Proving God Exists

Broadly speaking, there are two general strategies for proving that God exists. One we might call the scientific approach. This is where you point to some empirical fact and argue that it is beyond the reach of natural forces. The classic example is Paley's version of the argument for design. Paley argued that just as the complex, functional interweaving of parts in a watch immediately implies a watchmaker, so too does the complex functionality of living organisms demand a creator. This was a compelling argument for its time, and there is a reason it was accepted by almost everyone. But Darwin and his successors showed that it is based on a false premise. Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems. It just takes them a very long time to do so.

Modern ID proponents proceed in this manner, but their arguments are very weak. They assert that certain biological systems are “irreducibly complex,” or that they exhibit “complex, specified information,” and that such things are beyond the reach of purely natural forces. Such claims as they have made in this regard are easily shown to be false, their refusal to accept this fact notwithstanding. Sometimes they prefer instead to argue from physics, pointing to the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe. This argument is marginally better, since it is not based on any obviously false premises. However, it is plainly an argument from ignorance. We know next to nothing about why the constants are what they are, and the possibility of a multiverse explains fine-tuning without any need for God. The only reply you get from the ID folks on this one is mockery. But it is unclear, to put it politely, why the idea of a multiverse, which is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics, is somehow to be deemed less likely than the alternative theory that an omnipotent magic man poofed the universe into existence with an act of will.

The scientific approach is not successful, but the arguments made along these lines do, at least, provide food for thought.

By contrast, the second general strategy, which we might refer to as the philosophical approach, is far less interesting. When arguing in this vein, we try to reason our way from non-controversial premises about reality to the conclusion that God must exist. The ontological argument, which in its various forms essentially argues that our ability to conceive of God entails that He exists, is just a non-starter. It reflects poorly on philosophers that so much ink has spilled over it. Thomas Aquinas also argued in this manner, with his famous five proofs of God's existence. There's a reason, though, that modern philosophers are all but unanimous in finding Aquinas's arguments unpersuasive. When Aquinas's arguments are stated with proper precision, it is never hard to spot the dubious premise.

As a case in point, here's Michael Egnor, of the Discovery Institute, presenting his version of Aquinas's fifth way:

  1. Unintelligent things in nature tend to some outcomes rather than to other outcomes.
  2. Tending to specific outcomes entails a kind of foresight, which is a manifestation of intelligence.
  3. An Intelligence therefore guides natural outcomes of unintelligent things.
  4. This is what all men call God.

He fleshes out this argument as follows:

The universe behaves in accordance with consistent physical laws. Notice I said consistent -- the remarkable thing is not so much that the laws are complex or elegant or specific, but that they are consistent. There is directedness to the universe.

It is the consistent directedness of change in nature -- the fact that atoms and rocks and bodies and planets and galaxies and the entire universe have tendencies to do one thing and not another -- that leads via reason to the existence of God.

And later:

The directedness of natural processes is salient. A single electron orbiting a single proton in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics is every bit as powerful a demonstration of God's existence as the whole of cosmology. When you drop a pebble and it falls to the ground, and not to the sky, you demonstrate God's existence. When you strike a match and you get a flame, and not ice, you demonstrate God's existence.

Do you find this argument convincing? I sure don't. In fact, I'd say premise two is just flatly ridiculous.

Inanimate objects behaving in a consistent manner is pretty much the opposite of showing intelligent foresight. We can probably imagine a universe governed by different physical laws from the ones we know, but I defy you to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably. If Egnor's pebble sometimes fell to the ground, sometimes floated upwards, and sometimes just hovered in place, that's when we would conclude that powerful intelligent agents were at work. Consistent behavior is precisely what we expect from inanimate objects. It is inconsistent behavior that suggests intelligent intervention.

We can contrast Egnor's argument with another common argument for God's existence. It is often claimed that the reality of miracles implies that God exists. Miracles are generally understood to be events that occur in defiance of natural laws, or at least events that would normally be considered too improbable to have occurred naturally. It would seem, then, that theists are trying to have it both ways. When things behave in defiance of natural laws, that is evidence that God exists. But when they behave in accord with natural laws? Well, that's also evidence that God exists. Who knew it was so easy?

Egnor is very casual with the word “teleology.” He acts as though it is a magical incantation that ought to have atheists quaking in their boots. (In ID parlance, the word “information” plays a similar role.) He seems unaware that “teleology” can mean different things in different contexts. Usually the word is used to refer specifically to the goals exhibited by intelligent agents. When the word is applied instead to the sort of goal-directedness we find in nature, philosophers are usually careful to modify it in some way, say by referring to “natural teleology.” Biologists in particular will sometimes use the word “teleonomy” specifically to distinguish the sort of goal-directedness we find in the evolutionary process from the true teleology exhibited by intelligent agents. These distinctions exist because most people regard it as obvious that goal-directedness is not the exclusive province of intelligent agents. Why Egnor is confused on this point is unclear to me.

This is typical of philosophical arguments for God's existence. There always seems to be a premise that is just pulled out of thin air. Contingent existence in nature does not imply a necessary existent at the start of it all (and a necessary existent would not have to be God even if it did), and the reality of change or motion does not entail a first cause to start everything off. But those are subjects for another day.

More like this

Pretty good summary, but one quibble:

I defy you to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably. If Egnor’s pebble sometimes fell to the ground, sometimes floated upwards, and sometimes just hovered in place, ....

It's the easiest thing in the world to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably: the second quoted sentence does just that.

However, going from "There are consistent physical laws" to "God exists" remains a total non-sequiteur.

I omitted the last part of the sentence, "that’s when we would conclude that powerful intelligent agents were at work", because this also is a non-sequiteur. Atoms decay unpredictably (except on average), but we needn't conclude that God decides when that particular atom of thorium is going to decay.

By the way, that "on average" is not a cop-out: we can imagine a universe in which ensembles of radioactive atoms do not follow regular statistical laws. We just don't happen to live in that universe.

By Michael Weiss (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

It’s the easiest thing in the world to imagine a world in which inanimate objects behave unpredictably: the second quoted sentence does just that.

Well, if every inanimate object did that, there would be no world at all. Not sure if that's what Jason meant.

By Greg Esres (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Unintelligent things in nature tend to some outcomes rather than to other outcomes."

True. The obvious example is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as a result of which the entire universe tends towards a state of maximum entropy in which life is impossible. Does this really show the hand of God?

By David Evans (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

“Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems.”
I’m unaware of science observing or even demonstrating such, and was hoping you could provide a an example.

“The scientific approach [to the existence of multiverses] is not successful, but the arguments made along these lines do, at least, provide food for thought.”
I agree the scientific approach (e.g. observation, measurement, predictive power) is unsuccessful. Actually, I would say it’s impossible. But why are you then advocating something more like science fiction or creative writing?

“Contingent existence in nature does not imply a necessary existent at the start of it all…”
Where has science observed an effect without a cause?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

@See Noevo #4: Well, what exactly do you think you mean by "complex, functional systems"? Do you have a specific instance in mind, or are you waiting for an example which you can then deny meets your criteria? Proteins are an outstanding example of a complex, functional system which is fully specified by, and constructed by, natural forces (yes, proteins may be synthesized non-biologically).

From your second statement, it would appear that you have very little understanding of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology. If you doubt its mathematical rigor (I am not speaking to the lack of observable consequences of some models, such as the multiverse), then perhaps you should try completing the four to six years of post graduate work necessary to begin to understand it. Then you might be competent to have an opinion.

Science observes "effect[s] without a cause" in the classical sense all the time. Every time an atom decays radioactively, it does so spontaneously, and randomly, without a specific physical cause other than its existence and composition. Since those are the same as they were for all the time it _didn't_ decay, they cannot logically be cited as the "cause."

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Kelsey,

"Proteins are an outstanding example of a complex, functional system which is fully specified by, and constructed by, natural forces (yes, proteins may be synthesized non-biologically)."

Can you link to some literature about this synthesis?

@Phil #6: I should be able to, but give me a bit of time. I'm a physicist, not a biochemist, so I tend to pick stuff up from the science-news end. I'll track down some proper papers and post links.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 01 Feb 2015 #permalink

We know next to nothing about why the constants are what they are, and the possibility of a multiverse explains fine-tuning without any need for God. The only reply you get from the ID folks on this one is mockery. But it is unclear, to put it politely, why the idea of a multiverse, which is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics, is somehow to be deemed less likely than the alternative theory that an omnipotent magic man poofed the universe into existence with an act of will.

The reason the multiverse argument gets mocked is because one of the consistent atheist arguments against believing in God is that what theists are doing is inventing an entity with no real reason to solve some kind of puzzle or unknown or to avoid accepting a conclusion they don't want to accept, which is then mocked by atheists as being irrational. But when faced with having to accept that we just got lucky with the universal constants or alternatively that they were set by some kind of guiding intelligent force, atheists jump to a solution that essentially invents a number of entities for no other reason than to avoid that dilemma, at which point they then insist that the explanation is perfectly valid DESPITE it being clear that it uses the same sort of reasoning that they reject AND that they are generally inventing it out of whole cloth, while at least theists are associating it with an intelligent entity that is already purported to exist independently of that specific question. In short, atheists are inventing an entity to solve a problem for them while theists are saying that this already posited entity can solve the problem, and atheists want us to think them MORE rational for doing that than the theists are. This results in a massive epistemological contradiction with their view of rationality and undercuts their entire philosophical position. Essentially, for atheists even if the surgery worked they'd kill the patient doing it ... which is quite ironic.

The ontological argument, which in its various forms essentially argues that our ability to conceive of God entails that He exists, is just a non-starter. It reflects poorly on philosophers that so much ink has spilled over it.

Or so you say. But the reason so much ink has been spilled on it is that it isn't obvious that it's a non-starter unless you start from an unexamined premise that conceptual arguments cannot prove empirical existence, which is massively controversial philosophically. The same thing applies to most of those premises in Aquinas that you claim are "dubious". Since these are philosophical arguments, for almost any argument that is taken at all seriously philosophically those dubious premises are challenged and have to be justified, generally in reference to a philosophical worldview or position. With Aquinas, most philosophers reject it not because the premises are obviously dubious, but because they depend on a philosophical worldview that they reject, namely the Aristotlean one. So while you call them less interesting and giving less food for thought, they generally DO provide more food for thought and are more interesting because the conflicts rely on more fundamental questions than the scientific approach does.

Ultimately, I've found that a lot of the criticism of philosophical approaches comes from people who don't really get the arguments or the philosophical method, and so dismiss it because it isn't science. But that does not mean that it's arguments are not interesting or not true, and doesn't mean that even the scientific arguments don't rest on unexamined and dubious philosophical/conceptual arguments themselves.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

However, going from “There are consistent physical laws” to “God exists” remains a total non-sequiteur.

And there is usually a second non-sequitur in going from "God exists" to "the specific conception of God I believe in exists"...

VS,

I'm not a physicist, but it is my understanding that the idea of the multiverse arose from inflationary models of the early universe. These models postulated that the observable universe in which we live started out as a tiny "bubble" in the early universe that expanded exponentially for a very brief time, and in so doing became causally disconnected from other such "bubbles" that underwent inflationary expansion. These other "bubbles" are what we refer to as the multiverse.

This is still a fairly speculative model, but in no way was in created to address the "fine tuning problem". It arises in a natural way from inflationary models; after all, why should the tiny "bubble" that became our observable universe be the only one that inflated? Why not other tiny "bubbles" as well? Once we come to that realization, there's no logical reason why fundamental constants in the other "bubbles" could not be different from ours. That's also a speculative idea, but none of it was invented purely to account for the fine tuning.

Dunc,

Very true. For instance, even if the ontological argument were granted to be perfectly sound, the conclusion of that argument is quite far from any Christian conception of God. Ditto for the "watchmaker argument", and probably all other philosophical ones.

Sean T, let's put aside for a second the debate over what spawns the theory itself, and let me clarify my view by asking this question: what reason do those who posit the multiverse option have for saying that it is a more rational or reasonable option than saying that God did it? The multiverse theory is not scientifically accepted, is fairly dubious, relies on a notion of things existing outside of this universe that has always been cited as being a problem for the theistic view, and is no more testable than it is. Heck, it's even reasonable to call it "supernatural" by most definitions of natural since anything outside of this universe won't have the same natural laws as this one. So, the irony is that somehow this solution is, to atheists, more rational and reasonable than the theistic one just because it doesn't mention God, despite having most of the properties that they criticize the theistic version for.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Nice post. Not much to add.
sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

I always thought the common way people "proved" a god exists was to write in obscure prose and capitalize random nouns.

VS, we have observed our universe so it is easy to posit another, but we have never observed a god and know absolutely nothing about gods.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

atheists jump to a solution that essentially invents a number of entities for no other reason than to avoid that dilemma,

This is incorrect. Cosmological inflation was posited an an hypothesis to explain the flatness and structure of the observed universe, not for any theological reason. It was successful and is now a leading theory in cosmology...and it supports the notion of multiple universes. So what atheists are doing is simply pointing out that the best, most successful theory in cosmology offers an explanation for why the fine tuning argument is invalid.

Do you seriously think Guth and Linde developed it because they were worried about evidence for God? Do you seriously think that cosmologists and astronomers accept it now only because it refutes the fine tuning argument? No. Inflationary theory's impact on theology may be a nice bonus (if you're an atheist), but it stands on its own as a strong scientific theory, regardless of what it might say about religious claims.

