What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Beth]

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.

This is mostly correct, but you have misunderstood one detail. You are correct that the null hypothesis is accepted without evidence rejected with strong evidence supporting the alternative. But there is no requirement about which statement will be the null and which the alternative. Which hypothesis is the null and which the alternative is at the discretion of the researcher conducting the test.

To be statistically valid, the null hypothesis must contain an equality. That is the crucial requirement. It is far simplier to analyse a test when the null contains the assumption of 'no discernable difference', which is why they are almost always set up that way. However, it is possible to devise and test nulls which are set up in the opposite way. The equality, which is required to be in the domain of the null hypothesis, can be reworked to allow for this. Flipping the tradiational set up for the null and alternative hypotheses is not a simple analysis because the hypotheses and the analysis of it are more complex, but it is possible and in some cases, worth the extra trouble.* An assessment of the prior probability of the hypotheses being considered is often used to determine which will be the null.

My point is that it is perfectly reasonable for a person who already believes in god to set the hypothesis that 'god exists' as the null and require strong evidence that their null hypothesis is incorrect before accepting the alternative 'god does not exist'.

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 disagree. To claim that religious beliefs are irrational by definition seems like a double standard to me because it's basing a conclusion of rational/irrational without examining the reasoning that led to a particular conclusion (belief in god).

A person can rationally choose to be a theist. They might base their belief on a completely rational trust in what authority figures (usually mom and dad) have told them and their own experiences which match what those authority figures have told them about such experiences. They simply trust that the explanations they have been given for those experiences are correct. It is perfectly rational to do this with all sorts of other beliefs - for example, most people believe what their doctor tells them. They rarely go to the trouble of getting a second opinion or researching the diagnosis and treatment of minor ailments. That's not considered irrational behavior.

Another rational reason to choose to be a theist is in order to belong to a particular community of believers. In particular, when the community may choose to excommunicate or otherwise exclude an individual if they do not believe, a rational choice for some is to believe so that they can remain a part of the community.

These rational reasons for belief do not touch upon the issue of whether or not the belief is true, but the point of this discussion has been that we can't actually know for certain whether or not a belief about god is true or false. An individual can only conclude one way or the other based on the evidence available to him or her. Not every person will consider the same evidence as having the same weight, so it's possible and reasonable to expect different people to arrive at different conclusions even given the same evidence.


* For a detailed statistical description of this: "Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence" by Stefan Wellek.

 

[PixyMisa]

The Bible has no part in this conversation.

Then why did you bring it up?

Since I did not introduce that as a premise

Yes, you did.

I am not sure how I can be wrong about it.

In every way imaginable.

And while I have failed to do the searching required to find the quotes, I think it has been established that at least some people believe science can disprove God.

You have got to be kidding.

My use of the word "countless" was ill-advised...

Yes.

Ignostic = uncertain of ones level of ignorance?

Ignostic = Until you provide a coherent definition of God, all your statements regarding such a being are meaningless.

Finally, I believe there is a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of God.

Yeah. You're wrong.

There's a difference between a logical proof and a practical certainty. We are, in practical terms, quite certain that there is no God. We know the Christian God is a myth, one of many. We know there is no supporting evidence for any of the fantastical claims. We know that every such claim that could be falsified, has been.

The only reasonable position is ignostic atheism.

This practical certainty does not amount to logical proof, but nothing in the real world does. That's where you're wrong. That's why I directed you to Asimov's classic essay The Relativity of Wrong.

When it comes down to it, many of us have a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate.

No. The terms of the discussions are different.

We are like politicians... never committing for fear of being trapped in a position we cannot defend.

No.

Conversely, outside the debate, we take unequivocal positions.

Of course. And we are right to do so, because the terms of the discussions are different.

I again cite the Hawking conversation in which a number of folks do take an unequivocal position. (JAstewart, Manger Douse, ravdin; props to them for at least being honest about it)

Everyone here is honest about it; you've just misunderstood.

