I've been covering some of the common techniques of debate and propaganda. You can see the complete list at [Propaganda and Debating Techniques].The technique of shifting the burden of proof onto your opponent is often encountered when we deal with religious leaders who are responding to criticisms of the common arguments for the existence of God. Here's the description of this tactic.
Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your OpponentHere's a classic example of this tactic in an interview of Alister McGrath on the National Catholic Register website [All’s Not Quiet on The Atheistic Front]. McGrath says,
Make all kinds of unsubstantiated statements and claims, and when your opponent objects and challenges those statements, say, "Do some research on the subject and you will see that what I am saying is true."
It is the job of the person who is making the statements and claims to do the research and supply the evidence to support his assertions.
A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that’s their default position. But I think that’s simply incorrect and it’s obviously incorrect.This is a totally fallacious argument and it's surprising to see it coming from an Oxford Professor. However, I had a chance to hear McGrath speak in May and I can assure you that he really is this ignorant [Alister McGrath].
Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don’t know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.
Therefore I think Dawkins must realize that he’s under as great an obligation to show that there is no God as, for example, a Christian is to show that there’s a God. Those are two very fundamental problems I have with his approach before we go any further.
It is not up to Richard Dawkins to prove that God doesn't exist. He's not the one making the claim. It's the believers who are making the extraordinary claim that supernatural beings exist and that they control our lives. And that we should worship them. The world is really turning upside down when the believers demand that we atheists have to prove the non-existence of everything that was ever postulated.
Of course that's not the way they see it. They think it would be nonsense for them to have to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or Santa Claus) doesn't exist. What that kind of reasoning demonstrates to me is that there's a powerful correlation between superstition and irrationality.
Imagine that someone went up to McGrath and told him that aliens are using a mind altering probe to take over the British government. How do you think he would respond? According to his version of logic he would have to say. "Hmmm, that's very interesting. You may be right but I'm just not sure. Let me get to work on trying to prove that aliens don't exist."
McGrath commits another common fallacy but I'm not sure this one has a name. Here it is ...... as someone who has studied the history of science, I am very much aware that what scientists believe to be true in the past has been shown to be wrong or has been overtaken by subsequent theoretical developments.According to this line of argument, no scientific concepts could ever be used to support any kind of argument because all science is transient. Yes, this is a form of Reductio Ad Absurdum but not all of these are wrong. If McGrath wants to argue that only some scientific concepts fall into the category of "transient" then he should have made it clear that he was dealing with a subset of what science believes. I'm willing to bet that he isn't as skeptical about everything scientific. Maybe it's McGrath who is committing the error of reductio ad absurdum?
One of my concerns is that Dawkins seems very, very reluctant to concede radical theory-change in science. In other words, this is what scientists believe today but we realize that tomorrow they might think something quite different. He seems to think that science has got everything forced out and that’s it, whereas my point is that as we progress we often find ourselves abandoning earlier positions.
So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?
McGrath also says something I agree with.
What I do think is enormously important is to mount a public defense of the Christian faith that shows it as reasonable, attractive and plausible. That really is something that needs to be done, and that’s why I wish we had more people like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, who spoke so powerfully in the past. I think there’s a real need for the Church to regain its apologetic dimension and to be really able to speak with confidence and conviction about faith in the public domain.So far I've read books by Bill Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway-Morris. I've also read four or five articles by Allister McGrath. All of them are Christians and all of them have tried to show me that their religion is "reasonable, attractive, and plausible." If that's the best they can do then Christianity is in big trouble.
97 comments :
Science indeed is not all replacement, but also growth of knowledge and understanding, too.
However, I think both McGrath and Dawkins are wrong on a point that they agree upon: that the existence of gods could be demostrated by means of scientific evidence. They just eternally play ball throwing bouncing off the burden of providing that evidence form each other (this is actually typical of many stale debates)
If you are going to say that the fact that you know aliens are not going to invade earth is a scientific decision, you mean at least that you acknowledge that confronted with the scientific evidence, you would be willing to accept aliens invading earth. And therefore, we can make a list that evidence or accumulation of different lines of evidence that would convince us that we are being invaded by aliens. That's not too diffcult. We can confidently say, there si no pisitive evidence that we are being invaded by aliens.
BU
ut when we talk about other conceptual possibilities, such as supernaturally conceived entities, such as gods, whose whole point is that they do not abide by natural law, providing a lits of evidence that would convert us is not only impossible. I think it is a misleading attitude, one that thinks that science is to be held responsible for answering any question. Not all questions are worthy topics for sciencie. The existence of gods is one of these topics. Science deals with natural mechanisms. Period.
As long as Dawkins plays like "if I had the evidence, I'd believe in god. But there is no evidence" then it is perfectly understandable that McGrath will answer; "there, there, Richard: Maybe some day science will agree that there is a god"
By the way, did you guys see Zimmer's profiling of Nowak?
An PZ has not said a word...
Cluckclucluckcluck
I read the interview in question just a few minutes before coming here, and I agree with you Larry.
Alister McGrath really is ignorant, and actually has a very poor grasp of logic. This is common, perhaps mandatory, for apologists. After all, apologetics by its very nature is a refutation of logic.
sanders, that's pure unadulterated horseshit. If something exists in any meaningful sense, it has observable effects on the physical universe. "Supernatural" beings are not immune from this purely LOGICAL point simply because they are supposed to "not obey natural laws" (whatever that means, and I doubt that it actually makes any sense.). You're as big an ass as McGrath, I'm afraid.
Supernatural does imply intervention in the physical world. This is always thrown in: there is no miracle if jesus does not walk on the water. It is an affirmation of intervention in the natural world, against known natural laws.
Above all McGrath article shows a long line of inconsistencies, characteristic of cognitive dissonance among denialists. (Here, of science and critique on his faith.) PZ Myers post and its comments lists some of them.
Among them we can note that McGrath complains about Dawkins having an outlook based in flexibility while accusing him of being dogmatic. (But in both cases miss that Dawkins discuss improbability, not impossibility.) And that he discusses atheism apologetics while complaining that Dawkins wants to objectively discuss as if the question was "water on Mars".
Sanders:
This is always thrown in: there is no miracle if jesus does not walk on the water.
This is trying to have it both ways. If it is a natural phenomena, no walks on water, there is no supernatural phenomena.
I say science should not bother with the supernatural; it is supposed to challenge not only natural law, but human reason too. It is irrational. You have to realize when you have a supernatural proposal in front of you, rather than treat it "reasonably" like we were talking of natural entities, without realizing that we're not. The confusion that ensues is that people start thinking there COULD be scientific evidence for something supernatural. The truth is three will never be any such thing as scientific evidence for the supernatural.
you may be interested in Schopenhauer's "the art of controversy".
"If it is a natural phenomena, no walks on water, there is no supernatural phenomena"
Exactly: Mysticism is not possible without materialism. It HAS it both ways.