A response to Verbose Stoic’s #8,

In short, it’s Evolution (cosmological AND biological) of the GAPS.

To borrow some of Rosenhouse’s words, “it is plainly an argument from ignorance”. As well as an argument from the form of faith which we could call atheistic materialism.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Kelsey responds to Phil’s #6 with
“I should be able to, but give me a bit of time. I’m a physicist, not a biochemist…”

I can only hope that Michael won’t need four to six years. Because as someone told me above “then perhaps you should try completing the four to six years of post graduate work necessary to begin to understand it. Then you might be competent to have an opinion.”

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

what reason do those who posit the multiverse option have for saying that it is a more rational or reasonable option than saying that God did it?

We have a scientific theory that makes multiple predictions. For simplicity, let's call them A-Z. We can't measure every one of these predictions, but we measure A-W and find they are correct. On this basis, we tenatively accept the theory as the most accurate description of reality we have today. This gives us warrant to accept that untested predictions X-Z are also correct...at least until some better theory comes along to replace the one we have. "A multiverse" is the Z of the cosmological inflationary model. Its a currently untestable prediction, but since so many other predictions of inflation have been confirmed we accept that the theory is the best, most accurate theory of cosmological origin that we have...and so we tentatively accept what that theory has to say about the untestable stuff, too.

In contrast, what's the theory you want to put up instead? Goddidit? That theory makes no predictions, makes no testable claims, and is unfalsifiable.

Dunc’s #9: “And there is usually a second non-sequitur in going from “God exists” to “the specific conception of God I believe in exists”…”
And there is usually another non-sequitur in relatively short order that… the Roman Catholic Church is evil.

Just wait for it.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

Unless you can demonstrate that most people who accept the inflationary theory ALSO accept the multiverse theory -- which certainly was not true when Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion", because while I think even then inflationary theory was mostly accepted (depending on what that is, it might have been accepted as far back as the 90s when I was taking astrophysics) the best he could find was someone who said that the multiverse theory "might not be wrong" -- you are conflated the inflationary theory with the multiverse theory. That can only work if the inflationary theory insists that multiverses must be the case if it is true. As far as I know, it doesn't. So, at best, it allows for them. By the same token, it would also allow for the existence of God. So, again, which is better?

Again, when atheists bring the multiverse theory up and assert that it is better the main reason and context they bring it up in is in comparison to a God claim and insist that it allows them to not posit the existence of God. I find it hard to believe that the "multiverses" theory would have much traction outside of science fiction for most of those atheists otherwise, considering how it violates Occam's Razor and all and is untestable ...

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

To Sean T’s #10:
I’m not a physicist, either, but it is my understanding that the idea of the multiverse DID arise to address the “fine tuning problem”. Everyone, including the atheist scientists, agreed the chances of our universal constants arriving at their particular settings was zero; but with more rolls of the dice (i.e. about 10 with 500 zeroes after it) the probability might be more palatable.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

From Verbose Stoic’s #12:
“Heck, it’s even reasonable to call it [multiverses] “supernatural” by most definitions of natural since anything outside of this universe won’t have the same natural laws as this one. So, the irony is that somehow this solution is, to atheists, more rational and reasonable than the theistic one just because it doesn’t mention God, despite having most of the properties that they criticize the theistic version for.”

Good point and well said.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Whether or not a deity exists is empirically untestable. Any entity meeting the definition of a deity can confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence, therefore no such experiment can be valid. By analogy, like trying to do a psych experiment with a bunch of undergrads, and starting off by telling them the hypothesis and how the measures work: whatever "results" you get that way are unreliable and invalid.

All of the elaboration about the existence or nonexistence of deities comes down to this:

1) Theism: the fact that the universe exists is self-evident proof that a deity exists. 2) Atheism: the fact that the universe exists is self-evident proof that a deity does not exist.

In the absence of an empirical test, all anyone has is an emotional predisposition in favor or against, justified by reasoning from inference. The quality of the reasoning may be strong or weak, but it doesn't overcome the basic fact of natural variability in those emotional predispositions.

I find the arguements for ID thoroughly unconvincing because they are generally easily falsified by empirical observations. In general I find the arguements for tribal deities unconvincing because they are cosmically provincial. More interesting are Deism and Aldous Huxley's "mind at-large," which make only the minimalist claim that something exists that is perceptible to those who are so predisposed. That's at least convergent with my "theological normal curve."

What we can reasonably insist on as a matter of public policy, is to teach scientific literacy as to methods and ways of thinking, beginning at the earliest possible age in the public school system. We can also reasonably insist that public policies, the law, and suchlike, comport with empirical facts. Beyond that, those who are predisposed to perceive the existence of a deity, and those who are predisposed to perceive the nonexistence of a deity, will each do so according to their nature and their cultural conditions. Each will find the other's views perplexing and at root incomprehensible, as we have seen.

VS:

the reason so much ink has been spilled on it is that it isn’t obvious that it’s a non-starter unless you start from an unexamined premise that conceptual arguments cannot prove empirical existence, which is massively controversial philosophically. The same thing applies to most of those premises in Aquinas that you claim are “dubious”. Since these are philosophical arguments, for almost any argument that is taken at all seriously philosophically those dubious premises are challenged and have to be justified, generally in reference to a philosophical worldview or position.

Well, if you are starting with the premise that such arguments can prove existence, it would be nice if you could show an example of one doing so outside of/independent of the God question under debate. IOW: got any other examples of philosophical arguments being able to do what you claim they can do?

Secondly, Arisotelian prime mover /= the God that most people believe in. There's nothing in that argument that links it to sentience, or benevolence, or omnipotence, or Jesus. Delta(x)*Delta(p) >= hbar/2 fits the prime mover bill quite nicely. And lastly, it's somewhat ironic to hear a monotheist claim that other people are rejecting Aristotle's thoughts on the subject of gods and prime movers, given that (IIRC) Aristotle was a polytheist who did not claim his unmoved mover was a god. Why are you rejecting Aristotle's understanding of his own argument, VS?

See Noevo:

I’m not a physicist, either, but it is my understanding that the idea of the multiverse DID arise to address the “fine tuning problem”.

The multiverse idea arose in fiction way before the fine tuning argument was even a thought in someone's brain. HP Lovecraft was writing about parallel dimensions in the early 1900s, way before modern physics even had a concept of a set of minimal constants whose values needed explaining...and I'm guessing he wasn't the first, he's just the oldest author I can think of who touched on the subject.

Its probably fair to say that scientists in the 1960s-late 1970s grabbed onto the idea of a multiverse merely or primarily to solve what they saw as a fine tuning issue, without any evidential warrant. Not every scientist did; my own opinion would be that the vast, vast majority of scientists at that time rejected the idea as preposterous science fiction. But some did. Then, starting in the mid-80s, a theory came along that explained a lot of heretofore-unexplained observations about the universe and predicted multiverses. Today most scientists accept that theory becauese of its explanatory power, not due to any theological desire to knock off the fine tuning argument.

Its kinda like the earlier acceptance of the big bang theory itself. Yeah, it had some theological implications and some individuals might have accepted it or rejected it for those. But in terms of the whole scientiifc community, the BBT won acceptance on its empirical merit, having nothing to do with any theological implications.

Eric above has an expansive opinion of Inflation: “Cosmological inflation was posited an an hypothesis to explain the flatness and structure of the observed universe, not for any theological reason. It was successful and is now a leading theory in cosmology.”

MY understanding is that Cosmic Inflation Theory already has lots of problems, even before it’s officially thrown onto the “dust” bin of science history. Just one recent example:

“Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-lo…

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

you are conflated the inflationary theory with the multiverse theory. That can only work if the inflationary theory insists that multiverses must be the case if it is true

At this time there are several models of inflation; eternal inflation predicts multiverses as a necessary outcome of the theory. This, however, is still far far more rational than belief in God.

On the one side, there's a bunch of theories or theory-variants that make testable predictions about observations, one (or several) of which also predicts a multiverse. On the other side, we have an idea that makes no testable predictions at all and hasn't for thousands of years. Given those differences acceptance of the multiverse-predicting theory-variant is still more rational than God belief.

Imagine I have four possible explanations for my teacup being full of cold tea. One: I filled it very early this morning. Two: a coworker filled it very early this morning. Three: I left it full overnight. Four: magic monkeys filled it. Now, even if I don't have enough evidence to decide between one, two, and three, I can still claim that one is more rational than four. Two is more rational than four. Three is more rational than four. Just so, eternal inflation is more rational than Goddidit, and I don't need to know which inflationary model is correct to say that.

I find it hard to believe that the “multiverses” theory would have much traction outside of science fiction for most of those atheists otherwise, considering how it violates Occam’s Razor

The razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If we need a theory to explain cosmological flatness, and the best theory that does that also happens to support the concept of a multiverse, then we're not muliplying entities unnecessarily.

In any event, I see posts and posts by you and See Noevo attacking the multiverse idea but pretty much no positive argument for the existence of God. Par for the course, I guess. The first rule of goddidit is that you don't talk about goddidit.

It's a classic. The multiverse is wrong, therefore God exists. Works every time. As if there could be only one alternative. The personal incredulity argument is another classic.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

It's not hard to apply Deism to the multiverse. A deity by an act of will causes a bubble to begin to inflate as a universe. The physical constants in any such universe occur as a function of the timing and circumstances of the deity's choice. After the process begins, the deity is more or less stuck with the results, plus or minus an occasional (rare) intervention. The deity can repeat the experiment for as many bubbles exist, without end.

That concept of the deity is also found in some Asian theologies that precede Deism in Western theology, and so precedes any "god of the gaps" arguement.

It's minimalist and it's also untestable, and it need not conflict with any observables. For which reason those who are inclined to perceive the universe/multiverse this way are not easily dissuaded, nor are atheists persuaded. The situation remains as it was, with the theological normal curve still intact, and emotional predispositions influencing reasoning in both directions.

Meanwhile we find ourselves in a universe that's "fine-tuned" for our existence, as that's the only kind of universe in which we could exist. But at least the reasonable version of the anthropic principle sets some boundaries on the values of variables, and constrains the search space to enable asking useful questions.

eric writes:
"The multiverse idea arose in fiction ..."

You need say no more.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

It’s minimalist and it’s also untestable, and it need not conflict with any observables. For which reason those who are inclined to perceive the universe/multiverse this way are not easily dissuaded, nor are atheists persuaded.

Its not minimal, that's the problem. You've snuck in sentience, benevolence, a fair amount of understanding, and potence if not omnipotence. A minimalist first cause would simply be a rule or law that allows for universes to come into being. No sentience, knowledge, or act of will necessary. If you want to posit a causa causans, you don't technically need anything god-like at all.

See Noevo writes:

eric writes:
“The multiverse idea arose in fiction …”

You need say no more.

You have never been in an airplane I take it? Don't believe human flight is possible because it is an idea that arose in fiction? You might want to do a bit of thinking about science and the origin of ideas.....

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

“Don’t believe human flight is possible because it is an idea that arose in fiction? You might want to do a bit of thinking about science and the origin of ideas…..”

Why, no. I think the idea of human flight arose long before fiction, in things MAN OBSERVED, like the flight of birds and of arrows, and in the effects of pressure differences.

Things are getting a bit buggy in here. May be time to Fumigate, Michael.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

So you believe in God because you have observed God? What does God look like?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

“So you believe in God because you have observed God?”

No. I BELIEVE in God by FAITH, and a most REASONABLE faith it is (cf. Romans 1:20).

And you believe in multiverses, and many other things (e.g. the ORIGINS of a point of singularity and of universal constants and of life and of sexual reproduction and of eyesight), NOT because of science but because of FAITH, and a most unreasonable faith it is.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Ah, so you're going with the postmodern defense: claim that science is just a form of faith and so just as unwarrented. That charge might have more oomph to it if you didn't make it by typing it into a computer and then shipping it to us over the internet. If the two systems really were equivalent in credibility, then you would ditch the computer and simply pray your argument over to us.

It would seem, then, that theists are trying to have it both ways.
Isn't that always the case?

Prayer works - God is great
Prayer doesn't work - God has bigger plans for us, God is great

Team wins - God is great
Team loses - God wants us to be humble, God is great

So much good in this world - God is great
So much evil in this world - God is so great.he gave us free will!

and so on...

By Deepak Shetty (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

"No. I BELIEVE in God by FAITH, and a most REASONABLE faith it is "

Yes, because it makes perfect sense to believe in something that both does and does not interact with the physical world but leaves no scientific evidence, that is at the same time a caring and ever-watching lord and an entity capable of letting the most innocent suffer and die horribly as a lesson for (well, it's not clear exactly for what), a being that is claimed to represent love and yet has ultimate designs for a majority of his creation to spend eternity indescribable suffering.

"e.g. the ORIGINS of a point of singularity and of universal constants and of life and of sexual reproduction and of eyesight), NOT because of science but because of FAITH, and a most unreasonable faith it is."

You are as amazing in your dismissal of science and what it says as phil. Are you related?

"ditch the computer and simply pray"

Babbage was a devout Christian.

In any event, I see posts and posts by you and See Noevo attacking the multiverse idea but pretty much no positive argument for the existence of God. Par for the course, I guess. The first rule of goddidit is that you don’t talk about goddidit.

eric, both you and Michael should have enough experience with me to know that I'm not pushing a "If you can't prove multiverses, then God wins!" line. I'm pushing the precise line that I pushed in the original comment: that atheists are accepting an argument that isn't any better than the God argument just because it doesn't include God. In short, that your pretensions to holding a very rational position fall short when we note that it seems that about the only reason for you to accept that theory is because of how it gets around these problems.

