evidence based beliefs) or people just make up things and say that's how it happened (non-evidence based beliefs). I understand god believers don't believe they (or someone before them) have just made things up, but the bottom line is there is no evidence to support the belief - aka it happened by magic.

 

[Egg]

Or you could more justifiably say the Cargo cults were based on encountering a natural phenomena that was not understood.

I don't see why that might be more justifiable than what I said, but yes it was something they didn't understand and we could describe it as natural in the sense that the technology was created using physical, understood phenomena.

Again, if people want to present an evidence based case supporting god beliefs originating from real encounters with real gods, by all means, write that paper. I welcome it. The complaint I make here is using the fact one can describe an untestable god to then claim science has nothing to say about the likelihood gods exist.

It is my hypothesis your case would be extremely weak, while the evidence supporting god beliefs as myths would be very strong. The end result is still that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are myths. I don't need to prove my conclusion. I wouldn't need to prove the conclusion people imagined fairies and leprechauns, why would I need to prove gods fall in the same category?

You're the one making the case that gods are all imaginary. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that the evidence is overwhelming. All that tells me is that you find it overwhelming.

The way you talk about it leads me to think you must have evidence I'm unaware of about how various god beliefs began. By the way you're avoiding the question, should I take it that you already presented all the evidence your basing your conclusion on?

 

[Egg]

I use magical thinking and magical explanations synonymously with claiming things happened without explanation. Gods, invisible sky daddy, it's all the same to me.

So I guess I need to know why you think, 'god did it', differs from, 'it happened by magic'?

When you say without explanation, do you mean literally without explanation or without a known explanation?

"God did it" tells us nothing about how it was done. Presumably, if God does something there could potentially be an explanation.

I guess in the same way that we might say about the military technology the Cargo Cult guys saw was made by humans. In itself, it isn't an explanation for how that technology works.

Either things happen by means we can determine (now or in the future), (evidence based beliefs) or people just make up things and say that's how it happened (non-evidence based beliefs).

Surely this is a false dichotomy?
There could be means we can't ever determine and there are plenty of steps between making stuff up out of thin air and having solid, undeniable scientific evidence.

Take the Cargo Cults. They may have had mistaken beliefs, but those beliefs were based on evidence.

I understand god believers don't believe they (or someone before them) have just made things up, but the bottom line is there is no evidence to support the belief - aka it happened by magic.

I'd disagree with the "no evidence". I think it takes a fair bit of clarification and definitions of evidence and a particular philosophical slant to make such a claim. I certainly don't understand your leap to calling that magic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The point here is not to make the case for god beliefs being myths, though I am certain that case can be made.

The point here is to address the evidence for god beliefs rather than accepting the artificial excuse that because one can define an untestable god none of the evidence supporting the case that god beliefs are myths means anything.

I might start a different thread making that case that the god beliefs are myths. But the point here is, by all means argue the scientific evidence. Just don't claim there is no scientific evidence to address, which is what it means when people say science doesn't have anything to say, one way or the other, about the existence of gods.

If all gods are myths, they don't exist. The evidence only has to be a preponderance. The evidence does not have to provide absolute proof.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for the Cargo cult evidence, you need to back up. I said they provided direct evidence of a god myth being created.

You are presenting an hypothesis for how a real god might have created a god belief. I presented an EXAMPLE of how a god myth was created without a real god.

Theory: god beliefs are myth beliefs. People created god beliefs but never had real encounters with real gods.
Testing that hypothesis: the creation of a god myth is observed with the Cargo cults.

You need to understand how that differs from saying the Cargo cults prove all god beliefs are myths. The Cargo cults only add to the evidence, they are not the only evidence. Testing an hypothesis means predicting what will happen and then observing it happen.

Just because you can hypothesize how other god beliefs might have formed and we could still have god myths does not weaken the evidence of observing a prediction.

Given your hypothesis, now you need to find some supporting evidence that some god beliefs are real and some are mythical. In a way, that makes even less sense than all or none.

 

[fls]

If you are talking about the situation that obtains at the present time, I am in full agreement.
But I'm not sure that you are responding to my hypothetical scenario.

In my hypothetical scenario, I am fast forwarding into the distant future to a time when science knows everything and has a Theory Of Everything that explains everything. Except "how something came from nothing". Like completing a jig-saw puzzle that all fits together nicely but finding that there is one piece left over.