But science must only have it one way: the natural way. This is why the existence of the supernatural is not a topic worthy of scientific research; nor should any topic willing to have it both ways between the natural and the supernatural.
"Natural law" is not a body of law laid down by some celestial Constitutional Convention; it's simply a description of the way things are. I seriously challenge the idea that talk about "supernatural" phenomena, or phenomena that "don't obey the laws of nature", is in any way coherent or meaningful.
And by the way, I think your error in that regard is closely connected to your misunderstanding of what Dawkins is saying. Since natural law is merely our best description of the way things actually work, any confirmed phenomenon which does not fall within our current description would be studied until well enough understood for that description to be appropriately modified to take that phenomenon into account. That is simply the way science progresses. (One upon a time, before advances in both science and logic rendered their claims untenable, that is what theologians claimed to be doing, and often in quite a bit of detail, at that. Only later did a massive retreat to positions consisting of vague handwaving- such as yours- begin.) Your contention that Dawkins is making a bad-faith demand for empirical evidence in a domain in principle inaccessible to empirical study, is simply a mistake caused by your unwarranted assumption that the category of the "supernatural" is actually a coherent concept. That needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed, and I've never seen so much as a competent attempt to do so.
In case you might feel your blog is just a cozy party for converted and would like to see more contra-views:
I suspect that for someone as bright as McGrath, deity is not some arbitrary construction like, say, the spaghetti monster, but is likely to be part of a wide ranging Weltanschauung that draws from a variety of disciplines, such as history, psychology, physical science, sociology, theology and philosophy etc. When one grapples with the subject of deity, whether it’s real or not, I think you will find that the notion of deity grows out of a deep human conceptual complex that cannot be trivialized by comparison with some arbitrary invention like, say, Russell’s untestable teapot orbiting the Sun. Deity has an historical and sociological lineage which, whether deity is real or not, makes it far from a trivial and arbitrary concept. Its place in the human weltanshauung has a much more coherent footing than Russell’s teapot. (That in itself, of course, doesn’t make it real)
On evolution: I have yet to find a strong logical link between evolution and non-theism – although that could well be down to my own logical incompetence. Unfortunately I face the same logical incompetence when trying to create a case for dogmatic atheism.
Propaganda Techniques: The appeal to ‘stupidity’ is well known in the ‘religious’ industry and has been identified and labeled as ‘fideism’. If you want to continue with the topic of propaganda techniques you might like to consider that well tried technique of the straw man – that of distorting and simplifying the views of opponents. As you no doubt know anti-evolutionists are very accomplished with this technique. How about you Larry?
Timothy- the only worthwhile statement in your comment is "that doesn't make it real, of course". We're not all philistines, you know. Dante, for example, has deep resonance for me, but that in no way requires me to accept the reality of his God; that's as silly as suggesting that I can't truly appreciate a novel without believing that the characters in it are real people! But that's exactly the kind of silliness you're committing in attempting to defend McGrath in this way.
It does seem to me that the fact that there have been - and are! - so many very intelligent people who believe in the existence of God means that at least SOME burden of proof should fall on atheists, no? At the very least, arguments FOR the existence of God ought to be addressed and shown wanting (admittedly some opponents of theism do this, though often without taking those arguments very seriously - one does not see Dennett or Dawkins engaging with the best in contemporary or classical philosophy of religion, but only with the ID crowd), and it does seem reasonable, given how common theistic beliefs are among perfectly intelligent adults (again, in contrast to belief in Santa Claus, etc.), that some sort of arguments should be offered against them. This isn't to say that McGrath is right in claiming that the default position is "I don't know" - showing that would require much more argument - but it does indicate that the burden of proof is at least not entirely one-sided. Why is this so unreasonable?
It does seem to me that the fact that there have been - and are! - so many very intelligent people who believe in the existence of God means that at least SOME burden of proof should fall on atheists, no?
Is that supposed to be an argument? If so, it's a non sequitur (and also an argumentum ad verecundiam, argument from authority.) So "no" is indeed the answer. For the rest see my previous comment which you obviously didn't read.
Even when a scientific explanation is readily available, some people will prefer an explanation of supernatural intervention. For instance, "miraculous sanations". It is not a phenomenological matter, but a matter of interpretation.
Who said that supernatural would be a coherent concept? As I said, it is intended to challenge both experience and reason.
John:
Atheists would be right to demand that the theists present the evidence; but the atheists must indeed put their own little grain of sand, which is, to very clearly state what would that evidence be; if he refuses to do that, atheists could simply reject the validity of any evidence presented, and we are indeed presencing a dishonest "empiricism" (more like a pseudoempiricism)
This is very plain to me, but seems very difficult to understand for Dawkin's worshippers.
If you haven't read Mark Danner's magnificent speech to the graduating class of UC Berkeley's Department of Rhetortic by now, I'm posting it again. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174791/mark_danner_the_age_of_rhetoricIf you thought that George Lakoff was a twit, just try Berkeley's Department of Rhetoric for a career in the Art-of-Bamboozle.
They are producing thousands of Matt Nisbet flim-flam framers.
And, of course, you always have people arguing that they already HAVE "scientific evidence" of supernatural intervention. Like Michael Behe.
1)An incoherent, meaningless concept can't "challenge" anything except sanity.
2)Behe, of course, has no such evidence.
then why take the matter as if it were serious or scientific? You just can't play ball there.
Of course Behe does not have that evidence, you dummy. But are you going to take him seriously and answer each and every stupid thing he comes up with? OR are uoyu going to use just one killer argument for good? To me that argumet is pretty clear: scientific explanations have no room for the supernatural. Period
Scientists confront Behe when he makes inaccurate claims about existing science (and he does little else). You have a problem with that? Why should misinformation be ignored?
That has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, actually. (Especially since Behe, like the other IDiots, actually rules out any attempt at scientific inquiry into his positive claims- to the extremely limited extent that he has any- by telling us that we can't, mustn't, shouldn't make any inquiries into the actual nature and mode of operation of the postulated "designer".)
What the IDiots do almost exclusively (since they have nothing positive to offer) is make bogus claims about what evolution supposedly can't explain. Exploding such claims in no way commits anyone to accepting their terms of discourse.
"I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other evidence of the same sort which might convince me, but so far as I know, no such evidence exists." -Bertrand Russell
I think you are just taking the bait, arguing about something peripheral, giving them a patina of empirical respectability, and allowig them to for ever spew crap and misinformation. All we really need to do is to call them on their supernaturalism.
No, once again that's dead wrong if you're talking about Behe. What he's being confronted on is not "supernaturalism" but making false claims about biology. When people publish books purportedly about science which are full of errors, those errors need to be corrected by scientists.
Is that what Russel would consider the kind of miracle that would convert him to believe in god?