Not convinced? After looking -- admittedly on Wikipedia -- about the theory, the BEST that most scientists say is that it's possible, not that it's true. It is ONE inflationary theory -- the eternal model -- and has as a POSSIBLE implication that there are multiverses, but even the originators concede that it is possible that there's a way to hold the eternal model without multiverses, but that they can't see it. On top of that, there are a number of philosophical problems with it as a solution, such as the possibility that THIS is the original and eternal universe and the possibility that even if we get multiverses that they can't have different cosmological constants, which would completely kill it as a solution to the problem.

Essentially, you haven't proven that it is true, so Jason saying that it is a perfectly good solution seems premature at best. If the eternal inflationary model was the theory that had the scientific consensus, then that would be another matter ... but it doesn't seem to. So what you have is essentially a theory that posits supernatural things that eventually produce this natural thing with the constants it has. How is that different from people positing God?

Onto Occam's Razor:

The razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If we need a theory to explain cosmological flatness, and the best theory that does that also happens to support the concept of a multiverse, then we’re not muliplying entities unnecessarily.

This only works if no other inflationary theories work as well and don't require or predict multiverses. My understanding is that that's not the case. There doesn't seem to be too much in the eternal inflationary model that's a big problem for other inflationary models. The only interesting idea is that there are still fluctuations that might be of the right sort to give rise to other universes if those fluctuations were how this universe got started, but there's really no reason to presume that. Again, most seem to concede that it needs more evidence and proof before being accepted.

Also note this:

Its not minimal, that’s the problem. You’ve snuck in sentience, benevolence, a fair amount of understanding, and potence if not omnipotence.

But those are theoretical commitments of that theory, just as multiverses is of the eternal inflationary model. It doesn't seem fair to insist that that isn't minimal while using the same argument to defend how minimal the eternal inflationary model is.

Also, as an aside:

A minimalist first cause would simply be a rule or law that allows for universes to come into being.

Not so minimal, since it would mean that all rules or laws would have to have causal powers, which would mean that they'd have to exist in some real sense, and in the same sort of sense as a "Ground of Being" or Platonic Forms or real mathematical objects, which would pretty much prove that you can have real, non-empirical objects ... at least, not empirical in the sense you would want.

So what you're left with is an a priori, philosophical commitment -- probably naturalism -- to prefer that theory over, as you put it "goddidit". But that itself isn't necessarily the rational position. Let's take your own list and remove the naturalist presumption:

Imagine I have four possible explanations for my teacup being full of cold tea. One: I filled it very early this morning. Two: a coworker filled it very early this morning. Three: I left it full overnight. Four: magic monkeys filled it. Now, even if I don’t have enough evidence to decide between one, two, and three, I can still claim that one is more rational than four. Two is more rational than four. Three is more rational than four. Just so, eternal inflation is more rational than Goddidit, and I don’t need to know which inflationary model is correct to say that.

Except the only way you can say that is to insert "magical" in there, and refuse to accept that multiverses with completely different laws of physics probably count as supernatural by most definitions. If you don't assume "God is magic and multiverses are natural", what we have is people taking this thing that -- for good reasons or for bad -- that we always thought created these things and doing something deliberately to do that and people who are asserting that this completely new thing might possibly be able to do it and might possibly exist. The second is actually closer to your 4) than God is, since you have absolutely no actual empirical evidence for multiverses, and we have perfectly good theories that don't require it. It's only your insistence that God explanations are magical and multiverses aren't that allows to argue that your analogy fits. At best, both God and multiverses are 4) ... and I think that God is at worst 3). But then I don't make that sort of presumption ... but more on that in another comment.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

Well, if you are starting with the premise that such arguments can prove existence ...

I'm not. I'm simply not presuming that they CAN'T either. I evaluate each argument on its own merits, and so if your only attack on the argument is a presumption I feel no qualms about pointing that out without worrying about walking into a contradiction.

Also, I have a fully proper logical proof: if a conceptual property implies that an object must be instantiated, then that if that is a properly formed concept then the object must have an instance and be instantiated. The trick is not in demonstrating that this can happen, as that is logically certain, but that any specific concept actually meets the criteria.

Secondly, Arisotelian prime mover /= the God that most people believe in. There’s nothing in that argument that links it to sentience, or benevolence, or omnipotence, or Jesus.

Actually, if you follow the argument then sentience, benevolence, and omnipotence are indeed required, but as I said most people don't understand it ... and this is coming from someone who finds it suspect. Jesus isn't ... but most of those who push it concede that, and getting there would indeed prove the existence of a sentient, benevolent and omnipotent being, which would be a pretty good achievement, if it worked.

And lastly, it’s somewhat ironic to hear a monotheist claim that other people are rejecting Aristotle’s thoughts on the subject of gods and prime movers, given that (IIRC) Aristotle was a polytheist who did not claim his unmoved mover was a god. Why are you rejecting Aristotle’s understanding of his own argument, VS?

Because it's a philosophical argument, not an appeal to authority? If I describe my moral viewpoint as Kantian and Stoic, that does not mean that I have to accept everything that they said on the matter.

Also, not Aristotlean, nor a Ground of Being theorist. One need not think the theory right to point out that those criticizing it are doing so invalidly.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

In response to eric's #37:
“Ah, so you’re going with the postmodern defense: claim that science is just a form of faith and so just as unwarranted [sic].”

No. My claim is not that science is just a form of faith.

My claim is that much of cosmological and biological “science” is just a form of (unreasonable) faith (e.g. multiverses, the ORIGINS of a point of singularity and of universal constants and of life and of sexual reproduction and of eyesight).

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

your pretensions to holding a very rational position fall short when we note that it seems that about the only reason for you to accept that theory is because of how it gets around these problems.

You're wrong. I guess I have no way to prove it to you, but I never thought the fine tuning argument was valid in the first place* so I don't need a multiverse explanation to overcome it. My tentative acceptance of it derives from the fact that inflation is a best fit model for cosmology, and there is no reason not to think inflation couldn't happen over and over again. Should some other theory come along and overturn the inflationary model, I'll likely ditch my acceptance of a multiverse. Its no skin off my back.

*The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance. We don't know what values the fundamental constants could attain - whether the range is wide or narrow or whether they are deductively fixed due to some undelying law. If they can vary within a range, we don't know whether all possible values are equiprobable or not. So the fine tuning argument is like a claim that we won the lottery and this is a remarkable fact that requires God to explain it...without us even knowing the odds of winning. That's kind of important information to know before we start multiplying entities to explain the improbability, isn't it?

It's interesting to watch this mud-wrestling. All I need is some popcorn.

Whatever the defects of "scientific" explanations, they have the virtue of being at least theoretically testable. Once one makes a deity part of the equation, the explanation ceases to be testable.

Being untestable does not prove deistic explanations are wrong, but being testable means we can have greater confidence in scientific explanations.

Deistic explanations may be valid "last resorts' but we are no where near needing any last resorts. It's premature to head for the fire exits.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Essentially, you haven’t proven that it is true, so Jason saying that it is a perfectly good solution seems premature at best.

Science doesn't prove things to be true. And if that's your bar for acceptance, your own belief in God would seem to not meet it.

So what you have is essentially a theory that posits supernatural things that eventually produce this natural thing with the constants it has. How is that different from people positing God?

I could quibble over the 'supernatural' description but to the main question: Inflation predicts many observable and confirmable phenomena. 'God did it' does not. Its untestable.

Except the only way you can say that is to insert “magical” in there, and refuse to accept that multiverses with completely different laws of physics probably count as supernatural by most definitions.

Anyone can throw the 'supernatural' label around, but the truth here is that there is a scientiifc theory which seems to point towards the existence of multiple universes and gives a mechanism as to how they can arise out of (I believe) quantum mechancis or particle physics. That, to my mind, makes them not supernatural. Positing a being that speaks a word and poof we get the universe, that is supernatural.

Actually, if you follow the argument then sentience, benevolence, and omnipotence are indeed required, but as I said most people don’t understand it

As I said and you accepted, Aristotle did not assert that his unmoved mover was a god. In fact he thought they couldn't affect the physical world in the normal sense (i.e., they can't push atoms around, etc.). So not at all omnipotent and certaintly not theistic if we take the distinction between theism and deism to be that the former imagines an intervening deity. This wikipedia article also claims that Aristotle didn't even think they needed to be sentient: "it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence."

Of course its possible that maybe Aristotle did not understand his prime mover argument and his telos concept as well as VS understands them. You'll perhaps forgive me if I don't consider that likely.

My claim is not that science is just a form of faith.

My claim is that much of cosmological and biological “science” is just a form of (unreasonable) faith

Let me guess: you see the bits of science that disagree with the bible as the bits that scientists take on irrational faith, while all the bits that don't disagree with the bible are the good, rational, empirical parts of science. Do I have that right?

What I am curious about is if someone claims he or she believes in God on faith alone, then why science would have any impact on that belief. How exactly does the truth or falsity of the multiverse or evolution make any difference - even if someone else tries to use those ideas to refute God? If you are not using evidence to believe in God, then evidence shouldn't matter, no?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael,

Regarding, “if someone claims he or she believes in God on faith alone, then why science would have any impact on that belief” ?

That’s a good question. If faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then any scientific claims about a multiverse theory should be met with indifference.

I have long suspected that only the most devout believers can manage with “pure faith”, without thinking that their beliefs could be verified by science. I suspect that the need to make religious belief seem “proven” by rational means is evidence of the weakening of religious belief. They’re only suspicions, but I think there’s something to them. I’ve been knocking heads with creationists since the 70’s and those suspicions turned up pretty quickly.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

I'm willing to believe you about your motivations and your preferred argument against the fine tuning argument. I will only note that you continue to conflate inflationary theory and multiverses, and use the success of the former to demonstrate the latter despite, again, it being the case that the latter does not necessarily follow from inflationary theories. You cannot use the justifications for inflationary theory as a whole to support the credibility of multiverses, since they are not identical.

Science doesn’t prove things to be true. And if that’s your bar for acceptance, your own belief in God would seem to not meet it.

You don't even have scientific evidence for multiverses being true, as the scientific community itself -- from the wiki -- is saying that more proof/evidence is required for them to accept them as true. So I'm not setting that as the bar at all. And as you well know, I merely claim belief. I just want you to admit that you can only claim that as well.

As I said and you accepted, Aristotle did not assert that his unmoved mover was a god.

Except the argument I was referring to there was the Thomist argument, not the Aristotlean one, which takes the Aristotlean framework, builds on it, and gets to a Ground of all Being that has those properties. If their argument works, then those things do follow. Believe it or not, I don't think it does, because I think they have no real reason to assume that the explanation for causes and traits has to be an entity. It might be, but it seems like it need not be. But I admit that I don't know enough about those arguments to say for certain.

Of course its possible that maybe Aristotle did not understand his prime mover argument and his telos concept as well as VS understands them. You’ll perhaps forgive me if I don’t consider that likely.

Again, not an Aristotlean, or a Thomist, or someone who thinks those arguments work. However, the Thomists HAVE worked out an extension of the theory that has that implication. Since Aristotle is not infallible and philosophical systems adapt and adjust, this is not a problem philosophically and we need to evaluate the arguments on their own merits, not dismiss them with an appeal to authority.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric #47:
“Let me guess: [blah blah blah] … Do I have that right?”

No, you do not.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael in #48 writes:
“What I am curious about is if someone claims he or she believes in God on faith alone, then why science would have any impact on that belief.”

I won’t speak for others, but I, See Noevo, do NOT believe in God on faith alone. I believe in God based on FAITH AND REASON.

“How exactly does the truth or falsity of the multiverse or evolution make any difference – even if someone else tries to use those ideas to refute God? If you are not using evidence to believe in God, then evidence shouldn’t matter, no?”

No.
1)The faithful DO use evidence to believe in God. In its simplest form it is this: God is the reason there is something as opposed to nothing. He is the causeless first cause.
2)The truth or falsity of ANY widely-promulgated thing or theory makes a difference. At least to those who value truth and despise falsehood.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

I think it's a poor strategy for an atheist to bring up the Multiverse hypothesis because of the reaction we see here: it sounds like something made up to address the fine-tuning argument, even though it wasn't. There are enough problems with the fine-tuning argument that there's no reason to offer explanations that resemble several plot-lines from Star Trek.

By Greg Esres (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Phil,

“Proteins are an outstanding example of a complex, functional system which is fully specified by, and constructed by, natural forces (yes, proteins may be synthesized non-biologically).”

Can you link to some literature about this synthesis?

Just look up "proteinoids" on Wikipedia and browse through the reference list. Basically, if you heat amino acids, they polymerize and you get proteins and proteinoids (which is just a word for molecules that look like proteins but contain addtional amino acids besides the ones we use). It's been demonstrated using hot sand and Hawaiian lava cinders as the heat source.

By Anton Mates (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Nice job SN of mixing up the two different definitions of reason. Not to mention just making things up as you go along. Keep up the good work.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

SN wrote:

"God is the reason there is something as opposed to nothing. He is the causeless first cause."

That's just a game in semantics, Without any discoverable attributes, it's just substituting one mysterious event for another and arbitrarily claiming that it's the end of the matter.