If you still object, then perhaps imagine that the above scenario has obtained for 10,000 years. Would you now be prepared to say that all natural explanations have been exhausted and that, therefore, the explanation for the ultimate question must be...well, let us say, non-natural.

BJ

What do you mean when you say "non-natural"?

At best, you may be able to say that something is 'causeless'. But even then, we don't consider something that is causeless as "non-natural". For example, even though we cannot find hidden variables in quantum mechanics, we do not consider electrons to be supernatural.

Linda

 

[fls]

I suppose we're getting to the heart of the matter. Being supernatural is a traditional property of God, but is it necessary?

It seems to be. If God can't be capricious, it loses something essential. After all, we have already discovered God many times over (Lorenz invariance, Gravity, Higgs boson, etc.), yet it doesn't really occur to call any of what we discovered 'God' because none of it is capricious.

Perhaps I'm venturing onto thin ice, but the case can be made for a materialistic Deist God as we've described. Intelligence isn't supernatural, nor is a really, really big intelligence. As the A.I. folks will tell you, it's possible that intelligence need not be confined to a neuron-filled brain. You see where I'm going.

Intelligence in the absence of a brain of some sort would be supernatural, would it not?

And actually, I'm a little rusty on my philosophers, but I believe both Spinoza and the Transcendentalists also formulated non-supernatural, materialistic gods.

As far as I can tell, Spinoza's God was simply Naturalism, in which case it is simply redundant.

I don't know about the Transcendentalists - I thought their god wasn't material. I thought they were idealists.

So if you can live with the above, perhaps you'll agree – the “God” concept simply has too wide a latitude for science to rule it out.

Any time someone talks about God, it is either capricious or redundant, which is what people seem to mean by 'supernatural'. Either they are talking about events which are lawless and the consequence of a capricious entity, or they are talking about something which cannot be discovered by reference to natural events - i.e. events in the presence of the thing are indistinguishable from its absence, making it a redundant explanation.

Linda

 

[fls]

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

Science may not call something a "real god" a priori, but it certainly can discover something that we would call a "real god" a posteriori. And that's the point with the issue of 'god beliefs'. The conditions under which they arise do not lead us to discover a necessary entity with "real god" characteristics. The movement of the heavenly bodies led us to discover a necessary entity (Gravity). But since that necessary entity did not have "real god" characteristics, it didn't occur to us to call this entity "God". Nor did it occur to us to postulate that Gravity was responsible for our spiritual experiences, even though God was responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies and our spiritual experiences. If we had discovered that Gravity was capricious, then we may have elected to call it "God". If we discover that fine-tuning is capricious, I suspect we will claim to have found God.

Linda

 

[Beth]

So explain how/why evidence of a rare combination of elements/events implies design?

Undesigned rare complex things exist. So how is the existence of a rare complex thing evidence for or against a design?

The complexity has nothing to do with it. Nature has evolved far more complex designs than we humans have yet managed. We're also pretty good at designing simple things like arrowheads and paperclips. Extreme rarity OTOH is considered a good indication that the 'random chance' explanation is not a good fit.

The designer hypothesis comes into play because I find it a startling coincidence that not only are the physical constants of our universe seemingly precisely tuned, but they may also be precisely tuned to the exact values that an intelligent designer might choose for creating a holographic simulation.

If you don't find that a startling coincidence and do not consider that to be evidence supporting the hypothesis of a designer, that's okay. I'm not going to argue the point. The theory is unproven at this stage and even if true, other explanations are possible. That's simply my take on it.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Maybe if I review the history and the issue....

Thank you for elaborating. I appreciate it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Extreme rarity OTOH is considered a good indication that the 'random chance' explanation is not a good fit.
..

Again I ask, how is extreme rarity better explained by purpose than by chance? I can see the tendency to want to assume that, but on closer exam there is no there there.


The other way the rarity issue is looked as is to say, regardless of how rare as far as universes go, obviously we are going to exist in the one rare universe we are capable of existing in. In other words, there could be trillions of universes out there where life doesn't exist, but regardless, this is going to be the one we are in because it is the one we can be in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@Beth:

Looks like parky76 took up your issue. Here and in the next post is my answer to the OP in this thread, Why isn't intricate design considered evidence of a higher intellence?