Not too impressing, specially taking into account it is an exclusively personal experience similar to some many people actually claim to have.
If I lived that myself, I would say that I simply have no explanation.
Behe certainly makes these false claims with an intention, Stevie. How deluded are you?
Notice the "might perhaps"... (Of course you might also notice the humor, but I suppose that would be expecting too much.)
Is that supposed to be an argument? If so, it's a non sequitur (and also an argumentum ad verecundiam, argument from authority.) So "no" is indeed the answer. For the rest see my previous comment which you obviously didn't read.
No, Steve, that wasn't supposed to be an argument /for the existence of God/, if that's what you had in mind. Rather, it was supposed to be an argument that since there have been/are many smart believers, and that they've offered reasons for their beliefs, non-believers have a rational obligation to address those reasons (just as believers have an obligation to address the arguments of non-believers). Obviously it would be wrong to say that everything that has ever been believed in needs to be disproved before it can be rationally denied, but it is also silly to think that the burden of proof in a debate always falls on the side that believes in the existence of more stuff (cf. external world skepticism). My suggestion is just that one way to settle where the various burdens of proof lie is in terms of such things as the numbers of reasonable people who hold/have held the positions in question (and obviously there are many on both sides in the atheism/theism debate), whether they've offered arguments for their positions (and once again, this has happened on both sides of the present debate), and so on. So yes, it's an argument from authority of sorts, though not thereby a non-sequitur: the claim isn't "Many smart people have believed it so it's probably true" (obviously that would be self-defeating in the present context), but "Many smart people have believed it so the burden of proof isn't entirely one-sided". Comparing classical theism to believe in Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, or a teacup orbiting the sun is every bit as ignorant and closed-minded as the attitudes most ID-ers and creationists take toward evolutionary theory. Say what you will, but I don't think that Kenneth Miller, Lawrence Krauss, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Al Plantinga, Bas Van Fraassen, Wilfrid Sellars, Michael Dummett, Elizabeth Anscombe, and so on and so on (sorry, I'm a philosopher) can reasonably be dismissed as childishly irrational, and their reasons for their beliefs as not even worth addressing, with a wave of the hand.
John, you deny making an argumentum ad verecundiam and then go on to do exactly that. Really, there's little to be said in response to such dishonesty or ineptitude, take your pick.
John, you deny making an argumentum ad verecundiam and then go on to do exactly that. Really, there's little to be said in response to such dishonesty or ineptitude, take your pick.
No, Steve, I stated quite explicitly that there was one sort of argumentum ad verecundiam (well done with the Latin, by the way) that I wasn't making (i.e., the one from the existence of intelligent and thoughtful believers to the truth - or even the probability - of their position), but another that I was (i.e., the one from the believers' intelligence and thoughtfulness to the need to address their reasons). Try reading what I said again, and then drop the name-calling and /explain/ to me - i.e., don't just (mis)use a name for it - why this latter sort of appeal is problematic.
Congratulations, looks like it's ineptitude. If you're not arguing (sneakily)for the truth value of all those smart people's claims then you're saying precisely nothing since, as I have already made plain, I do not in any sense reject the cultural value of the many things in our heritage bound up with religion, nor is anyone bound in any way to do so as a result of determining that religious claims are fictitious. Therefore I lose absolutely nothing of value by refusing to accept as true the claims of the religions (multiple, mutually exclusive ones- more food for thought! not all those folks can be right, but they can all be wrong) accepted by all those smart people. Try thinking about this before posting the same stuff all over again.
Gosh, Steve, you really are an ass. I wasn't saying you should "accept as true" these claims on the basis of the smartness of the people making them, just that they should be accepted as possibly reasonable (their "cultural value" is of course irrelevant) and then addressed as such - i.e., by countering the arguments adduced in their favor. Which is to say: the burden of proof in the debate over theism isn't entirely one-sided (which is what the original post was about, right?). Try to read my words before you ... oh, never mind.
"Possibly reasonable" can only be construed as "a case can be made that they might be true"; beliefs that are almost surely false can't possibly be "reasonable". Really, you don't even seem to understand the meaning of the words you use. Sad.
Whatever. I can see I'm not going to get anywhere here, so I'll step away and bow to Steve's rhetorical mastery. Anybody else understand what I'm saying, though?
"might perhaps" = vague handwaving
That's exaclty what's at the bottom of Stevie's and Russels's philosophy
And by the way John, just what ARE those "arguments adduced in their favor?" Isn't it time you actually produced some, rather than continually reiterating that some religious people are smart and therefore they must have their reasons? (Which, yet again, is precisely the argumentun ad verecundiam, like it or not.) I know that all the philosphical arguments for the existence of god(s) made over the millenia have been exhaustively classified and shown to be fallacies. Do you claim to know of one that hasn't? If so, let's hear it. it's the argument that matters, not the person making it.
Ah, before I could post this he ran away. How sad, I'm sure he had a marvelous proof but the margin was too small to contain it...
I agree with Steve LaBonne, that in a deeper sense "supernatural" (as in observations not caused by the universe physics) is meaningless, since it breaks what we now know about physics.
If we start from smaller scales, miracles are impossible because the interaction with the universe would destabilize volumes of the later. The theological miracle concept doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny.
If we envision a larger "sector of non-descriptive properties" it must be non-conservative and without symmetries, which we know is impossible too.
And on the largest scale of Last Thursday rewrites of initial conditions, it wouldn't break physics but becomes philosophically meaningless.
On the evidence question we should note that use of empiricism enforces the philosophical creed of choosing the best explanation for all observations. That is enough to establish a null hypothesis. And the increased sector of empirical explanations and the decreased sector of religious ones establish ever increased improbability for religious explanations of the world.
Sanders:
science should not bother with the supernatural
But it is the supernatural that bothers with science, by diverse world views claiming that science is observably wrong. For example by inserting teleology in evolution.
Mysticism is not possible without materialism. It HAS it both ways.
While it is certain that some questions are undecidable (in math, at least - less certain about observational models), we can't know beforehand which are so. But at some point questions too become vague. Mysticism is a word game.
John:
Kenneth Miller proposes controlled quantum fluctuations, that they influence evolution, and that there is teleology in evolution - all childish irrational concepts at best and anti-scientific concepts at worst.
Francis Collins thinks evolution or culture (nature or nurture) can not explain any morals - which again is childish irrational at best and anti-scientific at worst, besides being provably wrong.
The others I don't know about - why should I? This is about world views, and the boundaries of empirical explanations aren't defined by philosophers but by results of methods.
"If we start from smaller scales, miracles are impossible because the interaction with the universe would destabilize volumes of the later. The theological miracle concept doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny. If we envision a larger "sector of non-descriptive properties" it must be non-conservative and without symmetries, which we know is impossible too. And on the largest scale of Last Thursday rewrites of initial conditions, it wouldn't break physics but becomes philosophically meaningless"
Larsson, it is much more simple than that. Stop scientificizing an unscientific topic.