It's also a lie; no one really believes in gods through such arguments; rather, they first believe in gods due to childhood indoctrination, then they grasp onto any shaky reasoning that can put their intellect to sleep.

By Greg Esres (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

1)The faithful DO use evidence to believe in God. In its simplest form it is this: God is the reason there is something as opposed to nothing. He is the causeless first cause.

You forgot to put the reason in there.

2)The truth or falsity of ANY widely-promulgated thing or theory makes a difference. At least to those who value truth and despise falsehood.

True - which is why the widespread "arguments" for the existence of a god are always challenged: they seem to be lacking evidence, which renders their "truth' quite suspect.

The something from nothing argument is a hoary old chestnut. If God is something and God has always existed, then there has always been something. If there has always been something, then something from nothing is an impossibility. If God is nothing and God created something - I love it when people capitalize Nothing to make it seem like something different, then something can come from nothing. What this has to do with the existence of God, I am not sure, but it is typical of the word games used in apologetics.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Well gee whiz folks! I go watch a football game, grade a few papers, teach a few classes, and all heck breaks loose!

I haven't read through everyone's comments, but I would point out one thing. In the context of this post, the burden of proof does not lie with the multiverse proponents. If you're arguing that fine-tuning is evidence for God, then it is on you to explain why God is a better explanation for fine-tuning than is the multiverse.

The multiverse is obviously speculative, but it is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics (see Brian Greene's book The Hidden Reality, for example.) Also, it hypothesizes no new entities, but merely asserts that there is a lot more of things that are known to exist. To my mind these facts make the multiverse far more plausible than the alternative idea, that there is an extremely powerful intelligent agent who poofs universe into existence by acts of will.

Does God have to be smart? I bet not. He could be an idiot savant, like Rain Man. Universe-building is his only talent; he doesn't necessarily understand what he builds..He might be as surprised as any of us that it actually works.

By Greg Esres (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jason Rosenhouse writes
“… the burden of proof does not lie with the multiverse proponents…The multiverse is obviously speculative, but it is strongly suggested by several lines of thought in modern physics…”

In other words, real science equals whatever lines of thought come from scientists’ heads. Or sci-fi writers’ heads.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jason also writes:
“Well gee whiz folks! I go watch a football game, grade a few papers, teach a few classes, and all heck breaks loose!”

With 50-something comments here, I guess “All heck breaking loose” is relative. I heard Eric Metaxas’ 12/25/14 WSJ article on a similar topic garnered over 7,000 comments. It may be going still.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

Anton,

“Just look up “proteinoids” on Wikipedia and browse through the reference list. Basically, if you heat amino acids, they polymerize and you get proteins and proteinoids”

Thanks for the tip. I didn’t see in the article where you get proteins and proteinoids in such experiments, but it did note that proteinoids are not proteins. I was particularly intrigued by MK’s statement as he used the word functional.

In other words, real science equals whatever lines of thought come from scientists’ heads. Or sci-fi writers’ heads.

Who said anything about “real science?” I'm saying that if you want to use fine-tuning as an argument for God you have to explain to me why I should favor the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse receives some support from physics and doesn't hypothesize any fundamentally new entities. The God hypothesis, by contrast, simply invents from whole cloth an intelligent agent with awesome, universe-creating powers. I'd say those are points in favor of the multiverse.

Jason,

"The multiverse receives some support from physics and doesn’t hypothesize any fundamentally new entities."

I think support is the wrong word since the idea is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Wouldn't an infinite number of universes amount to new entities?

Jason responds to me:
“Who said anything about “real science?””

I guess I’m the guilty party. I was only trying to distinguish science (e.g. A methodology of investigation reliant on observation, measurement, falsification, predictive power, etc) from the “science” of multiverses.

“I’m saying that if you want to use fine-tuning as an argument for God you have to explain to me why I should favor the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis.”

Even if more than one universe existed, how could (real) science ever possibly explain or prove how any of them originated?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 02 Feb 2015 #permalink

"what reason do those who posit the multiverse option have for saying that it is a more rational or reasonable option than saying that God did it?"

For me that's the lowest of low bars for any alternate idea to hurdle, because for me "God did it" has no explanatory or predictive value whatever - zero. How can an incomprehensible entity of unknown origin and unknown means of producing effects have any explanatory value? To me, saying "God did it" is just an obfuscatory way of saying "I don't know how or why it happened." If philosophy doesn't recognize this, so much the worse for philosophy.

Example: "How did the gravitational constant of this universe get set?" Answer: "The flub-stubber flub-stubbed it." Did that produce any enlightenment or provide any useful information?

Of course if there were reliable, peer-reviewable evidence of a god its existence could be supported by that evidence, regardless of its explanatory value, but no such evidence exists. The answer some Christians give for this is that "God doesn't do tests" (according to some Bible verse). Oddly enough, this is the same answer that con-men give when their cons are questioned.

See Dr. Sean Carroll's blog (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/ ) for his discussion of how the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can be used to derive mathematically the QM amplitude relationship between wave functions and the probabilities of event occurrences. If nothing else, it provides a basis for developing an intuitive understanding of QM which is useful when doing complex QM calculations. The computers with which we access this blog contain transistors whose properties were predicted by such calculations.

Note that Dr. Carroll and other scientists who support multiverse hypotheses do not claim any absolute philosophical certainty, just that their interpretations are consistent with the physical laws as we know them so far, and provide a model which aids them in their theoretical work. They will be happy to embrace other ideas which make more sense to them when such ideas are evolved.

(As I've tried to explain before, the evidence I see and read about in history tells me that both ideas and designs evolve. So that when Paley considered a watch in a forest he got the lesson backwards. It wasn't that the watch was designed and so were the trees; it was that the trees evolved and so did the watch. Time-keeping mechanisms have a long history of evolution from more primitive forms, as have everything else that humans have designed, starting with log that rolled down a hill leading to the rollers under large building stones, leading to chariot wheels, etc..)

Jason,

I haven’t read through everyone’s comments, but I would point out one thing. In the context of this post, the burden of proof does not lie with the multiverse proponents. If you’re arguing that fine-tuning is evidence for God, then it is on you to explain why God is a better explanation for fine-tuning than is the multiverse.

If you're arguing, as you were, that the multiverse explanation is at least as good if not better than the God explanation, it's perfectly reasonable for people to insist that you show that it is, which is all I was doing, while also pointing out the qualities that it shares with the God theory that atheists insist is an epistemic sin for that theory but accept or ignore in that one. If you posit it as a potential explanation or alternative, then people would be quite reasonable to insist that you show that it is a viable alternative, and if you go further and claim that it is better, should be the default view, or is the rational view, then again people are quite reasonable to challenge that ... regardless of what they think of the fine tuning argument or if they can prove it.

For my part, I didn't challenge it to show that the fine tuning argument was better, therefore God. I challenged it to show that it was no better evidenced and not necessarily any more rational.

Also, it hypothesizes no new entities, but merely asserts that there is a lot more of things that are known to exist.

Assuming that this is meant to address the point about Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. Take eric's teacup example, for instance. If someone posited that a co-worker filled it, and someone else posited that co-worker A filled it half-way and co-worker B filled it the rest, Occam's Razor would slice away the second theory, even though both co-workers are known to exist.

The multiverse receives some support from physics and doesn’t hypothesize any fundamentally new entities. The God hypothesis, by contrast, simply invents from whole cloth an intelligent agent with awesome, universe-creating powers.

Except it doesn't do that. It takes something that we already thought existed and that already created the universe and claims that it set this here, because it had a reason to want to create life and so a reason to set those variables the way they were set, which random, natural processes wouldn't. How scientifically acceptable that entity is is up for debate, but we've believed, as a set of cultures, that something like that has existed for thousands of years. So it's not inventing anything out of whole cloth.

And, on top of that, simply suggesting that something that we know exists did it isn't any great support for a theory if the think can't do it. If we need it to be intelligently set, then talking about how universes already exist won't work unless they are themselves intelligent enough to do it. Unless you can show how the multiverse theory can do what you need it to and that it is true, then there really isn't any a priori reason to prefer it to the God theory, barring philosophical assumptions.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 03 Feb 2015 #permalink

The advantages of multiverse theories are:

1) they might be testable or useful.

All scientific theories begin with an unknown, and posit an explanation. In general these explanations need to either be testable or useful. When Heliocentrism was proposed (by Kopernik a.k.a. Copernicus in 1543), it was not considered testable, but as soon as Kepler (d. in 1630) made his changes it became very useful. Heliocentrism was not proved until 1838 by Bessel.

So a multiverse theory needs to become either testable or useful to be taken as more than conjectural. That it is currently not testable is irrelevant. Likewise, until it has been explored for some time, it’s usefulness need not be immediate.

If all multiverse theories turn out to be neither testable nor useful, they will be abandoned; a fate that has happened to many other promising but sterile theories.

2) they don’t invoke new entities.

There’s been at least one universe created (ours) and no one has provided a reason to think this kind of event could happen only once. It may have happened many times before and may happen many times again. There’s no good reason to doubt that.

Multiverses are considered to operate similarly to our own: they have dimensions, contents, energy, and events. Being different from our universe, we can only surmise what their details are like, but they need not be radically different to foster sub-universes like our own.

Multiverse theories propose to solve a problem by positing something new and strange, but not beyond comprehension, validation, or application.

If you are skeptical of these theories, you could show why other universes are impossible or improbable, or why it could only happen once.

The disadvantages of deistic explanations are

1) they are not testable or useful.

If you can propose a test of your deistic explanation, or tell scientists how to use them to discover new things, then by all means do so. But in spite of many attempts, these efforts have turned out to be untestable and useless.

2) they depend on the invocation of radically unique entities.

Deities are not conceive of as being “like us” or even like anything we do know about. Attempts are made to draw analogies to more familiar things, persons, parents, kings, etc. but these analogies universally fail. Enormous and untestable differences in attributes are necessary to support the deistic explanation, which obliterates analogies to familiar persons or objects.

Deistic explanations propose to solve a problem by positing a mystery beyond comprehension, validation, or application.

If you support these explanations, you could show us how to verify the truth of them, or their practical utility.

I am sure that some better-informed readers may quibble with details of my explanation, but I think it is generally correct.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 03 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS,

I think you are setting the bar too high here. You seem to be insisting that unless multiverse hypotheses (they certainly are NOT theories yet!) garner general acceptance by the entire relevant scientific community, that there is no logical reason to think that they might be valid. I don't think anyone has claimed that the multiverse hypotheses have reached this level yet; clearly they have not.

On the other hand, they do, as others have pointed out, have rational reasons for our provisional acceptance of their possibility. Some of the inflationary models, which were certainly NOT developed in any way to explain the fine-tuning "problem", posit that the event leading to the inflation of our universe was not a unique event, thus leading to speculation about the multiverse. (BTW, please don't confuse this idea with the QM "many-worlds" interpretation; they are distinct ideas). These inflationary models do have testable predictions, although in our current state of knowledge of the relevant data, we are unable to conclusively distinguish between the predictions of those inflationary models that posit multiverses and those that do not. That's why the multiverse is considered to be speculative, but nonetheless scientific. It is certainly possible that one day further data will be obtained that would lead to the abandonment of the multiverse idea. If that happens, I am sure that the scientific community will speak no more of multiverses.

Phil @65:

I think support is the wrong word since the idea is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Wouldn’t an infinite number of universes amount to new entities?

No, because Occam's razor is really talking about explanatory entities. There is one explanatory mechanism that it posited (eternal inflation), and if that explanation is correct, it would produce an infinite or at least large number of universes. As an analogy, F=ma is one "entity" for razor purposes. It is not an infinite number of entities even though for my pencil F=ma, for my car F=ma, etc. on through all possible objects. If the explanation is right, it explains all such object behavior in one fell swoop.

See Noevo:

Even if more than one universe existed, how could (real) science ever possibly explain or prove how any of them originated?

I covered this in @18. If you have a theory that makes many predictions, and it becomes very strongly confirmed through observation of many of those predictions (but not all), then you are warranted in (tentatively, standard science caveats apply) accepting the unobserved predictions it makes. I don't need to go to alpha centauri to test whether F=ma works there: I rationally accept that it works in the cases I can't test because it is so successful at the tests I can make. Likewise with inflation: we are justified in accepting the claims it makes that we can't test because of the success of the claims it makes that we can test.

And this is also directly related to VS' claim that there is no more warrant for that belief than belief in God. VS is wrong, even though there are several different models of inflation and not all of them predict multiverses. Why is he wrong? Because while we don't know which inflation model will turn out to be accurate, we have pretty good observational confirmatory evidence that some version will turn out to be accurate. OTOH, there is no observational confirmatory evidence of God or gods at all. My teacup example kind of showed that: given a set of several explanations that are consistent with what we empirically observe, and one explanation that is not consistent with what we empirically observe, it is untrue to claim that any one explanation is just as good as any other. The first several as a set are more justified than the last, and any one of the explanations in the first set is also more justified than the last. Or maybe a more humerous example is in order: there's some poop on my doorstep. Alice says its from a cat. Bob says its from a dog. Charlie says its from a martian. I don't need to know whether Alice or Bob are right to be able to point out that Charlie is likely wronger than either of them. God is a martian: we have no evidence such an entity even exists. Inflationary models are the dog/cats: we have evidence for them, we just don't know yet which one will turn out to be right. And yeah, it could turn out to be deer poop - some explanation we haven't even thought of yet - but even so, Charlie is still wronger than the others.