 

[PixyMisa]

Tickets are rather steep, but if you go perhaps you can ask HIM to clarify what he means by his position on the God question.

It's clear what he means. He's wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Another rational reason to choose to be a theist is in order to belong to a particular community of believers. In particular, when the community may choose to excommunicate or otherwise exclude an individual if they do not believe, a rational choice for some is to believe so that they can remain a part of the community.

That's a rational reason to pretend to be a theist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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 suppose you see your big fat straw man here?

"to claim that science proves"

If you think the scientific process is about "proofs" you aren't paying attention to the nuance in our vocabulary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand what you're saying, but the adoption of such a strong notion of "proof" is rather strange. It's basically the standard used in mathematics, but in no other context is it sensible to adopt requirements that strong, and it's not generally used to imply such strength in typical usage either (as flipping through the dictionary would show). Even for the logician, inductive proof never claims anything more than 'probably' or 'very unreasonable to disbelieve', as opposed to deductive proof.

I don't see why "science proves things" contradicts "it might still be wrong." Saying that the existence of electrons is proven is a reasonable description of the evidence in their favor. (Though in what sense one can prove that some vague concept doesn't exist is another matter.)

You don't see because you appear to be unfamiliar with the uncertainty language of science. Proofs are reserved for math. Scientific facts exist but are always open to revision if new evidence is found.

This is just part of the scientific process. If you don't know that, you have a tad more to learn.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement. It APPEARS to say that the truly rational person would be an atheist. Which is exactly what Fremmer is denying. ....

Makes me suspect your hidden agenda here is some argument for god. You do know, I hope, that absence of evidence against something is not evidence for something existing.

But every time I hear/read this tired claim, "it is irrational to be an atheist, only agnosticism is a supportable position", I am obligated by my genetic make-up to protest.

Shift your paradigm to the more appropriate one, the paradigm we apply to just about everything except the god question. What conclusion does the evidence support?

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are fictional characters humans invented.

 

[Beth]

That's a rational reason to pretend to be a theist.

Yes. It's that as well. Of course, pretending carries it's own burden of cognitive dissidence.

 

[Vorpal]

I don't see why "science proves things" contradicts "it might still be wrong."

You don't see because you appear to be unfamiliar with the uncertainty language of science. Proofs are reserved for math. Scientific facts exist but are always open to revision if new evidence is found.

I just said they're tentative, so I don't get your point. You're simply wrong in saying that proofs are reserved for math; it's found in plenty of areas of life, and nowhere but mathematics are requirements so strict. Not jurisprudence, not everyday common usage, not some other scholarly fields, not even in logic (for logicians acknowledge more than the deductive kind of proof). Heck, mathematical proof^WP is a separate, though related, concept. If you were right, there would be no need for this redundancy!

This is just part of the scientific process. If you don't know that, you have a tad more to learn.

What I'd like to learn is the reason for it, if there is one to be learned. A century ago, no one would have even raised an eyebrow if a scientist talked about "experimental proof." Now, there's this "proof must be absolute&final" brainbug going around spread by the ill-informed, despite the fact that no one but mathematicians actually requires such a thing and the word is not used for such in most contexts.

And while I can appreciate that language shifts, and language within a field can change more or less than others, this seems to be very oddly placed: now science is the virtually the only field that you must never say proves anything, despite the fact that others manage just fine.

 

[sol invictus]

And while I can appreciate that language shifts, and language within a field can change more or less than others, this seems to be very oddly placed: now science is the virtually the only field that you must never say proves anything, despite the fact that others manage just fine.

That might be because the distinction is particularly crucial in science. Absolute proof is antithetical to the essence of science, which is - at least in my view - falsification. What makes science so uniquely powerful is its aggressive, never-ending attempts to falsify itself. Science never rests on its laurels - it is a hungry self-devouring beast, always ready to pounce on any crack or weakness.