"But it is the supernatural that bothers with science, by diverse world views claiming that science is observably wrong"
Not necessarily, but yes, one consequence is that sometimes a perfectky good available scientific explanation is presented as false or unreasonable or impossible... to thereafter argue that "there can be no scientific explanation" to find the supernatural at the end of the line. Hehehe.
Se what is the problem here, Larsson? These people come up with this crap because, like you, they think they can make "scientific" arguments about the existence of the supernatural.
Note to Steve: Right! You’ve got it! Santa, the Spaghetti monster and an interplanetary teapot do not have quite the same pedigree as Dante!
You a philistine? I would no more think of you a philistine as I would call you a 'big ass' or your erudite texts 'horseh*t'. As I think John (see above) was trying to suggest: it is good manners to stay cool and accord some time and respect to intelligent commentators who don’t quite share our weltanschauung – it can sometimes help strengthen one’s own weltanschauung by exposing it to a little fire! (sounds a little bit evolutionary doesn’t it – memes and all that.) However I can understand one getting a bit uptight if one is treated like this
Polarisation passion breeds,
Passion polarisation feeds,
Polarisation is passion’s cause,
For crusade and holy wars.
Timothy, thanks very much for your intelligent remarks. Unfortunately I get the sense that your attitudes (toward debate, not your religious convictions) place you in a minority around here, which is why I have the sense that I might not be coming back (at least to the comments thread). I thought this might be a place for some calm and intelligent discussion of these issues (for the record, Steve, I don't know, and never suggested that I did know, of any arguments for the existence of God that I find especially compelling - save possibly for "If God does not exist then everything is permitted; but some things are not permitted; so God exists" - but of course I wouldn't base my life on that one!), but I've seen very few signs that that hopeful first impression was right. Prof. Moran, if you're still wondering why the answers to your last poll showed your readership to be so predominantly non-Christian, here's one probable cause. It's hard to have "lively discussions" when things so quickly devolve into name-calling (an activity I engaged in as well, of course) and general mockery.
" If that's the best they can do then Christianity is in big trouble". . .
Or, you're simply an arrogant hack who, like Myers, filters the truth by shouting down your detractors.
Sorry to see you go John. Sort of “hello, goodbye”! There are and have been some fair minded atheists around – I have always been impressed with ATTITUDE and work of the likes of Steven Pinker and Steven J Gould. (That Richard guy – you know who I mean - is rather too much of a ‘Holy Wars’ guy for me; Smacks too much of an atheistic inquistitor!)
Larry isn’t too bad either – he does give the theists some serious time and consideration (That’s why I am here), and that counts for much.
Even old Steve’s (labone) expletives are least an acknowledgement your arguments (if not God) exist; having had some experience of some parts of the ‘religion industry’ theists with rationalist leanings are either disrespectfully ignored or accused of things like blasphemy, apostasy or the unforgivable Sin! – strong stuff that makes being called an ass or uttering “horsh*t” pretty tame!
Hope Larry doesn’t mind what’s happened to his blog when he gets back from his weekend fishing trip! We’ve really mucked it up for him!
Actually, I have never seen either Myers or Moran or Dawkins shout people down - detractors or otherwise. It is my impression that they are all polite and reasonable men who hold strong views about religion and are forthright in how they express them. I think they are wrong about agnosticism, although, when you come right down to it, it is more a matter of emphasis.
I call myself agnostic although, according to Wikipedia, I should really say "ignostic" because I believe that, until you define what you mean by 'god', such talk is largely meaningless.
The same goes for loose talk about "supernatural". Does it mean that which cannot be explained by reference to its nature? Does it refer to things like ghosts and demons which interact with this world to some extent - and can, therefore, be presumed to be a part of it - but appear to exist in some other dimension which is relatively inaccessible to us? Does it refer to something separate from the natural world, a hermetically-sealed domain from which nothing, not even information, leaks out into our world and where some deity is thought by some to dwell in solitary splendour?
Atheists point, quite correctly, to the fact that there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of any of the gods in which mankind has believed over the centuries. They acknowledge that we cannot exclude the possibility entirely but argue that the probability is so low as to be negligible and that we are entitled to act on the assumption that such beings do not exist. To that extent I am also an atheist. I see no evidence for the existence of a god and act as if they do not exist.
Where I part company with athiests is over their dismissal of that narrow margin of uncertainty as a mere technicality. I do not regard doubt as trivial, far from it in fact. For me, it is the thin grey line which stands between the world of reason and the excesses of totalitarianism. It is not agnostics who fly planes into buildings, strap on explosive vests, set up gulags or perpetrate the Holocaust or the "killing fields", it is people of strong belief, whether religious or political.
If you brush aside any residual doubt as trivial, then you are claiming certainty in all but name. And therein lies the problem. The temptation to oppose the believer's conviction that a god exists with your own certainty that it does not can become too great. It becomes too easy to fall into a kind of swaggering, arrogant gangsta-atheism which only hardens attitudes on both sides. And the danger with that sort of confrontationalism is that, ultimately, it could lead to the sort of war between cultures which could be worse than anything seen so far and from which no one would emerge a winner.
Where I part company with athiests is over their dismissal of that narrow margin of uncertainty as a mere technicality.
Yes, I have to agree. It is unwarranted arrogance, a kind of parochial, narrow weltanschuung, and by far the most unattractive thing about strong atheists. I sense that it is more of an emotional arrogance though, instead of an intellectual one (name-calling, mockery, etc) - an understandable reaction to the resurgence of religious fundamentalism. As a weak atheist/agnostic, I'm just as angry as they are.
And the danger with that sort of confrontationalism is that, ultimately, it could lead to the sort of war between cultures which could be worse than anything seen so far and from which no one would emerge a winner.
Here I have to disagree. I don't see that happening. Strong atheists, arrogant and narrow as they are, are not irrational and don't fly planes into buildings or do other crazy things.
What margin of uncertainty? Is there more evidence for the existence of superhuman being(s) who influence our lives than there is for the existence of Santa Claus? If you can't honestly answer that question "yes" (and present the evidence), then why aren't you also bashing arrogant people who dismiss the margin of uncertainty about Santa Claus?
Yes I like the sentiments, but let's not forget Soviet Russia!Seems a long time ago now as they has been so much water under teh bridge: 9/11 and an ogoing Gulf war stand in the historical line of sight!)
(I wonder if poor old Larry is going to wade through all these postings?)
... and oh yes I myself am forgetting Pol-Pot and Moa.
It's no better to have a blind belief in "historical necessity" or "dialectical materialism" or whatever than it is to have any other, more "traditional" sort of sort of blind belief. This should not surprise anyone.