@12 VS: repeating your error does nothing to remedy it. Sean T is right. The multiverse hypothesis, while not testable itself, follows from some theories that totally are testable. That answers your question:

"what reason do those who posit the multiverse option have for saying that it is a more rational or reasonable option than saying that God did it?"
So you're dishonest when you begin with "let’s put aside for a second the debate over what spawns the theory itself", because you thus dismiss the answer to your own question at beforehand.
Typical apologist strategy, that I'll admit.

@20 continuing your dishonesty with "By the same token, it would also allow for the existence of God."
Please show me how the existence of your or any god mathematically follows from any established theory of physics. You can't and you know it.

@41 stubbornly sticking to your error: " I’m pushing the precise line that I pushed in the original comment: that atheists are accepting an argument that isn’t any better than the God argument just because it doesn’t include God."
That point is and remains wrong. The multiverse is not an argument. It's a hypothesis that follows from a scientific theory correctly describing a set of various empirical data. The fact that there are problems with this hypothesis doesn't change this. So it's unsatisfactory, but it's still more reasonable than "goddiddid".
Learn to live with it. There is lots of unsatisfactory stuff in science. If there weren't the vast majority of scientists would get unemployed.

@50 still not capable to grasp the point with " I will only note that you continue to conflate inflationary theory and multiverses, and use the success of the former to demonstrate the latter"
Eric doesn't. In the first place he never claimed that the multiverse hypothesis is correct - because it's simply too early to say so. He doesn't need that to demonstrate that the hypothesis is still more reasonable than "goddiddid". And that's all atheists claim.

"You don’t even have scientific evidence for multiverses being true, as the scientific community itself — from the wiki — is saying that more proof/evidence is required for them to accept them as true."
Perfectly showing how stubbornness leads to silliness. "More evidence is required" means that there actually is scientific evidence - just that it's not enough to confidently say that some multiverse hypothesis is correct. Truth is for believers like you, who contradict themselves without realizing it.

@21 See Noevo "is my understanding that the idea of the multiverse DID arise to address the “fine tuning problem”."
Your understanding is wrong. Do some googling on multiverse and consult some respectable sources.

@43 "My claim is that much of cosmological and biological “science” is just a form of (unreasonable) faith"
That claim only shows you don't (want to) understand how science works.

@52 "God is the reason there is something as opposed to nothing. He is the causeless first cause."
That's not evidence. That's just an assumption.

@66 "I was only trying to distinguish science (e.g. A methodology of investigation reliant on observation, measurement, falsification, predictive power, etc) from the “science” of multiverses."
Your attempt is a failure from the start. There is no such distinction. The fact that eventual empirical evidence for multiverses is indirect is not a problem at all. Or do you assume that the higgs-boson was observed directly? Think twice.

For MNb #73:
I did some Googling on multiverse theory. Can you explain at a top-level why “multi” does NOT mean just “more than one” or even “many”, but rather about 10 to the 500th power universes?

Would you say the law or dictum that “Every effect has a cause” is just an assumption?

And better think thrice. I didn’t say “observation” had to be direct. I would say observation is seeing, or otherwise detecting with the senses, with or without assistance from technology. We have never “observed” multiverses. And we never will be able to, for at least two reasons: 1) they don’t exist, and 2) you can never get out of, or see out of, our reality/universe.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 03 Feb 2015 #permalink

See Noevo:

Would you say the law or dictum that “Every effect has a cause” is just an assumption?

No, its a general conclusion that is supported by a lot of evidence...within human-scale boundary conditions. For very small things, we observe it doesn't always hold. Nor is this some tentative conclusion: QM is generally considered the most tested and most confirmed scientific theory ever developed. So should we assume 'every effect has a cause' holds always and for everything? No, that would be silly given we already know of situations where it doesn't hold.

Now you can back it up one notch and claim the rules of QM "cause" events. I don't think this really gets you out of the problem though, for two reasons. One is that the rules really don't specify what happens in a deterministic sense. Two is that if you're going to stop somewhere and posit a causa causans, it seems to me that a set of rules that appear, based on the math, allow for universe production ex nihilo, and for which we have empirical evidence, is a much better stopping point than a deity we have no empirical evidence for.

See Noevo,

You are confusing the so-called "quantum interpretation" problem with quantum mechanics itself. Quantum mechanics is the scientific theory that governs the actual behavior of entities at small scales. It is not a deterministic theory, but rather a statistical one. That is, it cannot predict that under a set of given conditions, one will find the position, momentum, energy, etc. of an electron will be certain values. It CAN predict, for each possible value of say an electron's energy, what the probability of measuring that value would be. We can demonstrate that this prediction is correct by measuring the energies of large numbers of electrons under the given conditions and determining whether the observed distribution of energies matches the distribution that is predicted by QM. To date, no known experimental result has deviated from the predictions of QM. In that sense, QM is proven. That's all we can EVER say about a scientific theory, though - that the theory makes predictions that never deviate from observation.

The issues you are talking about have more to do with the fact that on an intuitive level, QM really makes very little sense to us. What does it mean, for instance, when QM predicts that the same electron can have several different positions at once, and that we only know it's "actual" position once we try to measure it? Does the electron really have something we could validly call an "actual position"? Experimental evidence (again of a statistical nature) indicate not (look up Bell's Inequality for more details). What happens, then, when we measure the position of an electron that has multiple positions at once that causes it to be seen in only one position upon measurement? (look up "wave function collapse). Those are issues we have with our understanding of the theory. For many physicists, though, the answer is "shut up and calculate," because the theory does undoubtedly produce correct results.

Sean T.,

You seem to be insisting that unless multiverse hypotheses (they certainly are NOT theories yet!) garner general acceptance by the entire relevant scientific community, that there is no logical reason to think that they might be valid.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "valid". I am not saying that the multiverse theory isn't a possible solution to the fine tuning question. It is. I just don't think it a solution that anyone needs to accept if they don't want to, because it isn't particularly well-supported, and don't think it necessarily better or necessarily worse than the God solution.

As a point of comparison, take evolution. This theory is the scientific consensus, and so if you think that science produces knowledge at all you have to accept it, and can't just deny it out of hand to preserve the role of God in the picture. That's not the case for the fine tuning argument. It's only its link to science that could make anyone prefer it to the alternatives, and that's a philosophical, not logical/rational/evidential commitment.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

MNb,

So you’re dishonest when you begin with “let’s put aside for a second the debate over what spawns the theory itself”, because you thus dismiss the answer to your own question at beforehand.
Typical apologist strategy, that I’ll admit.

I'm sorry, but I can't parse what objection this is supposed to be to me, even taking into account the first quote, so all I can say until you clarify it is that if you are accusing me of acting in any way like a typical apologist, you're almost certainly wrong, since I'm usually neither [grin].

Please show me how the existence of your or any god mathematically follows from any established theory of physics. You can’t and you know it.

Multiverses don't follow mathematically from any established theory of physics either, as since there are inflationary theories that are perfectly valid mathematically and yet don't have multiverses as a consequence of them. The best you could do here is claim that "follows" means "fits in with the mathematics", but then God could do that as well, since inflationary models that don't posit multiverses don't have that way out of the fine tuning problem.

That point is and remains wrong. The multiverse is not an argument.

In the context of the fine tuning problem, it is an argument that multiverses are a solution to the fine tuning claims and, as Jason said, are a perfectly good explanation for it. That means that, yeah, in that context it's an argument, and atheists who adopt it as an explanation in that context don't really have any better reason to think multiverses exist than that God exists, once we take the philosophical commitments of naturalism, atheism, and preferring specifically scientific explanations out of the picture.

“More evidence is required” means that there actually is scientific evidence – just that it’s not enough to confidently say that some multiverse hypothesis is correct.

Actually, it means that there might be no evidence at all, as you'd still need more evidence to confidently say that it's correct. And my whole point is that, again, even science won't say that it's correct yet. So why should anyone believe it is?

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

Multiverses don’t follow mathematically from any established theory of physics either, as since there are inflationary theories that are perfectly valid mathematically and yet don’t have multiverses as a consequence of them.

No, this is incorrect, and you should logically know better. Stating that 'some A's don't lead to B's' does not demonstrate that no B follows from any A. There are several inflationary models, and a multiverse follows mathematically from one (or more) of them, and by that we mean that the model is not neutral or agnostic on the presence of other universes, it means that if the model is accurate, it predicts they exist.

No such relationship exists between physics and God or even a universe designing entity. There is no model such that, if it is right, it predicts God exists. Fine tuning doesn't; to get to God - for that you have to invoke the old false dichotomy, which we know is fallacious logic. Not even ID claims it predicts God, as the supporters are so happily to publicly proclaim (while the rest of us strongly suspect them of lying about their motives). And that is why your "not necessarily better or worse" attempt to place eternal inflation and goddidit on equal explanatory grounds is wrong: because an hypothesis with some empirical support behind it is not the equvialent of an hypothesis that has no empirical support for it and which also is claimed by many proponents to be untestable. As far as cosmology is concerned, the former is much much stronger than the latter. It's a better cosmological hypothesis.

eric,

No, this is incorrect, and you should logically know better. Stating that ‘some A’s don’t lead to B’s’ does not demonstrate that no B follows from any A. There are several inflationary models, and a multiverse follows mathematically from one (or more) of them, and by that we mean that the model is not neutral or agnostic on the presence of other universes, it means that if the model is accurate, it predicts they exist.

Yes, but those inflationary models are not yet ESTABLISHED, which is the key point there. I didn't deny that it followed mathematically from the eternal inflationary theory -- although, from the wiki, the originators don't actually think it does -- but do deny that that theory has been established or demonstrated, as pretty much everyone in this thread has agreed since the best they've said about it is that it's speculative. Speculative pretty much means not established.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

To put it better, perhaps, inflationary models in general are established, but multiverses do not follow from inflationary models in general. Multiverses follow from some specific inflationary models, but those ones are not yet established.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

perhaps, inflationary models in general are established, but multiverses do not follow from inflationary models in general. Multiverses follow from some specific inflationary models, but those ones are not yet established.

I understand your point. Do you understand this: "not yet established" in this case /= epistemicaly equivalent to a belief that has no evidence supporting it whatsoever. EI has some evidence but not enough to nail it down. Goddidit thas none. Thus they are not equally justified beliefs.

To Sean T #77:
Your description of QM’s “proven” predictive success as a statistical but not deterministic theory sounds like you could be describing rolls of the dice at the craps table.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

See Noevo: “ Your description of QM’s “proven” predictive success as a statistical but not deterministic theory sounds like you could be describing rolls of the dice at the craps table.

I think there’s a lot more to it than that, but even so this is categorically better than any “predictive success” of deistic explanations.

If you could predict dice rolls at a craps table as well as QM predicts events, craps would cease to be “gambling”.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

If you could predict dice rolls at a craps table as well as QM predicts events, craps would cease to be “gambling”.

In fact, for the Casino, a craps table is no gamble at all: the behavior of a large ensemble of rolls in connection to the rules of the game is entirely predictable. The nondeterminism of the game poses absolutely no problem for long-term, large ensemble, accurate predictions. Which is much like QM (but even more like Statistical Mechanics, I suppose. Blah.)

“[CM] cannot predict that under a set of given conditions, one will find the position, momentum, energy, etc. of an electron will be certain values. It CAN predict, for each possible value of say an electron’s energy, what the probability of measuring that value would be.”

Substitute “simple probability theory” for CM, and “dice” for electron, and you got the craps table. And it will still be real gambling.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric

True enough. The house always wins. I am not familiar with any “predictive success” for deistic explanations. This seems a complaint that QM does not quite make a standard that deistic explanations cannot even approach. Like some fan in the cheap seats ragging about how a pro-athlete missed a free-throw.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

See Noevo;

The entire quote is necessary to put context back:

[QM] cannot predict that under a set of given conditions, one will find the position, momentum, energy, etc. of an electron will be certain values. It CAN predict, for each possible value of say an electron’s energy, what the probability of measuring that value would be. We can demonstrate that this prediction is correct by measuring the energies of large numbers of electrons under the given conditions and determining whether the observed distribution of energies matches the distribution that is predicted by QM. To date, no known experimental result has deviated from the predictions of QM. In that sense, QM is proven. That’s all we can EVER say about a scientific theory, though – that the theory makes predictions that never deviate from observation.

So where is the Deistic equivalent in predictive success? It does not exist. Deistic explanations make no useful or testable predictions at all. QM need not be taken on religious faith. Each and every of the many deistic explanations must be taken on their own peculiar religious faith.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

sean samis #89 says:
"QM need not be taken on religious faith. Each and every of the many deistic explanations must be taken on their own peculiar religious faith."

How about MT (multiverse theory)? Is belief in MT a matter of faith?

Is belief in abiogenesis a matter of faith?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 04 Feb 2015 #permalink

If the goals in the Super Bowl had been moved prior tot the final play as SN did in 90 the interception would never have happened.

SN: what is the problem with recognizing that QM is useful and is backed up by observation and theory? Do you go out of your way to deny the usefulness of every scientific theory? Relativity too?

I know, Phil.
No matter what the shocking discovery, evolution is always "confirmed".

