What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[tojohndillonesq]

I searched, to the best of my limited ability and the limited tools of the Forums, for this topic and was astonished not to fiind a discussion on one of the most important books ever printed on the philosophy of science: "What We Believe But Cannot Prove; Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty." This is a collection of essays by the worlds leading thinkers: scientists, philosophers, historians, engineers, etc.

Here is an excerpt from the essay by "our own" Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, in which he refutes the most beloved dogma of the vast majority of JREF members. He writes:

"After thousands of years of attempts by the world's greatest minds to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence, with little agreement among scholars as to the divinity's ultimate state of being, a reasonable conclusion is that the God questions can never be solved and that one's belief, disbelief, or skepticism finally rests on a non-rational basis."

In other words, to claim that science proves there is no God is just as irrational as claiming that the Bible proves there is a God. A truly skeptical and logical person will not accept either view, but will hold judgement in abeyance... he will be agnostic.

Interestingly, this applies to almost all scientific knowledge - indeed all knowledge - and it is what makes science so strong; the practice of operating on theories and recognizing that the subject is not closed and may never be closed. It is the opposite of dogma. The opposite of the shouted opinions so often presented here as irrefutable fact.

 

[Dinwar]

In other words, to claim that science proves there is no God is just as irrational as claiming that the Bible proves there is a God. A truly skeptical and logical person will not accept either view, but will hold judgement in abeyance... he will be agnostic.

This is the typical problem of burden of proof. You're holding both positions--the existence and the non-existence of gods--as on equal footing, and relying on the preponderance of evidence to decide. However, that's an inappropriate standard in this case. One side is saying that something exists, and the other is the null hypothesis. The whole point of a null hypothesis is that until you disprove it, you don't have anything to discuss (for reference, check out any statistics class). The null hypothesis is the default position--until evidence comes which actually disproves it, you accept it. Which means that the two competing hypotheses are NOT on equal footing. Which means that until evidence FOR gods is presented (not just "this looks designed!" but actual evidence), a truly rational person would accept the null hypothesis. They would be an atheist.

 

[I Ratant]

Science can only work on hard evidence.
There isn't any to work with, so science doesn't address the problem.
The mental sciences might go into the aberrations of thinking that typify ideas of god, but any answers would be quite subjective.

 

[dafydd]

I searched, to the best of my limited ability and the limited tools of the Forums, for this topic and was astonished not to fiind a discussion on one of the most important books ever printed on the philosophy of science: "What We Believe But Cannot Prove; Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty." This is a collection of essays by the worlds leading thinkers: scientists, philosophers, historians, engineers, etc.

Here is an excerpt from the essay by "our own" Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, in which he refutes the most beloved dogma of the vast majority of JREF members. He writes:

"After thousands of years of attempts by the world's greatest minds to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence, with little agreement among scholars as to the divinity's ultimate state of being, a reasonable conclusion is that the God questions can never be solved and that one's belief, disbelief, or skepticism finally rests on a non-rational basis."

In other words, to claim that science proves there is no God is just as irrational as claiming that the Bible proves there is a God. A truly skeptical and logical person will not accept either view, but will hold judgement in abeyance... he will be agnostic.

Interestingly, this applies to almost all scientific knowledge - indeed all knowledge - and it is what makes science so strong; the practice of operating on theories and recognizing that the subject is not closed and may never be closed. It is the opposite of dogma. The opposite of the shouted opinions so often presented here as irrefutable fact.

I don't agree. We are born atheists,atheism is the default position and if you believe in a god your cultural background and the amount of brainwashing that you are subjected to will determine which god. It's up to believers to prove the existence of their particular super being.

 

[sol invictus]

In other words, to claim that science proves there is no God is just as irrational as claiming that the Bible proves there is a God. A truly skeptical and logical person will not accept either view, but will hold judgement in abeyance... he will be agnostic.

Interestingly, this applies to almost all scientific knowledge - indeed all knowledge - and it is what makes science so strong; the practice of operating on theories and recognizing that the subject is not closed and may never be closed. It is the opposite of dogma. The opposite of the shouted opinions so often presented here as irrefutable fact.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here say that "science proves there is no God" - so as far as I can tell, your post is attacking a straw man.

Science can never prove anything at all, let alone something as vague and ill-defined as "there is no God".

 

[Trakar]

I don't agree. We are born atheists,atheism is the default position and if you believe in a god your cultural background and the amount of brainwashing that you are subjected to will determine which god. It's up to believers to prove the existence of their particular super being.