Yes, people can be shouted down on the internet by banning. PZ myers bans people that do no fit with his ideas; not about insults or ba d bahvior. He even posts their e-mail plubicly, despite the notice of "for authentication use only. Not with PZ.
Many other cases confirm PZ is really an ethically challenged person.
Larry censors no one. BTW, you may notice by his manners, Steve La Bonne is an import from pharyngula, where he is a regular.
What margin of uncertainty? Is there more evidence for the existence of superhuman being(s) who influence our lives than there is for the existence of Santa Claus?
The analogy is not appropriate. Santa Claus is character obviously contrived for our amusement. For many, "God" is not even that well defined. For others, it is a hypothesis somehow intertwined with deep existential questions that remain unanswered by science. "God of the Gaps"? Sure, that doesn't falsify it - yet. If you claim to have the ultimate nature of reality all figured out, then by all means, please explain it to us so we can rule out "God".
sanders is a damned liar. Myers bans only repetitively disruptive trolls, and typically only after they have done things such as creating multiple sock puppets; disagreement is welcome.
anonymous- that's a stunningly evasive response. I asked about evidence. Is there or is there not, in your opinion, any credible evidence for the existence of superhuman beings, of any kind? If it exists, what is it? And if not, why do you give the benefit of the doubt to belief in some imaginary beings but not others? This simply sounds like a typical version of what Larry Moran calls "Benedict Arnold atheism".
It's true
Give examples, then.
You can chekc PZ's list of banned people. I am banned for "slagging" and "insipidity"; of course I do nt agree with these lables either, but there you see; that's all the muck he could rake up to ban me.
BUt hey, just check out pharuyngula for what I said of his inapporpiate use of the email information. It's recently happende; PZ has erased that part of the post showingthe email,,but the discussion is still in the commments
Ah, I see, a banned troll whining about being banned. I figured as much.
Ouch! That really hurt coming from you, Steve hahaha
From your blogger profile: "I am Alexander Vargas aka Sander, Alipio, Clastito"
You were one of the most irritating trolls on Pharyngula, repeating the same old crap over and over and over again under multiple sock-puppet identities (as we see above). Good riddance.
sockpupetting does not appear at my muck-rake profile in pharyngula becuase I always used my real name there.
anonymous- that's a stunningly evasive response. I asked about evidence. Is there or is there not, in your opinion, any credible evidence for the existence of superhuman beings, of any kind?
It's "stunningly evasive" only to someone with a limited, simplistic intellect, who repeats himself like a broken record in every post. Turn that around - is there any evidence against the existence of "superhuman" beings? Do you know the ultimate nature of reality? Enlighten us, please.
why do you give the benefit of the doubt to belief in some imaginary beings but not others?
Because one (Santa Claus) is clearly defined, and if one makes the effort, it can be shown that the probability or his existence is extremely close to zero.
The same is not true of "God". First of all, it's not necessarily a clearly defined concept. Some conceptions, like the Abrahamic God, can easily be ruled out. The earth is not 6k years old, etc. In other conceptions, such as Deism, there is some evidence (fine tuning of constants, etc) that can be construed to imply existence. I personally don't believe it, but it's stronger than Santa Claus.
This simply sounds like a typical version of what Larry Moran calls "Benedict Arnold atheism".
Ah, trying to politicize reality, are we? Explain to me why I should give a rats ass what Larry thinks.
the other names are from my commnets at other blogs. I sometimes choose different aliases that I like. Do you think that is wrong? I list my aliases in my profile.
I'll tell you what is wrong, giving away the commneter's email on a post as a sort of cheap vengeance, that's wrong.
"Turn that around - is there any evidence against the existence of "superhuman" beings? Do you know the ultimate nature of reality?"
Didn't Larry already cover that in the post on which we're commenting? Wasn't it, in fact, the SUBJECT of that post? Perhaps you should read it. But I'm such a nice guy I'll save you the trouble of reading it by reproducing the money quote right here:
"It is not up to Richard Dawkins to prove that God doesn't exist. He's not the one making the claim. It's the believers who are making the extraordinary claim that supernatural beings exist and that they control our lives. And that we should worship them. The world is really turning upside down when the believers demand that we atheists have to prove the non-existence of everything that was ever postulated. "
Vargas, I distinctly recall numerous posts by "clastito" on Pharyngula.
Perphaps I did not bother to change when clastito was in the identity box. PZ did not consider me a sockpuppeter, obviously.
Perphaps I did use it here an there, but my intention was not of sockpuppeting (making it look like if tehre were many people agreing with me) nor anyhting stupid like that. PZ's had nothing on me. And that you consider me an annoying troll is, of course, an honor. Thanks, and goodbye, Steve.
Anonymous said...
...Strong atheists, arrogant and narrow as they are, are not irrational and don't fly planes into buildings or do other crazy things.
True, although nominal atheists in the various communist states did kill millions of their fellow citizens in the name of their own absolutist political ideology.
But if radical Islamists were able to rally the majority of their fellow Muslims behind them, there could be the sort of trouble I was talking about. Remember, these people believe it is their sacred duty to convert or kill any who don't share their beliefs. At the moment, fortunately for the rest of us, Islam is apparently too fragmented for that to happen but that doesn't mean it couldn't. We may not be able to rely on schisms to protect us for ever.
Steve LaBonne said...
What margin of uncertainty? Is there more evidence for the existence of superhuman being(s) who influence our lives than there is for the existence of Santa Claus? If you can't honestly answer that question "yes" (and present the evidence), then why aren't you also bashing arrogant people who dismiss the margin of uncertainty about Santa Claus?
Because no one is going up to children and their parents outside Santa's Fairy Grotto and telling them they are either insane, ignorant or liars for believing in such nonsense. Because fanatical Clausists are not crashing sleighs into shopping malls. Because almost no one, apart from small children, actually believes in Santa.
As for evidence of superhuman beings influencing our lives, which did you have in mind? Alien refugees who wear blue Spandex suits under red shorts and with a red cloak? The last survivor of an ancient race who travels though time in a machine camouflaged as an obsolete British police telephone call-box? Greek gods who may or may not have arrived on Earth as warriors on the last surviving Battlestar?
How about a being, who may or may not be omniscient and omnipotent, but is certainly knowledgeable enough and powerful enough to hide all traces of its existence from our crude and clumsy attempts to detect it? Can we rule out the existence of such a being? Would we be wise to rule it out?
Yes, we can say that the Judaeo-Christian concept of a benevolent, all-powerful and all-seeing Creator is incoherent, the religious texts which describe it are contradictory and we have no evidence for its existence at all apart from that. But that is all we can say.
As far as we can tell, we are just clever apes who have managed - briefly and more by luck than by judgement - to have clawed our way to the top of the heap on this rather nice little planet orbiting a comfortably middle-aged star in the suburbs of an unremarkable galaxy lost in the vastness of the Universe. For some of us to go stomping around making a big thing of the little we know smacks just a wee bit of hubris, I'd say.