In that sense, it's much like anthropogenic global warming, er, climate change. Both flood and drought, both hurricanes and lack thereof, etc, tell the tale.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

@ 92 & 93

RE: "No matter what the shocking discovery, evolution is always “confirmed”

In fact, no. If you had even a modicom of sound reasoning skills, you'd have recognised that, in the present example i.e. a hyper-stable local environment where few life forms exist and show little or no environmental pressures on the organism(s) adaptation to habitat, IF there'd been found many or all of the usual indications of evolutionary changes (which can be any sort of progression or degradation in physiology), THAT should then have constituted a "shocking discovery"--and one, by the way, which should present a difficulty for evolutionary--a difficulty which scientists, as scientists, should have had to deal with honestly rather than simply hide, deny or flee from.

But since here, as in virtually everywhere else, we find the very sort of things which Darwinian evolution would lead us to expect: little to no evironmental pressures, little to no variation in observed characteristics; and, more often, the converse of this.

Still, scientists are typically (or they ought to be), unlike yourselves, are actually open to revising or even discarding their presently-held fact-based beliefs when actual new evidence comes to so seriously refute or undermine their theories that it makes those theories difficult or impossible to maintain. For you, only things which confirm and support --or might--your pre-conceived beliefs are welcome to be taken seriously. You're not really interested in new knowledge, new facts, just new data which provides grist--however unreasonable, apparently,--for your mental mill, which operates as a closed-shop. As thinkers, you guys are a hilarious, an embarrassing, fucking joke!

-----------------

Eric, Sean S. : What's the point of laboring over debating with people who are so clearly closed-minded?

By proximity1 (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

Further to my post, above, @ 94:

LOL! Did you guys even bother to read the article cited?

Among other things, it contains a shorter comment summarizing my point above,

"“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

Is that just beyond you to understand? Or didn't you get that far in the article?

By proximity1 (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

proximity1:
I'm sure you realize this, but phil and sn have, by virtue of their numerous misrepresentations and blatant lies, made it clear they've never had an intention of carrying on an honest dialog. It is as though they have decided to be real life embodiments of the most extreme stereotypes of creationist behavior and dishonesty.

Eric, Sean S. : What’s the point of laboring over debating with people who are so clearly closed-minded?

I don't think they're going to change their belief in God any time soon. But there may be some misunderstandings about science and what scientists think that we can help with. For example, VS and SN thought that cosmological inflation was developed because scientists were upset about the fine tuning argument. I think we have convinced VS at least that this is incorrect (Carley Simon maybe said it best: 'you're so vain, you probably think this research is about you'). SN seems to think that QM's nondeterminism is some huge problem for science (and technology development). We are sort of in the process of showing him it is not.
I don't think conversion is necessarily the only or even best goal of these conversations. Sometimes its just better understanding.

See Noevo asked “Is belief in MT a matter of faith?” No. Currently they are speculations, but that is part of the process. If multiverse theories fail to be validated or found useful then they will be abandoned. That they are not currently so is irrelevant, all valid theories go through a period in which they are speculative or conjectural.

Deistic explanations are faith – until they propose a possible way to validate them. Then they can claim the same status; until then they are religious faith.

Is belief in abiogenesis a matter of faith?” No, for pretty much the same answer as multiverses. However, this one is much closer to being proved than multiverse theories. It remains speculative, but I doubt that status will continue very much longer.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

proximity1;

Eric answered well. I labor over these debates to help me understand the topics better. The best way to learn is to teach. The more impervious the student, the more the teacher gains. Reading other comments is instructive too.

All this is good for me.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

"...if you go further and claim that it is better, should be the default view, or is the rational view ..."

The default, rational view of how this universe came to be is "I don't know." People who like the multiverse ideas are speculating in a way which makes sense to them based on their understanding of of things such as string theory, cosmic inflation, and quantum mechanics. They are not claiming any a-priori logical basis for that speculation to be the only possibility.

The god hypothesis, on the other hand, lacks a couple critical details to be a worthwhile explanation: a) it doesn't explain anything at all (see my previous comment) and b) it is not a sensible extrapolation of what we do know.

We don't see things poofing into existence by deliberate acts of will. What we see is explained well by random events, filtered by survival criteria, evolving by trial and error into more useful forms (e.g., Edison's thousands of trial-and-error experiments on light bulbs and batteries). After enough primitive efforts, ways to evolve things faster are evolved: engineering tables, computer programs to simulate designs before they are built and tested, rules of logic, etc.

Also, we don't see a universe that seems to have been fine-tuned for human life. 99.9999% of it is too hot or too cold and lacking in breathable air. Consider how small our planet is compared to our sun, how small our sun is compared to our solar system, how many solar systems there are in our galaxy, and how many other galaxies we have observed in our light-cone. To say that all that was poofed in order that after about 13 billion years we would show up seems hubristic to the point of ludicrousy to me.

What seems very sensible is that the universe evolved us in a way consistent with its particular properties: we are fine-tuned for this universe, not the universe fine-tuned for us. This is exactly what evolution does. Who knows what better creatures might exist in a different universe?

Even in this universe, the possiblities exist for much finer creatures than ourselves. We can see this due to the variations that evolution invariable produces. Usain Bolt is more than twice as fast as the average human. Einstein was twice as smart. Florence Nightingale was twice as compassionate. One might ask why a universe-poofer could not have poofed a better universe, or better humans in this one.

The multiverse ideas, speculative as they are, do not suffer these basic flaws. Of course, they also do not offer support for blind faith and the assumption of god-like qualities in humans, which is why they are not as popular with the average human.

Also, we don’t see a universe that seems to have been fine-tuned for human life. 99.9999% of it is too hot or too cold and lacking in breathable air.

You are off by many orders of magnitude. I back-of-the-Excel-envelope calculated the livable volume of the solar system to be about 1.5E-28%. That was before Pluto's delisting so it goes out to P's orbit but not further. And of course, there's lots more empty between solar systems than there is in them.

One might ask why a universe-poofer could not have poofed a better universe, or better humans in this one.

Yes indeedy. The universe would be a pretty sweet, infinite playground if we were creatures that loved hard radiation, vacuum, 3 Kelvin beach weather, and could travel at/near lightspeed. Alas, we are not.

Yes indeedy. The universe would be a pretty sweet, infinite playground if we were creatures that loved hard radiation, vacuum, 3 Kelvin beach weather, and could travel at/near lightspeed. Alas, we are not.

God couldn't give us all that because it gave us free will or evil or something, but there was a trade-off any way and some reason it couldn't give us more good stuff. It reminds me of that old insult "When God was handing out brains, you were in the other line complaining about your looks." Its always the victim's fault.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

God couldn’t give us all that because it gave us free will or evil or something,

Pish tosh. As long as we stayed away from the black hole of knowledge we'd be fine.

Yeah, there's that one. You can imagine the conversation between God and Adam and Eve. God telling them if you want knowledge it is not sold separately, but only comes in a package coupled with with death and evil. Adam and Eve probably asked to talk to the Sales Manager and were told he or she was out to lunch. Let's hope they at least got something taken off the asking price.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 05 Feb 2015 #permalink

God couldn’t give us all that because it gave us free will or evil or something

We do seem to be approaching the point in the conversation where all the options not taken which seem better are asserted to be (a) not better for some reason humans can't comprehend, or (b) necessarily, logically impossible (like married bachelors) even though humans can't see why. The apology of inexplicability.

See Noevo,

“No matter what the shocking discovery, evolution is always “confirmed”.”

Yeah, but at least Professor Schopf recognized the problem and addressed it with the canned answer. I was a little surprised to not see the word ‘niche’ in article. He has an interesting bio, bishop-level at least.

Stories like this one are actually pretty common. Gould and Eldredge noticed the problem decades ago and proposed punk-eek as an explanation for the data not supporting the fantasy. Here’s another developmental loser:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/sea-creature-has-lived-the-same-way-f…

===

proximity1,

“scientists…are actually open to revising or even discarding their presently-held fact-based beliefs when actual new evidence comes to so seriously refute or undermine their theories that it makes those theories difficult or impossible to maintain.”

Well, as you mentioned, it should work this way. But things like this seem to be the evidential norm. What actually happens is that explanations are proposed which are situationally appealing, but not consistently applicable. For instance:

“If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

That sounds good when your trying to excuse an embarrassing situation like this one, but it doesn’t work at all to explain things like eyes developing.

I thought this was curious as well:

“preserved in rocks from Western Australia’s coastal waters. Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile”

A migration from near Western Australia to the coast of Chile is a significant trip, and it doesn’t really square up with two billion years worth of “simple, very stable physical and biological environment”. In case you’re wondering, the breakup of Pangea doesn’t help. http://vimeo.com/14258924

I don’t know about this particular of sulfur bacteria, but some that have been sequenced have 2-3 Mb genomes that encode 1750-2800 genes. This is a complex organism, and it seems a little odd that after acquiring that much supposed evolvability, there would be no selectable beneficial mutations for two billion years. This is not a Darwinian story, and it is not believable.

To comment @ 106--

That is incoherent and truly laughable bullshit--and, most interesting of all, perhaps, is that you apparently aren't even capable of recognizing how and why I assert that--no matter how long I might try to explain it to you.

Thus, you're apparently incorrigibly ignorant or simple-minded or both and it seems that you don't care to learn --even assuming that you could.

By the way, "your" is a possessive pronoun while "you're" (which is the word you intended) is a contraction of "you are." You're as lost to correct grammar as your absurd "arguments" show you to be to sound reasoning.

I'll waste no more of my time on entertaining your idiotic comments. If others find it worthwhile, that's their--note, "their" not "there"-- problem.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 06 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

For example, VS and SN thought that cosmological inflation was developed because scientists were upset about the fine tuning argument. I think we have convinced VS at least that this is incorrect (Carley Simon maybe said it best: ‘you’re so vain, you probably think this research is about you’).

Rather damning with faint praise, isn't it? Anyway, it didn't take much convincing, you'll note, for me to change my statement from how it was developed to at least being a main reason why a lot of atheists prefer it, which is true: Jasper at WWJTD just wrote a post that pretty much says this, and Dawkins adopted it enthusiastically because of this and because that solution was, to him, nicely linked with evolution. I have accepted that you don't think of it that way yourself, mostly because I tend to accept the claims of people unless I have strong reason not to, but the statement is not inaccurate.

My main thrust, though, is at least this: atheists that accept the multiverse argument and use it against the fine tuning argument at best merely believe it is true. They don't know it. This is generally accepted in this thread as well. So if people want to claim that regardless it is STILL a better explanation than the God alternative, you have to justify that epistemologically, and as far as I can see no one has done that without relying on presuppositions about epistemology and about explanations, the most common ones being naturalism and preferring anything even associated with science.

So, to take the example of the leavings on the front porch, your stance is like saying that it was left by a deer, because we know that there's a forest nearby, deer live in forests, and they sometimes wander up to porches, despite not knowing if there are any deer in that forest at all. The God stance is like saying that it was a wolf, because there was a long-standing cultural story about incidents where wolves did just that, even though no one knows if the story is really true or not. Your stance extends an existing theory but it has not been verified that that one applies or can apply in this case, and theirs relies on evidence from a story that would be perfectly reasonable evidence if you knew it was true, but because you don't it's more dubious.

Want to challenge my interpretation? Use an example that doesn't insert a supernatural entity in for God and claim equivalent epistemic warrant for it. Even your claim that there is no evidence for God is false. It's not that there's no evidence, just no evidence that you find compelling. By that logic, there's no evidence for multiverses either, as the discussions about Occam's Razor should have made clear, as the biggest reason for dismissing any such evidence is that there are other explanations that don't require God ... which is true for multiverses as well.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 06 Feb 2015 #permalink

Why does it rain? Because the rain-god makes rain.

Why does fire burn? Because the fire-god makes it burn.

That's how the god-hypothesis works, and some think that those are "epistemically" just as good as the scientific explanations involving water-vapor condensation and oxidation. After all, just because we don't have any evidence of the rain-god or fire-god doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, science, engineering, medicine, and courts of law prefer the naturalistic/inductive method of basing things on the evidence we have, rather than the evidence we don't have.

Thus, you’re apparently incorrigibly ignorant or simple-minded or both and it seems that you don’t care to learn

It became clear after roughly his second post that phil had no interest in honest conversations (the same can be said for sn). From his repeated lies about the state of evolutionary science to ridiculous claims about validity of biblical prophecies and (more disturbing) references to imaginary signs of end-times and "others" who are apparently waiting in the wings to do harm, only one thing can really be said about him. As said as that behavior is, it is even worse to consider the possibility that, if he has children, they will never have the experience of a father who values honesty or integrity. They won't have a chance to see decent behavior modeled.

Why does it rain? Because the rain-god makes rain.

Why does fire burn? Because the fire-god makes it burn.

That’s how the god-hypothesis works, and some think that those are “epistemically” just as good as the scientific explanations involving water-vapor condensation and oxidation. After all, just because we don’t have any evidence of the rain-god or fire-god doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist.

Once those theories became established scientifically and accepted as such, vanishingly few people who are aware of the science and capable of understanding it insisted that the god explanations were epistemically as good. That's because at that point science had proven it to the level where it can be claimed to be knowledge, and once you actually have that either you have to abandon science as a way of knowing or else argue that it managed to get it wrong somehow. For those theories, it's not possible to do the latter, and the former is both untenable and the issues are generally not important enough religiously to bother, Note that people who now deny that the Earth is older than 6000 years old or attack evolution do indeed take one of those two tacks.