Actually, the default state seems to be "belief." Not necessarily belief in any one organized religion's dogma, but belief in unseen forces and entities. It is natural in humans and the reason why every culture has had religious beliefs and practices. Superstition, luck, urban legend, old wive's tales, "common sense" these are the foibles that are natural to humans, it is only through education, dedicated practice and rigorous self-discipline that we learn to escape these and develop rational considerations, but they await at every turn and attempt to bias every thought and plan because they are the default human nature.

 

[I Ratant]

That would more like imprinting than belief.
Mums and Daddums are nice to us.
Therefore, everything they do has to be nice.

 

[tojohndillonesq]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here say that "science proves there is no God" - so as far as I can tell, your post is attacking a straw man.

I am a bit surprised you would say this; I can give you countless examples from other threads on this site; rather than copying them I will refer you to the recent threads on Stephen Hawking and Harold Camping thread. Lots of ridicule of those who choose faith in God, without recognition that atheism is equally irrational.

Even the earlier post in this thread about logic and the null hypothesis is an example. Science is a logical process. The post states that logic absolutely refutes God and concludes that the rational position is atheism. This is exactly the position that Fremmer refutes. (A prime example of the black swan error; "the onus is on you to prove that black swans exist. You cannot prove it, therefore the logical position is that they do not exist." This was the case in Europe for a couple of centuries... then they found black swans in Australia. Woops. Same for bacteria as the cause of Ulcers. Bad science in the name of good science.)

Science can never prove anything at all, let alone something as vague and ill-defined as "there is no God".

Exactly the position Fremmer takes. You give fellow JREF folks too much credit in thinking they agree.

 

[tojohndillonesq]

Bug!

Science can only work on hard evidence.
There isn't any to work with, so science doesn't address the problem.
The mental sciences might go into the aberrations of thinking that typify ideas of god, but any answers would be quite subjective.

I tried to kill that stinking bug of yours! Got ready to put my finger through my screen... hahaha! nice effect.

 

[Trakar]

That would more like imprinting than belief.
Mums and Daddums are nice to us. Therefore, everything they do has to be nice.

Except that it seems it would happen without imprinting by others.

"Born believers: How your brain creates God" - http://www.newscientist.com/article...ers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true

"Research into brain's 'God spot' reveals areas of brain involved in religious belief" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-involved-religious-belief.html#ixzz1N6vQJo9f

Or if you prefer more scholarly treatments:

"Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function" - http://www.cog.jhu.edu/courses/112/readings/Boyer.pdf

"The role of the extrapersonal brain systems in religious activity" - http://www.student.oulu.fi/~tanelih...sonal_brain_systems_in_religious_activity.pdf

"The Neuroscience of Religious Experience" - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9418.2010.00753.x/full

 

[Dinwar]

The post states that logic absolutely refutes God

This is a lie. I stated that a rational person would conclude that God didn't exist because the null hypothesis (no gods) has not been disproven. There is a world of difference between what I said, and what you're accusing me of saying.

A prime example of the black swan error; "the onus is on you to prove that black swans exist. You cannot prove it, therefore the logical position is that they do not exist."

So you're still going to evade the whole "burden of proof" issue?

The difference between a black swan and a god is that there's no reason to assume that black swans don't exist. We know that swans exist, we know that birds can be black, therefore there's no violation of any known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., to deal with. In contrast, the presence of any gods really messes with the entire framework of science, which has thus far been supported by countless experiments over the centuries. The position "God exists" isn't merely postulating a new morphology of a known species, but a radical restructuring of our understanding of the universe. You can't propose something like that an expect it to be accepted as of equal validity to the much simpler explanation.

You give fellow JREF folks too much credit in thinking they agree.

This is entirely beside the point I was making. I wasn't discussing proof, but rather the assumption that "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are of equal validity. You appear to believe that they are equally valid statements, and require equal amounts of proof. I, in contrast (along with a number of other sources--the OP is essentially Argument from Authority, and I can throw out a number of authorities on my side if you want to continue to play that way), believe that the person proposing the existence of something is under an obligation to demonstrate its existence before I accept that it exists. For a more detailed discussion as to why, I suggest "Deamon-Huanted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.

 

[sol invictus]

I am a bit surprised you would say this; I can give you countless examples from other threads on this site; rather than copying them I will refer you to the recent threads on Stephen Hawking and Harold Camping thread. Lots of ridicule of those who choose faith in God, without recognition that atheism is equally irrational.