"How about a being, who may or may not be omniscient and omnipotent, but is certainly knowledgeable enough and powerful enough to hide all traces of its existence from our crude and clumsy attempts to detect it? Can we rule out the existence of such a being? Would we be wise to rule it out?"
Larry answered that one already as well: "Imagine that someone went up to McGrath and told him that aliens are using a mind altering probe to take over the British government. How do you think he would respond? According to his version of logic he would have to say. 'Hmmm, that's very interesting. You may be right but I'm just not sure. Let me get to work on trying to prove that aliens don't exist.'"
Sane people shouldn't waste time pondering either Larry's scenario or yours.
Hi Steve, and Ian, (and Alex and John) Hope you all had a good night. As I type this you are probably all in the land of Nod. (I assume you all live on the other side of the pond – the ‘colonies’ as we say here)
Although I concede that this Spaghetti monster business is a humorous bit of satire I don’t think it is fair to seriously portray it as having symmetry with theism (or more generally a symmetry with Ian’s super-sentient beings)
As I have tried to convey before theism still has a socio-cultural status that breaks the symmetry with any number of trivial and arbitrary hypotheses like Santa Claus. Flat earth, Ptolemy’s geocentrism and Paley’s special creation might look silly now, but given the limited human perspectives of their day they seemed ‘manifestly obvious’ and made sense too many. OK, perhaps in the long term theism will go the way of flat earth, geocentrism and special creation, but even if that is the case, currently theism at least has the cultural status that geocentrism had in the days around the Copernican revolution – it is worthy of debate. It is surely an irony that as Larry, Steve and Alex try to graciously correct us theists and agnostics (amid the occasional distracting dispute about internet reputations), that in itself is a backhanded acknowledgement that current social kudos gives theism a gravitas that arbitrary constructions like the spaghetti monster do not have. (Any one debating the existence of Santa on the Internet?))
That cultural factors have an important bearing on one’s Weltanschauung is seen by remembering that the products of science and knowledge in general are almost entirely mediated through our culture – None of us can practically check every scientific conclusion and therefore we must rely on the social kudos accorded to scientific texts delivered to us by our society. So if my culture respects science and also (although admittedly decaying) theism, I am going to tackle it as a question as dispassionately as I can.
If we are still in the “Copernican revolution” stage with theism and it is a form of social delusion then Larry, Steve and Alex have a duty to correct us theists and agnostics. However, I have feeling that theism, or at least the more general notion of super-sentience (see Ian above) is not going to be so easily dislodged as geocentrism.
Firstly, as we succeeded in compressing knowledge into physical principles, that compression can not be carried on indefinitely and therefore a hard core of ‘special’ knowledge will always remain, giving scope for anthropic interpretation. It will lurk in the background always threatening to reopen the big issues of contrivance. There are some very speculative attempts to expurgate any footholds theists might find by diluting appeal to special conditions using a “super-copernican” perspective involving the postulation of multiple universes which merge any special conditions into an enormous background of randomness – however, randomness itself is a special condition.
Secondly, as Ian has pointed out a more general concept of “super-sentience” is back on agenda at least as a possibility suggested by our knowledge. Trouble is, when dealing with sentience of any kind, whether human or otherwise, one’s scientific work is cut out: the epistemology shifts from one of poking, pushing shoving and testing passive matter to grappling with proactive entities quite capable of shifting the goal-posts. A different epistemological paradigm may have to be adopted in the search for intelligence, super-sentience, or God himself. Passive matter ‘doesn’t mind’ being pushed, shoved and tested, but sentience may have other ideas! Moreover, sentience has the added complication of being a “fuzzy concept”.
When it comes to ‘super sentience’ I think I would go along with Ian’s sentiments that we should approach this subject with a certain amount of caution, agnosticism, humility and even perhaps some fear and trembling. As the SETI researchers have found a new ontology drives an epistemological paradigm that shifts from one of testing to that of searching in hope that sentience is either carelessness enough, or has the grace to reveal itself. “Seek and you shall find!” Well we hope so!
(Note to Steve: please, please try and refrain from launching in with emotive terms. Look, I am prepared to admit that, being human I am as much capable of writing a pile of cr*p as the next man, but there are ways and ways of telling me that)
"However, I have feeling that theism, or at least the more general notion of super-sentience (see Ian above) is not going to be so easily dislodged as geocentrism."
I have the same feeling, oddly enough. But I don't take that as an excuse to stop trying to oppose its influence.
The rest of your stuff was, once again, already more than adequately disposed of in advance by Larry's post.
It is not up to Richard Dawkins to prove that God doesn't exist. He's not the one making the claim. It's the believers who are making the extraordinary claim that supernatural beings exist and that they control our lives.
Steve, let me explain it so that even a simpleton kisser of Larry's ass can understand it. For agnostics, God is a hypothesis. If you can't falsify a hypothesis, then it becomes a question of probabilities. Santa Claus is quite improbable. The situation with "God" is not as clear, for a variety of reasons. The burden of proof is not on agnostics, because we're not out to prove God's existence. We don't know.
[Timothy, you're wasting your time on this simpleton]
Thanks Mr. Anonymous, nice see you here! And thanks Steve for the polite response. Things are looking up! (but not quite up to heaven yet – there’s time still!) I’ll go through Larry’s post again and see if I can get anymore from it. If I need more explanation you’re obviously the man see!
"For agnostics, God is a hypothesis."
So is "aliens are using mind-control probes to take over the British government." Both are about equally well supported by credible empirical evidence. ("A lot of people believe it" is not evidence.) Your point? (If you disagee with this assessment, simply present your evidence.)
What people believe is not evidence? Well I thought that is precisely what evidence is! Presumably a host scientists whose texts have been delivered to us by our culture believe what they have, felt, touched or seen and, (and this is more subtle) how they have interpreted and theorized about events. Short of going out there myself and testing this or that theory science as to delivered to the likes of myself is largely about what other people believe! However, what we must understand is that what people believe is relevant evidence, but NOT proof. Actually, the best evidence I myself have for the truth of basic physical science is the presence of technology, although on the deeper questions of origins and human nature technology is not much help, and here the belief and testimony of scientists count for a lot.
No, of course what people happen to believe is not evidence. If people hold justified beliefs it is because they hold those beliefs as as result of being aware of evidence that supports them. If they hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, those beliefs are merely beliefs. (Do you think 16-century Europeans were justified in believing in witches?)I mean really, I shouldn't even have to explain something so obvious.
You are correct that most beliefs held by most people, including those that are probably correct, are held without justification. How do you imagine that this helps your argument? We cannot determine which of their beliefs may be correct by polling them; if we really want to make a serious determination, we have to actually look ourselves at the evidence on which those beliefs are ultimately (even if at second- or third-had) based.