It is clear that knowing something is indeed epistemically superior to merely believing it. However, we DON'T know, even scientifically, that multiverses even exist or are really possible. So, you can't claim to know it. You can only claim to believe it. At that point, whether it is epistemically preferable to believe it or not is up in the air. Before those scientific theories were established, it would definitely be dubious to insist that it was necessarily more rational to accept oxidation over the god theories just because scientists believed that it was true, even though they clearly didn't know it was.

Meanwhile, science, engineering, medicine, and courts of law prefer the naturalistic/inductive method of basing things on the evidence we have, rather than the evidence we don’t have.

For multiverses, the evidence you have is quite thin, and the evidence you don't have is pretty large. In fact, it is quite safe to say multiverses are missing more evidence than they have in their favour, right now. We could get more later, but you don't have it yet. Until you do, no one need fear being irrational for not simply leaping onto your bandwagon ... or for leaping onto that bandwagon, for that matter.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 06 Feb 2015 #permalink

"So, you can’t claim to know it. You can only claim to believe it."
False dilemma. Indeed we can't claim to know it. Yet. That little word makes all the difference.
Claiming that we only can believe the multiverse obliges you to demonstrate that we never will be able to "prove it to the level where it can be claimed to be knowledge." Good luck doing so with the multiverse. You recognize this with

"We could get more later, but you don’t have it yet."
Exactly. Now please demonstrate that this applies to the god-hypothesis (no matter in which form) as well. If you can't you have to admit that "belief" doesn't apply to the multiverse. Obviously this is because multiverses are material and god usually isn't.

dean,

“From his repeated lies about the state of evolutionary science”

Actually, there are lots of people asking questions about the current paradigm. Honestly Dean, you seem to be sheltered and incurious, neither of which are helpful in scientific pursuits. Sometimes exposing yourself to other ideas is painful, like it was for this guy, who didn’t anticipate the religious quality of materialist politics and forbidden zones.
http://www.richardsternberg.com/pdf/sternintellbio08.pdf
-
“ridiculous claims about validity of biblical prophecies and (more disturbing) references to imaginary signs of end-times”

Well, the facts are there for anyone to evaluate. You know, Isaac Newton wrote profusely about this stuff. Maybe it would help if you were to become acquainted with the views of people who might be brighter than yourself with whom you disagree. Being balanced is very important.

you seem to be sheltered and incurious, neither of which are helpful in scientific pursuits.

Hmmm. Coming from someone like you who rejects science out of hand, that's quite funny. I'll take living in reality and accepting the scientific explanations over your crap any day.

"Well, the facts are there for anyone to evaluate."
Yes, and they don't support the things you say. Sucks to be you and continually wrong, but that's your choice.

Yes, Newton wrote about them and it is recognized now that
a) his writings were monumentally wrong
b) he wrote about them because he was, as everyone was then, a product of the times and the religious training.

I am far more acquainted with the views of intelligent people than you probably are. The difference is that, unlike you, I weigh what they say rather than dismiss it out of hand.

"Being balanced is important." Again, coming from you, that is a hoot. It is important- you should try it instead of falling back on your repeated falsehoods.

"Actually, there are lots of people asking questions about the current paradigm."

There may be - but the scientists are looking to adjust and fill in gaps - the approach is not to dismiss things based on one's personal choice of mythology. It was quite interesting to see you pretend to consider all of the references you were given and reject them out of hand, without having any science behind your responses.

Continue on with your lies and paranoid delusions about end times and "others" who are going to do harm. It seems you were born a couple centuries too late.

dean,

“Coming from someone like you who rejects science out of hand”

But Dean, I don’t reject science at all. I read all kinds of articles, usually on a daily basis. What better way to pull the pants down on your mutations deity than to read about the actual effects of mutations that the researchers try to deal with? You’ve been led to believe that mutations are happy things, and that they are the reason you are able to mew and complain when you hear things that you don’t like. But science continuously shows that what you believe is a lie.

See, the problem is that you have science and materialism all confused. The latter is a corruption of the former. To some degree, your perception is understandable because you are in a materialist culture which saturates you with nonsense, hides things that might make you ask questions, and pats you on the head for going along with it all. But when you’ve started believing you are the result of space particles, that DNA train wrecks gave you 100 billion brain cells, and that T rex soft tissue can last for 68 million years, then you’ve found your way to Suckerville.
-
“Yes, and they don’t support the things you say.”

Do some learning, and keep your eyes open.
-
“I am far more acquainted with the views of intelligent people than you probably are. The difference is that, unlike you, I weigh what they say rather than dismiss it out of hand.”

No, you are rather like Detroit.

Nice job, Phil.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Feb 2015 #permalink

But when you’ve started believing you are the result of space particles, that DNA train wrecks gave you 100 billion brain cells, and that T rex soft tissue can last for 68 million years
You again display your penchant for dismissing the science without any attempt to understand it. Misstating the things you "studied" is a poor way to go through life, but that's your choice.

In the way that you ignore the science you are like an anti-vaccination pusher who was in a seminar last semester. I started with enough basic probability and philosophy of testing to get them familiar with the ideas, then we discussed the basic types of studies, limitation, and benefits.
"But vaccines aren't tested together."
Concomitant studies ...
"I don't believe them"
More discussion of studies
"I don't believe them"

That is you (and the equally dishonest little SN) in a nutshell. The science is laid out, and simply because it doesn't match your view of the world it is dismissed.

Pathetic - and dishonest to the end, both of you.

Let me humor Phil and ask:
1) If we breakdown living things into their constituent atoms, what is in living things that is not in stardust (resulting from nuclear fusion in stars)? Can amino acids form outside of living things? Nucleotides?
2) I won't try two, because we have already gone over this a thousand times and you still for some reason bring it up again and again.
3) How old is theT. rex tissue you refer to? When did the last T. rex die? How long can soft tissue survive and under what conditions can it survive that long? How do you know it was T. rex soft tissue?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 07 Feb 2015 #permalink

dean,

“The science is laid out, and simply because it doesn’t match your view of the world it is dismissed….Pathetic – and dishonest to the end”

No, Dean. What is dishonest is using studies where actual data can be collected as comparative support for sappy materialist notions about mutations and abiogenesis.

You are right though, about the science being laid out concerning the dinosaur remains. Before things like this started turning up, everyone took the expectations of taphonomists seriously, and nobody believed that soft tissue could possibly last for 68 million years. But given realistic science, and the demands of evolution, science had to capitulate.

===

Michael Fugate,

“1) If we breakdown living things into their constituent atoms, what is in living things that is not in stardust (resulting from nuclear fusion in stars)? Can amino acids form outside of living things? Nucleotides?”

It doesn’t matter how ubiquitous amino acids or nucleases might be. Accidental assembly into information-bearing molecules is the issue.
-
“3) How old is theT. rex tissue you refer to? When did the last T. rex die? How long can soft tissue survive and under what conditions can it survive that long? How do you know it was T. rex soft tissue?”

This is old news. I’m surprised you ask those questions.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.VNbRm-Wd0b0

Sorry...I compose my posts in Pages on a Mac and it spell corrected nucleobases into enzymes.

Hey Jason,

"My Dad can beat up your Dad. So there!"

I have read enough of the comments to see that yet another novel idea is being put forward as a "better" explanation than the God one. And predictably, it is touted as being "scientific" or "rational" because it is based on other things that we can observe.

This from the same folks who say that observing order and design, and concluding that there is intelligence behind them is both "unscientific" and "irrational".

So just to be blunt here Jason, YOU and you're atheist mates are the ones I have quoted at the start of this post. Your position is completely childish. You all start by disposing of both the scientific method and rationality, and then claim that the other side is neither scientific nor rational.

When you can TEST and REPEAT your notions of the multiverse, we can hold a scientific discussion. And when you can actually stick to the Dictionary definition of "Science", then we can hold a rational discussion.

Until then, I concede. Your Dad probably can beat up my Dad.

For those of you who are NOT going to try to engage me in the tit-for-tat nonsense I have criticized above, here are my thoughts on Jason's OP.

Regarding Paley's argument for Design, Jason states:

"Darwin and his successors showed that it is based on a false premise. Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems. It just takes them a very long time to do so."

This is a misrepresentation. No one has ever shown Paley's argument to be based upon a false premise.

Darwin was merely the first one to put forth an alternative premise that held some credibility, in a world that had no alternative premise at the time. Darwin posited that " Natural forces can, under the right circumstances craft complex, functional systems." But he could not prove it.

Nor has anyone in fact scientifically proven this notion right down to our day. Read my previous post before you respond to this in knee-jerk fashion. The "scientific method" requires something to be observed, and testable, and repeatable. If all three requirements have not been met, then any idea cannot be labelled as "scientific". This is a hard one for atheists who are so found of labeling ALL their speculation as "scientific" merely because it leaves God out of the equation.

To keep this from ballooning into an argument over Evolutionary theory, I will limit my point to only abiogenesis. Everyone concedes that we cannot observe, test or repeat abiogenesis today. Yet for Darwin's theory to falsify Paley's premise, then abiogenesis is required. Since abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated scientifically, then Darwin's thinking remains merely an alternative notion, and not one that has proven Paley's premise false at all.

But Jason, I do not accuse you of being "flatly ridiculous". Your position is a sort of blind dishonesty that atheists have gotten away with for over a century now. I will be very surprised if you come clean now.

Regarding the statement of Aquinas that you find "flatly ridiculous", I understand why you see it that way. But Aquinas was not writing to an audience steeped in the scientific method as we are. He lived and wrote long before Sir Francis Bacon had even proposed the scientific method.

So think about Aquinas' statement in this light: he is not describing minute by minute guidance, essentially of a miraculous nature, as governing natural processes. Rather, he is describing the fact that the very order revealed in the natural laws that govern everyday events reveal an intelligence behind those laws.

He is in essence saying, "These laws work, so some pretty smart guy thought them up."

When we look at our planet (leaving out speculation about the universe or the multiverse for now), and see that we are exactly the right distance from the Sun to sustain Life, and that there is just the right balance of water, oxygen, gravity, and many other natural things and laws, it is reasonable to conclude that someone had to make them all interact in just this way to get the functional world as we see it around us today.

If you think about the amount of thought that must go into designing a car before all its component parts can work together, then why should you also not conclude that at least that much thought, and really much more had to go into making all the component parts of our world work together as well as they do?

Evolutionary thought is that of all the planets around all the stars in the universe, the odds just happened to work out that all the laws matched up here in such a way as to produce Life. But if that is true, then why hasn't some other form of Life evolved on other planets, to match the natural conditions in those places? From an Evolutionary standpoint, there is no requirement that all animate objects breath Oxygen, for example. Why has a different form of Life not sprung up on Venus, acclimatized to the hotter environment and breathing the gasses of that planet, for example?

So whether you consider Aquinas' proposition from the perspective of his own day, when there was no competing Evolutionary thought, or even if you view it in light of the scientific facts we observe today, his statement is anything but ridiculous.

A link is not an answer Phil. I want to know how old you think it is?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 08 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Fugate,

“I want to know how old you think it is?”

I think it exactly the same age as the sandstone strata it was buried in. Since I’m a YEC, not very old.

There have been lots of discoveries since 2005, actually going back further than that, all of which are bitter anomalies for establishment science. But even if such things arouse the curiosity of scientists about the obvious gross dating problem, they are probably very careful about expressing doubts. It is not hard to get punished or fired for saying or publishing things that irritate the evolutionary community, like this guy (and Sternberg, see post 113) found out:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-…

This is Armitage’s paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

Since I’m a YEC,

So more evidence of your dismissal of science just to suit your mythology -and evidence of your dishonesty of claiming you are a science supporter.
What a pathetic lack of integrity.

So dinosaurs were on the Ark? And then?
I read Armitage the paper when it came out - long on speculation and short on data. Not much in the way of science though.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 08 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS @108:

it didn’t take much convincing, you’ll note, for me to change my statement from how it was developed to at least being a main reason why a lot of atheists prefer it,

That wasn't your claim, your claim was scientists adopted it for those reasons. scientist /= atheist.

They don’t know it. This is generally accepted in this thread as well. So if people want to claim that regardless it is STILL a better explanation than the God alternative, you have to justify that epistemologically, and as far as I can see no one has done that

I've done it twice so far I think, and you've never actually responded to my point. EI is one of a set of hypotheses that are equally well supported by fairly strong evidence (so we are empirically justified in thinking one of them is right, though we don't know which one). Goddidit, on the other hand, is not supported by any evidence. It is empirically worse than any of them because it has made none, zero, nada, zilch predictions that have come true and doesn't really explain anything.

The God stance is like saying that it was a wolf, because there was a long-standing cultural story about incidents where wolves did just that, even though no one knows if the story is really true or not.

No, this is completely wrong, because humans have strong evidence that wolves exist. My analogy (god as martian) is far more apt, because, like martians, people believed in them, sought them, didn't find them, and today we have no evidence any such thing exists.

If you want to claim God is analogous to a wolf, then by all means produce a you tube video of Him gnoshing on a rabbit or doing some other behavior - any other behavior - like we have with wolves. Until you can produce evidence of him, he is not analogous to a wolf.

If you want to claim God is analogous to a wolf, then by all means produce a you tube video of Him gnoshing on a rabbit or doing some other behavior – any other behavior – like we have with wolves.

I would even take scat.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 08 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

It is clear that knowing something is indeed epistemically superior to merely believing it. However, we DON’T know, even scientifically, that multiverses even exist or are really possible. So, you can’t claim to know it. You can only claim to believe it.