And while it's of course possible to prove a mathematical statement rigorously by falsifying all its possible alternatives, that is almost certainly not possible in science due to various insurmountable physical constraints (like finite accessible time, energy, volume, etc.).

So I think when people speak about proof in science, they run the risk of communicating exactly the wrong message - that science can establish facts that cannot be questioned. There is a strong temptation to do that because it silences debate, and another strong temptation (which I feel you yielded to above) to justify it by saying "other fields do that, so why not science?" The answer is that this apparent weakness is science's greatest strength and what accounts for its success.

 

[TmoonII]

Well, God should be redefined into a non-entity, thus god would be easier to prove.

 

[Vorpal]

That might be because the distinction is particularly crucial in science. Absolute proof is antithetical to the essence of science, which is - at least in my view - falsification.
...
So I think when people speak about proof in science, they run the risk of communicating exactly the wrong message - that science can establish facts that cannot be questioned. There is a strong temptation to do that because it silences debate, and another strong temptation (which I feel you yielded to above) to justify it by saying "other fields do that, so why not science?" The answer is that this apparent weakness is science's greatest strength and what accounts for its success.

But I'm not saying that other fields use the concept of absolute proof. I'm saying virtually everyone else (sans mathematicians) uses a much weaker concept of 'proof' without any implicit claim that it is unquestionable or can't be overturned by further developments.

I don't see rejection of absolute proof as a weakness. Rather, I simply find it strange that science started interpreting 'proof' as absolute in the first place, since it does not seem that was the case in the past. There's even a somewhat antiquated meaning of 'proof' that's a synonym for 'test', though now it seems to survive only idiomatically.

Perhaps science, being closer to mathematical concepts, felt more need to contrast what they were doing with the mathematician's "proof", whereas nobody else did.

 

[3point14]

The Bible has no part in this conversation. Since I did not introduce that as a premise I am not sure how I can be wrong about it. And while I have failed to do the searching required to find the quotes, I think it has been established that at least some people believe science can disprove God. See above book on the "failed hypothesis." My use of the word "countless" was ill-advised...

Ignostic = uncertain of ones level of ignorance? (Perhaps we have a useful new term here).

Finally, I believe there is a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of God. When it comes down to it, many of us have a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate. We are like politicians... never committing for fear of being trapped in a position we cannot defend. Conversely, outside the debate, we take unequivocal positions. I again cite the Hawking conversation in which a number of folks do take an unequivocal position. (JAstewart, Manger Douse, ravdin; props to them for at least being honest about it)

If I can't say without absolute certainty that god doesn't exist, then I can't say with absolute certaintly that the wardrobe monster doesn't exist.

If we're forced to eqivocate about the existence of every damn fictional being that some idiot invents, then we're going to have a lot of agnosticism about the existence of Harry Potter and Hogwarts.

God does not exist. Same level of certainty as <insert your own fictional character here>.

All this equivocation gets my goat, it really does.

 

[punshhh]

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 am a truly rational person and I regard the existence of Creator Gods as the only rational explanation of existence. As all the other explanations I have come across over the years don't actually explain it. essentially they are don't knows.

 

[3point14]

I am a truly rational person and I regard the existence of Creator Gods as the only rational explanation of existence. As all the other explanations I have come across over the years don't actually explain it. essentially they are don't knows.

Really?

'We don't know' = 'Goddidit'?

That equation has been used for years and years for thunder, lightening, weather and everything else that wasn't understood at the time and now is. There's no more reason to believe it's true now about the origin of the universe than there was then about the motion of the planets.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am a truly rational person and I regard the existence of Creator Gods as the only rational explanation of existence. As all the other explanations I have come across over the years don't actually explain it. essentially they are don't knows.

And you were going so well for the first two words...

 

[sol invictus]

But I'm not saying that other fields use the concept of absolute proof. I'm saying virtually everyone else (sans mathematicians) uses a much weaker concept of 'proof' without any implicit claim that it is unquestionable or can't be overturned by further developments.