Back from the weekend and commenting again FWIW.
Sanders:
Larsson, it is much more simple than that. Stop scientificizing an unscientific topic.
I'm not "scientificising" or anything else "s-icing" up matters. It is an empirical subject by its nature, and empirical analysis based on or within science as it may be is the best way to handle observable facts.
Se what is the problem here, Larsson?
I'm not describing a challenge, I am describing why the analysis must encompass empiricism - and so be based in it.
you may notice by his manners, Steve La Bonne is an import from pharyngula,
I am too. Wonder why you didn't mention me? :-P
Ian:
If you brush aside any residual doubt as trivial, then you are claiming certainty in all but name.
I don't see why that follows, that would be special pleading for religious claims.
Besides, universal "no-go" predictions (with concomitant uncertainty) can follow from theories that are based on observations. These types of situations show that in some cases we "brush aside" some phenomena. (Though I wouldn't characterize proper "no-go" theorems and their usual set of loopholes as trivial.)
Timothy Reeves:
that in itself is a backhanded acknowledgement that current social kudos gives theism a gravitas that arbitrary constructions like the spaghetti monster do not have. (Any one debating the existence of Santa on the Internet?))
That is also a backhanded acknowledgment that current social problems gives theism gravitas.
And yes, Santa is debated in the context of superstitions.
Larsson, you're everywhere. Steve is more representative of the mayr spirit.
It seems to me you spend a lot of time discussing topics like how many angels fit on a pinhead, Larsson. Questions about the supernatural are NOT empirical questions. That they are inconsistent with empirical knwoledge? Of course. SUPER-natural, SUPER-natural, Larsson. Get it?
Our real challenge as atheists is to avoid scientism and dogmatic thinking on our side.
Ah, I see it was not "goodbye", but "au revoir". Just can't stop drivelling any place they'll let you, eh, Vargas?
Your "point" is bullshit. Claims of the existence of superhuman beings (including "gods") are empirically testable claims, to be evaluated according to the (lack of) empirical evidence.
Sanders:
It seems to me you spend a lot of time discussing topics like how many angels fit on a pinhead, Larsson. Questions about the supernatural are NOT empirical questions.
That is exactly the kind of dogmatic apologetics that I argue against. For some reason you see angels in your world, in mine I see the properties of the pin.
And what Steve said.
Steve and Alex! You two are turning into a right Laura and Hardy act! As for Torbjorn and his angels dancing on a pin head ...., Great! He sounds like my kind of guy! I’ll make a point of reading his posts! Byzantine? Love it!
Now Steve, when I wrote the following I did my very best to try and make it small enough to fit into the margin especially for you. You’ll have to forgive me, but like those mammals of canine breed I periodically have the urge to take a dump on the margins of something.
The following points impinge upon the comments above:
1. Ask yourself Steve just what ‘justification’ is and whether this notion is as obvious as you think. I think you’ll find that it entails two things – firstly, as even you yourself hinted, it entails a paper trial of texts leading from the source testimony of a trustworthy scientist – after that the trail stops dead. Secondly, it entails highly theoreticized notions about the ontology of our world and these lurk in our mental background and inform us (correctly I believe) that science works. Those highly theoreticised notions make all sorts of assumptions about the organization and structure of our world and these ‘Justify’ science. Philosophers are still arguing about it, just as Byzantine theologians discussed angels on pinheads.
2. Can we test the effectiveness of science empirically? Can we turn the very methods of science on itself in a kind of self-referential confirmation? Yes and No. Science is too big an idea to isolate in the lab. It’s quite a bit bigger and more complex than an organic molecule if you hadn’t noticed. However, there are evidences like technology and the texts of scientists. But let’s face it, these evidences are, and always will be, the tip of a social iceberg.
3. Medieval belief in witches justified?: Yes and No. Yes because the texts of medieval society would have ‘justified’ them: No because I believe their background world view was false.
4. Like Paley’s ‘manifestly obvious’ special creation in his day, Deity (or the more general concept of Aseity) still has a prestigious place in our texts – and it is ‘texts’ that ultimately inform the man in the street like myself. Granted the ‘manifestly obvious’ feel of ‘deity’ may be just a passing phase like Paley’s special creation and a perspective effect of our as yet undeveloped knowledge, but the fact is we are still finding it very difficult to expurgate special conditions and the smell of contrivance from physical science. In any case deity/asiety is one of those ‘Big Complex Ideas’ like we find in cosmology, SETI, history, politics, evolution, questions of origins and especially science itself; objects/subjects that are not easily dragged into the laboratory and experimented upon at will, but have to be tackled by researching , researching that is 90%-ish grappling with social texts. (Like this Blog).
5. Santa? Spaghetti monster? Come on, givesa break....
That mound of doubletalk mush is the best you can do??
You actually want to discuss about angels on pinheads right now, huh, Larsson. hahaha.
How many times I have to drill into your numb skull that your way of thinking inescapably implies there COULD be such thing as evidence of angels on the pinhead.
The correct answer is: That is not a scientific question. There will never be any such thing as evidence for the existence of angels on a pinhead.
If anyone wants to believe that, OK . I don't. But I refuse this question be presented as a topic worthy of scientific consideration.
Further, your way of thinking encourages people to come up with "evidence" for supernatural crap... this sucks bigtime , but you just cannot face the truth. It takes two to tango: Dawkins and Behe, cheek to cheek.
It is as silly as pretending that religions actually propose gods as having nothing supernatural about them, incuding a bodily existence. Nobody talks about gods like that. Further, we could talk only about the existence of the supernatural, without reference to any gods (as in budhism, for instance)
What can I say Larsson? It is obvious to me that you are not thinking, but are just acting on some kind of "cultural war front". You've "made up your mind". So you will probably answer quickly, to somehow state that you are right.
And to scare the the neofites, you might wan to call me atroll and swear to never address me again (in vain, of course, it's been 3 times already ). And we can rely on Steve to interject and call it all horseshit, of course.
Unfortunately for you, the tarring, feathering and banning rituals are not as popular over here as they are at pharyngula. WAHA! hehehe
Thanks Steve for giving that at least little consideration! Better go now - I don't want to get in the way of TorbJorn's reply to Alex's measured commentary above!
Timothy Reeves, Sanders:
I thought it was clear that I didn't discuss angels but confined myself to observations of pins. Either my point wasn't sharp enough, or yours aren't. :-P [Note: Joke, for one of you.]
Timothy Reeves:
Can we turn the very methods of science on itself in a kind of self-referential confirmation? Yes and No. Science is too big an idea to isolate in the lab.
We would need a "science of science" to make a testable theory how science works. OTOH every tested theory validates the methods used. And that is necessary and sufficient.
Sanders:
The correct answer is: That is not a scientific question.