The fact that science cannot prove anything, let alone the non-existence of god, does not make atheism "equally irrational" to faith in god. Science cannot prove the existence of electrons, but it is more rational to believe they exist than to believe that fluffy nanobunnies are what make computers work.

Even the earlier post in this thread about logic and the null hypothesis is an example. Science is a logical process. The post states that logic absolutely refutes God and concludes that the rational position is atheism.

There is no post in this thread that says anything of the kind.

 

[AlBell]

I believe I am not The solipsist.

 

[Ladewig]

I am a bit surprised you would say this; I can give you countless examples from other threads on this site; rather than copying them I will refer you to the recent threads on Stephen Hawking and Harold Camping thread. Lots of ridicule of those who choose faith in God, without recognition that atheism is equally irrational.

Even the earlier post in this thread about logic and the null hypothesis is an example. Science is a logical process. The post states that logic absolutely refutes God and concludes that the rational position is atheism. This is exactly the position that Fremmer refutes. (A prime example of the black swan error; "the onus is on you to prove that black swans exist. You cannot prove it, therefore the logical position is that they do not exist." This was the case in Europe for a couple of centuries... then they found black swans in Australia. Woops. Same for bacteria as the cause of Ulcers. Bad science in the name of good science.)

I agree.

Furthermore, Tojohndillonesq, just because Stephen Hawking says something does not mean that science is saying it. Similarly, if a Christian says something, it would be inappropriate to say Christianity therefore encompasses this belief.

 

[jasonpatterson]

In other words, to claim that science proves there is no God is just as irrational as claiming that the Bible proves there is a God.

Agreed.

A truly skeptical and logical person will not accept either view, but will hold judgement in abeyance... he will be agnostic.

You don't seem to understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is a position on a single question, "Do you believe that there is a god(s)?" If you answer yes then you are a theist. If you do not answer yes then you are an atheist. In the subset of people who do not answer yes there are those who answer that they do not accept the proposition that there is a god and there are those who assert the position that there is no god. Both are atheists, the second position is usually called strong atheism. Strong atheism makes a claim, "There is no god," that needs to be supported with evidence. Atheism in general is the rejection of the claim "There is a god."

Agnosticism is a description of knowledge. Agnostic theists or atheists hold their position on the question above without knowing whether it is correct or not. Gnostic atheists or theists hold their position knowing that it is correct. Agnosticism is a quality of a particular belief.

Given the question, "Is there a deity?" a skeptical and logical person will answer that there is no evidence for a deity so there is no reason to believe it. In the exact same way we would answer the question, "Are there fairies?" with the statement that there is no evidence in support of the existence of fairies so there is no reason to believe in them. However, the vast majority of these people also will freely admit that, if given compelling evidence, they would be willing the change their position on the question. That last bit is the skeptical part...

There are certainly some atheists who would deny the existence of a deity if it came up to them and lifted a stone too heavy for it to lift, just as there are a great many theists who would continue believing insane, contradictory, and irrational things in spite of evidence to the contrary. The theist/atheist distinction does not necessarily include a concurrent distinction of illogical/logical or skeptical/credulous (whichever way you choose to order those pairs.)

Even the earlier post in this thread about logic and the null hypothesis is an example.

The only null hypothesis I could find in this thread is flawed, in my opinion. As far as I could see it was a very briefly stated parenthetical comment, "(no gods,)" and I'd really rather not make much analyzing it one way or the other. If I missed a more thorough version, my apologies. I think a better hypothesis/null hypothesis would be something like, "The evidence supports the existence of a deity." and "The evidence does not support the existence of a deity." I still don't really like this and I can't see how this hypothesis could be scientific without a really good definition of the deity in question.

This is exactly the position that Fremmer refutes. (A prime example of the black swan error; "the onus is on you to prove that black swans exist. You cannot prove it, therefore the logical position is that they do not exist."

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, prior to the discovery of black swans. The onus IS on you to prove that black swans exist. Until then it makes sense to believe that swans are white. Do you believe that pink swans exist? Do you simply say, "I don't know?" I would answer that question in the negative, "I do not believe that pink swans exist." I could be wrong, but until I am presented with evidence to the contrary there is no good reason to hold the belief. Note, this is a different response than "Pink swans do not exist."