Right - but the word "proof" is often interpreted (by the public, even by scientists) in the absolute sense (particularly in mathematical contexts like physics). My point is that to avoid such interpretations, which are incorrect in the case of science, it is important to emphasize that science cannot provide absolute proof.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I can't say without absolute certainty that god doesn't exist, then I can't say with absolute certaintly that the wardrobe monster doesn't exist.

If we're forced to eqivocate about the existence of every damn fictional being that some idiot invents, then we're going to have a lot of agnosticism about the existence of Harry Potter and Hogwarts.

God does not exist. Same level of certainty as <insert your own fictional character here>.

All this equivocation gets my goat, it really does.

Exactly. What I'm arguing against is also the double standard. When challenged the scientist will say, "you cannot prove Leprechauns don't exist either". But in reality god beliefs and fictional character beliefs are not treated or thought of in the same way. Empirically, however, they are equivalent, fiction is fiction. It is not the same as evaluating evidence. It's not part of the scientific process. Fiction is not the basis of contemplating paradigm shifts. Evidence underlying the fiction maybe, but not the fiction itself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just said they're tentative, so I don't get your point. You're simply wrong in saying that proofs are reserved for math; it's found in plenty of areas of life, and nowhere but mathematics are requirements so strict. Not jurisprudence, not everyday common usage, not some other scholarly fields, not even in logic (for logicians acknowledge more than the deductive kind of proof). Heck, mathematical proof^WP is a separate, though related, concept. If you were right, there would be no need for this redundancy!


What I'd like to learn is the reason for it, if there is one to be learned. A century ago, no one would have even raised an eyebrow if a scientist talked about "experimental proof." Now, there's this "proof must be absolute&final" brainbug going around spread by the ill-informed, despite the fact that no one but mathematicians actually requires such a thing and the word is not used for such in most contexts.

And while I can appreciate that language shifts, and language within a field can change more or less than others, this seems to be very oddly placed: now science is the virtually the only field that you must never say proves anything, despite the fact that others manage just fine.

Sol pretty much answered this. I concur with what he said.

Language, especially word choice, has a significant influence on what we communicate. It's worthwhile paying attention to such details. The OP starts off with a straw man specifically rooted in word choice.

Certainly lies on a continuum. Things can be "scientific fact" and still not be absolutely certain. For example 100 years ago it was a scientific fact that the Earth's crust was solid and the crust consisting of moving plates would have seemed impossible. Now plate tectonics are a scientific fact. This is the kind of flexibility science uses. Certainty for all intents and purposes still has one tiny sliver of a crack in it, but the crack need not be considered in the present.

This is why you can speak of evolution as a theory and a fact and not be wrong to do so.

It's my opinion that it is a scientific fact (meaning the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming to reach that level of certainty) that gods are fictional beings people invented. ALL the evidence points to that conclusion and none of the evidence contradicts that conclusion. The theory has even been tested and confirmed through observation when the Cargo Cults developed beginning in the late 1800s. When a theory makes successful predictions it reaches a very high level of certainty. Proving gods don't exist is not something one uses the scientific process to do. It isn't necessary anymore than it is necessary to prove Leprechauns or Harry Potter don't exist.

 

[punshhh]

Really?

'We don't know' = 'Goddidit'?

That equation has been used for years and years for thunder, lightening, weather and everything else that wasn't understood at the time and now is. There's no more reason to believe it's true now about the origin of the universe than there was then about the motion of the planets.

You and Pixy are misrepresenting my position, I do not follow the usual theistic line of reasoning on this issue.

I don't seek to draw this to far towards philosophy in the Science forum, as I've been told off before for that. I will merely point out that whatever reasoning you choose to put regarding this issue you can only end up with a don't know.
All science and human knowledge does little more than describe the behavior of atoms. When it comes to what those atoms are and how these atoms came into existence you come face to face with the unknown.

From that position on balance I lean towards the creator God explanation. What is your leaning?