Your dogmatic stance invalidate your premise. [Clue: How will you find out, if you don't try?]
I also provide examples that shows that it is an empirical (note, not "scientific") question.
But foremost, as you have made up your mind per above, it is especially funny when you accuse me for this, since I argue against that to leave the question open for observation and test. I don't claim that I am right, I claim that superstition is testable wrong.
Think about it, Larsson. The ONLY reason you believe there are no angels on a pinhead is because you can't see them? "If I saw, I'd belive it" huh?
I think it is obviously stupid..
You are all about strawmen, Larsson, and it is very obvious, as, I repeat 1)Nobody talks about visible gods (and by the way, if not so, faith woud be an unnecesary part of religion) 2) You insist on discussing natural god nobody has discussed.
Your thinking process is indeed incomplete, Larsson. And the conseuences are grave, because as I said, this "epistemology" (or better said, a lack of it ,replaced by a naïve empirisim at the level of the retina with no thinking) what it does is fuel "scientific" creationism.
And "superstition" is also strawmen manufacture. Religion can be carried out more like a life philosophy with mystical elements which I have no problem with so far as they do not try to "scientifically prove" their beliefs (as is the case with "scientific" creationists).
Sorry for the delay.
Sanders:
The ONLY reason you believe there are no angels on a pinhead is because you can't see them?
No, the reason that I believe in the pin is because I can see it. I can exclude supernatural explanations because extraneous observations don't show up.
The rest of your comment is the Courtier's reply Dawkins gets. For example, "naive empiricism" would be to reject supernaturalistic observations as impossible because all observations per definition should be natural. I don't do that.
"No, the reason that I believe in the pin is because I can see it. I can exclude supernatural explanations because extraneous observations don't show up"
But upon observing something extraneous, according to your logic, you would include supernatural explanations. This is nonsense. No matter how extraneous (or non-extraneous!) a phenomenon, there is a scientific attitude, to find the explanation, or there is an inmmediate supernatural explanation, which renounces science on the spot.
You are basically telling us that some experiences could make renounce scientific explanation, which is very weird as it seems to me to have no true rational basis. More like an emotional option. You're creeping me out, Larsson.
"For example, "naive empiricism" would be to reject supernaturalistic observations as impossible because all observations per definition should be natural. I don't do that."
No. I don't say the supernatural is impossible. What I have said that the supernatural has no place in scientific explanations. Science does not deal with the supernatural.
Do you dawkinian masses flash that courtier's reply thing everytime you want to avoid thinking?
"No. I don't say the supernatural is impossible. What I have said that the supernatural has no place in scientific explanations. Science does not deal with the supernatural."
There are two ways that I can see that this statement is true:
1. Tautology: The supernatural by definition is what is principally inaccessible to science.
2. Instrumental: The limitations on instrumentation forbid science from apprehending the supernatural.
Definition 1 isn't very helpful, because it doesn't elucidate at all on what the supernatural is except to say "science can't work with it". Definition 2, however, is not qualitatively different from other things that were once beyond scientific investigation (e.g., atomic physics).
So it would help to understand exactly what you mean by "supernatural", and I'm sure you have a different definition in mind. It would help to have a definition that doesn't A.) reduce to a tautology and B.) elucidates on why, exactly, science can't access it.
Supernatural means beyond natural, and that is precisely what religious people want it to mean. They certainly do mean it as something that is beyond scientific comprehension. Of course this places it pretty safe from science; It is a "tautological" and untestable notion; but that is precisely why science should not bother with supernaturalism. It is irrefutable.
It is a mistake to equate non-scientific and supernatural. Not all non-scinetific explanations are supernaturalist.
Sanders:
No matter how extraneous (or non-extraneous!) a phenomenon, there is a scientific attitude, to find the explanation, or there is an inmmediate supernatural explanation, which renounces science on the spot.
I have on numerous occasions discussed what could constitute evidence for universal acting agents with little possibility for false positives, such as codings in the CMBR giving us specific messages.
There is no natural process that could do that with any appreciable probability, which I think is better confirmation than miracles as described by diverse religions.
The improbability for that isn't my problem. It is I who conclude that it is very improbable.
Science does not deal with the supernatural.
Science deals with observables. Some religious supernatural ideas would be observable by their own admission.
Btw, the dogmatic belief displayed above is just the type of idea that science reject as basis. Science is always provisional and based on observation. So I wouldn't attribute such a philosophical or theological idea to science.
That's stupid. I have no idea what your imagined codes in the cmbr or whathaveya you are thinking about are, but "No natural explanation" is NIT equal to "evidence for the supernatural". If we can't provide a scientific expanation, this is not evidence for supernatural.
If you want to say its supernatural, as I said, it is your own choice: not the scientific choice.
You DEFINITELY creep me out, Larsson. Those examples are more for light-headed pseudoscientific crackpots. Well, not so surprising, considering your epistemology IS no better than that of the average dawkobot.
"Btw, the dogmatic belief displayed above is just the type of idea that science reject as basis. So I wouldn't attribute such a philosophical or theological idea to science"
OK!! so if you think that is not a scinetific, testable hypothesis...why act lik you have tested and discarded and unscientific hypothesis? YOU CANNIT say that non-existence of the supernatural is asc ientifically proven thing. OK????? All I'm asking is that you be coherent. Right now, you're a mess.
"Science is always provisional and based on observation"
Hahaha. Please let us know what evidence would you think would be able to change our view that the earth is a spheroid. Or what evidence would prove continental drift wrong. Or that evolution is false.
Some well-established facts just don't go away, larsson. The evidence that spports them will not evaporate, no matter what other observations you bring up.
Of course, creationsist always think taht a single observation is capable of topplig down well-supported facts. There you go: the scourge of stupid "empircism" with no sound theoretical rooting. Observation is interpreation too, Larsson.
Sanders:
If you want to say its supernatural, as I said, it is your own choice: not the scientific choice.
It is not my choice - it is a model for how people make supernatural claims. (Creating universes, resurrections, et cetera.) We must have a model to analyze such claims, and we can find such a model.
If you find it funny, it is probably because religious claims are crackpot. Miracles, who knew.
so if you think that is not a scinetific, testable hypothesis...
I didn't claim that. I'm saying that it this is an open question.
Please let us know what evidence would you think would be able to change our view that the earth is a spheroid.
But that is an observation. There we can improve the data. What I mainly describe with revisable is theories. (As opposed to your untested dogma.)
Observation is interpreation too,
Observation is contingent and theory laden, but we can arrive to reliable ones. You yourself gave an example above.
Look, we can discuss the nature of science all day. But the bottom line is that it is reliable, revisable and gives some uncertainty (ie don't expect 100 % precision or certainty).
you manage to fool yourself pretty well, Larsson. I consider I've said enough.
As well, I was getting bored fast: you neither read others comments well, nor back up your own claims.
Post a Comment