Suppose a child has a whole piggy bank full of pennies. He or she can look at all of them and hold the very reasonable belief that pennies are made of zinc/copper alloys (called copper from here on.) Without evidence to the contrary, that belief is the rational one to hold (that pennies are made of copper.) Uncle Joe then gives the kid a couple steel pennies from WWII, and the child's understanding of pennies changes and her beliefs about pennies change as well. There is nothing wrong with holding a belief about a category of items as long as one is willing to change it when given evidence.

As was mentioned earlier, there is also a categorical difference between accepting someone's claim that a belief is wrong in a normal, reasonable way (Uncle Joe just tells the girl about steel pennies and she changes her beliefs because steel is another metal and there is a sensible reason why copper wasn't used during the war) and accepting someone's claim that a lack of belief is wrong in a way that requires massive changes to our understanding of the working of the universe (Uncle Joe tells the girl about a deity that can do anything, knows everything, etc.) Strictly speaking, in either case the original belief could be wrong, and any honest, rational person will admit that. However, if you can't see any difference in the two changes and the burden of proof they should require, then there's not much reason to continue.

ETA: Pink swan addition.

 

[Ray Brady]

I can give you countless examples from other threads on this site; rather than copying them I will refer you to the recent threads on Stephen Hawking and Harold Camping thread.

Countless doesn't help us. Can you point to ONE specific example of a poster seriously claiming that "science proves there is no God"?

 

[Pup]

Actually, the default state seems to be "belief." Not necessarily belief in any one organized religion's dogma, but belief in unseen forces and entities.

I'd say it's more pattern-recognition and seeking cause and effect. When there's a logical explanation, we latch on to that, like "every time someone eats those berries, they get sick, so I shouldn't eat those berries."

When the cause and effect are more random, we're still motivated to latch on to something, so there's a desire to look for any pattern, like "every time I go hunting without my lucky amulet, I fail to kill anything, so I should always carry my lucky amulet."

I'm not sure I'd call it belief, so much as motivation to latch on to answers even if they're the wrong ones.

 

[Pup]

(A prime example of the black swan error; "the onus is on you to prove that black swans exist. You cannot prove it, therefore the logical position is that they do not exist." This was the case in Europe for a couple of centuries... then they found black swans in Australia. Woops. Same for bacteria as the cause of Ulcers. Bad science in the name of good science.)

So do you believe that green swans exist? What is the logical position on their existence?

Personally, having seen no evidence for them, I don't believe they exist and I think that conclusion is logical, given the available evidence.

If green swans were discovered tomorrow, I would obviously believe they exist from that moment on, but it wouldn't change the fact that it was still logical to conclude they didn't exist, before there was evidence for them.

 

[blobru]

... Here is an excerpt from the essay by "our own" Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, in which he refutes the most beloved dogma of the vast majority of JREF members. He writes:

"After thousands of years of attempts by the world's greatest minds to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence, with little agreement among scholars as to the divinity's ultimate state of being, a reasonable conclusion is that the God questions can never be solved and that one's belief, disbelief, or skepticism finally rests on a non-rational basis." ...

Not quite sure what he means exactly without fuller context. It should be pointed out here that since Hume many philosophers of science separate rationalism and empiricism.

Empiricism, embracing knowledge from experience via the senses (science just being an especially rigorous sort), admits such knowledge can always be doubted, and so can't ultimately prove anything. Rationalism, limited to the logical implications of definitions, can prove what those definitions mean, but nothing else (some argue some or all definitions of "God" are irrational because they lead to contradictions -- I think that's an open question, and agree with Shermer that God's vague definition makes a final, logical proof or disproof unlikely).

In that context, empirical knowledge (and science), though not rational in the classical sense, can still give us a sound basis for belief and disbelief. It's true I can't prove there's no monster in my closet; indeed, as a kid I often believed there was; however, repeated checking and failure to find one have since given me a sound empirical basis to believe that the monster in my closet doesn't exist; whether that is a "rational" basis or not depends on how one defines rationality.

 

[I Ratant]

So do you believe that green swans exist? What is the logical position on their existence?

Personally, having seen no evidence for them, I don't believe they exist and I think that conclusion is logical, given the available evidence.

If green swans were discovered tomorrow, I would obviously believe they exist from that moment on, but it wouldn't change the fact that it was still logical to conclude they didn't exist, before there was evidence for them.

.
There's green ducks... well... greenish brown... swans are big ducks.
Could be green ones.