This is your defense of God-belief? You have to call all understanding a binary choice (knowledge or mere belief), and that way, you can argue that God-mere-belief is rationally equivalent to any other mere belief?

First off, I don't agree with your fundamental assertion that all non-knowledge beliefs are equal. But since you're going to make that argument, please be sure to inform Phil and Gordon that, according to your defense, their belief in God is exactly as rational as other people's belief in anal-probing aliens, bigfoot, and fairies in my garden. I'm sure they'll be very thankful for such a strong defense of theism.

Just realized Phil tried to present sternberg as someone who was punished for not toeing the appropriate line. You again choose to ignore facts phil: he went outside the usual procedures to publish a paper by one of his friends avoiding the peer review process in doing so. Other than the fact that he was shown to be dishonest he wasn't punished: not dismissed, not demoted, nothing.
Your example of someone punished for his views areas empty of substance as everything else you've said.

dean,

“So more evidence of your dismissal of science just to suit your mythology -and evidence of your dishonesty of claiming you are a science supporter.”

But Dean, you missed the point again. It is the evolutionary paradigm that demands dismissal of the science. Soft tissue surviving in ancient specimens supports my position, but it is severely hostile to yours. You can read every account of Schweitzer’s discoveries, and others as well, and you will not find anyone who suggests that the dating might be wrong. That isn’t allowed. Some poorly understood preservation process has to be the culprit.
-
“Phil tried to present sternberg as someone who was punished for not toeing the appropriate line. You again choose to ignore facts phil: he went outside the usual procedures to publish a paper by one of his friends avoiding the peer review process”

I wasn’t left with that impression at all. Maybe you should go back and read page 6 again. Ethics was not the problem.

And he was definitely punished. You must have missed that as well.

Eric,

If someone tells me that an alien probed their anus, who am I to say that they are wrong?

If you have personally viewed the multiverse, or experienced it in any other way rather than merely hypothetically, then please tell us all about it. Who would I be to say that you are wrong?

Now, what you do NOT want to hear, is the personal experience that Phil and I and others have with God, and how he has intervened and made a positive difference in our lives. No, no, no. You are certain that we are wrong, and you are not interested in any evidence to the contrary.

And yes, the testimony of people is actually evidence. Not scientific, because it cannot be tested and repeated. But evidence nonetheless, over and against your complete lack of the first shred of evidence for your entirely unscientific notion.

So you are definitely correct. All beliefs are NOT created equal.

Phil,

You are a Gentleman and a Scholar.

I'm not sure why you even give Dean the time of day, as he is neither.

"And yes, the testimony of people is actually evidence. "

Could be, in certain situations, but is not always.

"You are a Gentleman and a Scholar"
If those terms describe someone willing to dismiss, out of hand with lies and misrepresentations, any bit of science that contradicts a personal choice of religion, then yes. In the ways those terms are usually used: not at all.

" It is the evolutionary paradigm that demands dismissal of the science."
This is why you are not taken seriously.

Sternberg began in 2001 as an invertebrate taxonomist for the NIH, eventually becoming a staff scientist. at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, later becoming a staff scientist. He also worked as an unpaid research associate at NMNH.associate, and took a spot as Managing Editor of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. He also joined a distinctly non-science group (on another editorial board), the Baraminology Study Group, a formal name for young earth "creation scientists" attempting to classify the kinds (of animals) from the bible. Despite his claims that he was critical of their work, he sought them out. He also gave at least one talk at a creationist/ID conference.
The problem began when he resigned from the biological proceedings position, agreeing to

Gordon:

If someone tells me that an alien probed their anus, who am I to say that they are wrong?

Well, I am a bit surprised. I thought you guys were claiming that your belief in God was more rational than such a belief. But if you are fine with the comparison, then I am fine with it too.

Now, what you do NOT want to hear, is the personal experience that Phil and I and others have with God, and how he has intervened and made a positive difference in our lives. No, no, no. You are certain that we are wrong, and you are not interested in any evidence to the contrary.

And what of the testimonial evidence of muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? (Other) pantheists and animists? Spiritualists? Do you give them the weight you give Christian testimonials? I do; I'm at least consistent. In all cases, if there's an extroadinary testimonial claim, I'm going to ask for supporting evidence before I accept it. You, I suspect, do not treat them equally. You treat the testimonial claims of people of other religions the same way I treat them, but Christian claims you treat special. To quote Stephen Roberts: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Hi Eric,

I was raised around Christians who dismissed every other religious claim, simply because they were not Christian. I no longer do so. My God is bigger than that!

You see, there can be only One Creator, so the idea of many gods is not the issue. The issue is the degree to which people are in touch with their Creator, and also the degree to which their particular religious belief assists them in this.

Since I know that Christians do not hold a monopoly on contact with the Creator, I know that others have valid experiences as well. So I listen with an open mind.

However, different belief systems come under closer scrutiny, as skepticism automatically kicks in when people mention certain things. Aliens would be one of those.

But one of the reasons for the skepticism is that I have never once had someone that I know claim to have a personal encounter with an alien. So if it happened to zero people that I know, how likely is it to happen to others? On the other hand, I know people of many different religious persuasions, who have had a variety of "spiritual" experiences. Some of those I can relate to personally, while others I just have to take note of for future reference.

Patterns do emerge, and often I can say, "Yeah, I know someone who had an experience like that." This is where I keep an open mind, because people I know have told their own experience, and that automatically has credibility because of what else I know about them. They do not belong in the nut house.

So IF someone I knew started telling me about his meeting with Aliens, I would listen. But watching a video by someone I never met tell the experience of some other guy that he never met? Whatever. Not all testimonial evidence is equal, as any decent Police investigator can tell you.

By Gordon (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

poop - hit submit too soon
edit several remaining issues. Steven Meyer contacted him about his article. Meyer somehow convinced Sternberg he had the appropriate memberships that qualified him to submit an article, and Sternberg made it so.
After the publication the journal declared

t Sternberg had published the paper at his own discretion without following the usual practice of review by an associate editor. The Council and associate editors would have considered the subject of the paper inappropriate for publication as it was significantly outside "the nearly purely systematic content" of the journal, the Council endorses a resolution "which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis", and the paper therefore "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings

In spite of that he was not dismissed, was not demoted, and continued in his position until 2007 until he took a position at an institute funded by the Discovery Institute (creationist, in other words).

The issue of whether Meyer's article was actually peer-reviewed does not support him because, although he claimed the reviewers were qualified for the job, with five Ph.D.s, he counted himself among them, with his two PhDs counted among the five. The other 3 phantoms have never been identified - and since the investigation b the journal into the matter found that the proper procedures had not been followed (and the reviewers for this article were not included among the year end list of people who had reviewed the journal's articles).

It isn't surprising that an article written by Sternberg fails to mention his actions, and mis-states the facts - he does, after all, need to keep of the appearance of being a virtuous man punished for his beliefs so the suckers will continue to support him.

Gordon:

You see, there can be only One Creator, so the idea of many gods is not the issue.

You dismiss the beliefs of about a billion humans with a simple assertion? What do you have to back it up?

So IF someone I knew started telling me about his meeting with Aliens, I would listen. But watching a video by someone I never met tell the experience of some other guy that he never met? Whatever.

Wow, okay, i just want to make sure I have your position/logic clear: you judge the credibility of the claim by someone's physical proximity to you. If they're right next to you telling you their claim, that's more credible than if they recorded their claim somewhere else and you got to see the claim played?

Michael,

You are only interested in argument, not understanding.

Eric,

I'm not sure why common sense is so difficult to communicate to atheists. But I'll try again.

If I know the person, they already have credibility established based on our previous interactions. Physical proximity makes no difference. I know people on the other side of the globe (my parents, for example) who hold a lot more credibility in my mind than do my next door neighbors.

When someone whose credibility is already established says something new, their established credibility factors in to my thinking. You do the same thing, whether you want to admit it or not.

Someone I have never met has no established credibility, and so an incredible claim is going to be met with great skepticism. But if I meet them for the first time, face to face, I am not going to simply dismiss what they say because it sounds incredible. I have no proof to the contrary, so how can I say with certainty that they are wrong?

If that same person merely posts a video, with the incredible claim in the title, I will probably not bother watching the video. If I started watching and learned that they were only telling me about what they heard happened to someone else (hearsay), I would stop watching at that point. The credibility level has reached absolute zero, so why go on?

Five people can make the same claim, yet have 5 different levels of credibility in your mind. Even among those you know, there are those who you trust more than others. On the one hand, you may not be able to prove them wrong. But on the other hand, their credibility establishes how likely you are to believe that they are correct.

Even with your reliance on 'scientific' research you follow this same process. You were not there in the lab or in the field when the research was being conducted. You did not observe the results yourself. You are relying on the credibility of the person telling you about the results. And in all likelihood, this is a person you have never met, and who therefore has no established credibility in your mind. But you will grant him instant credibility if he says what you want to hear!

Funny how this all works. Those who keep claiming they have 'evidence' and 'science' on their side are actually relying on neither. They rely solely on the testimony of complete strangers. Then they think me weird for relying on my own first-hand experience and the testimony of friends and family whose credibility is long established.

Can you figure out yet which group belongs in the funny farm?

My assertion about the Creator does not dismiss anyone's beliefs. Polytheists believe in little gods, in the trees, in the rocks, in the moon, in the stars, etc. If they speak of one of those gods as responsible for creating everything, then they are speaking about the same Creator as I am. If they speak about a god in the lighting, they are not speaking about the Creator at all.

By Gordon (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

Here is the Gordon scenario.

A member of his church is murdered and no one, but the murderer and the now dead victim know who committed the crime. The pastor of his church prays to God for revelation and claims that it was revealed to him that one of the church members (Bob) is the murderer. Bob is on CCTV at another site when the crime was thought to be committed. Someone else's fingerprints are on the murder weapon and another person's DNA are found on a drinking glass at the scene. No physical evidence links Bob to the crime.

In Gordon and Phil's world, Bob should be in jail for the rest of his life. In the real world, he shouldn't be. Evidence is evidence according to them and revealed evidence is better than physical evidence.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

That wasn’t your claim, your claim was scientists adopted it for those reasons. scientist /= atheist.

Wow, this is getting sitcom-esque:

Me: "It didn't take anywhere near as much work as you imply here to convince me to change my position from 'Invented to' to 'One of the main reasons it is preferred', especially since both of them get to my main point: that it's not the copious evidence that's driving the insistence that this is a solution to this question."

Eric: "But your original position was that it was invented to do that!"

Me: "Yes, that word 'change' usually implies that something was indeed not the way it is now, but was something else originally, but has now become something else."

[Insert laugh track]

I hope I don't need to say anything more to address what you said here.

I’ve done it twice so far I think, and you’ve never actually responded to my point.

Since I at least attempt to address far more of what you say than you do of what I say, in general, this is most credible as a claim that I haven't done it successfully, but then you should be arguing against my arguments and pointing out their flaws, not merely restating your position. That I have addressed in at least a basic form multiple times.

EI is one of a set of hypotheses that are equally well supported by fairly strong evidence (so we are empirically justified in thinking one of them is right, though we don’t know which one).

So? That all of them are equally well supported -- or, for the most part, work equally well to explain the given empirical evidence that we have -- is not an indication that you can yank one out of there and declare victory. After all, an invisible gnome pushing down on a falling object as they fall fits the empirical evidence equally well, and I know for a fact that you won't consider that a reasonable hypothesis. As I said, EI fails Occam's Razor if the empirical evidence equally supports it and non-multiverse theories because it implies or requires more entities than the others do. Normally, this is enough to make you consider the theory less likely to be true than the others, yet you don't here. Why not?

Goddidit, on the other hand, is not supported by any evidence. It is empirically worse than any of them because it has made none, zero, nada, zilch predictions that have come true and doesn’t really explain anything.

Now, considering that you agree that you don't have knowledge, why is it that those considerations must be paramount when determining what to simply believe? And, BTW, most of that is either your opinion or you inventing a notion of evidence that you yourself don't even follow. For example, you dismiss the claims of personal experiences not because they're not empirical -- because if they're sensory they must be -- but instead because they aren't "extraordinary evidence". But creating whole new universes that we can't interact with at all and might have different rules are surely extraordinary claims; you can't insist that because we've seen a universe before that that makes it reasonable to talk about others. Without that extraordinary evidence, why should anyone believe it's true?

Just admit it: you prefer it because it's natural and loosely scientific. That's it. There's nothing wrong with believing based on presuppositions, but you have to at least accept that and allow others to do the same with equal rationality.

No, this is completely wrong, because humans have strong evidence that wolves exist. My analogy (god as martian) is far more apt, because, like martians, people believed in them, sought them, didn’t find them, and today we have no evidence any such thing exists.

Nope, you can't do this, because this is essentially circular logic. Someone proposes that life here is evidence for the existence of God because we need something to set the cosmological constants. You dig up a rather unevidenced and problematic alternative, and insist that it is better, and so because it is better there is no evidence for the existence of God. Repeat for every possible instance where someone says that something is evidence for the existence of God, even if you have to resort to claims of illusions and delusions where they may not make sense, at least not now. Insist, as you tend to do, that anyone who points out flaws in your alternatives or things they don't explain that the God theory does are things that you'll figure out later. There is no way, given this, that you ever need give up your own naturalistic beliefs until you have overwhelming evidence ... and yet we are supposed to accept yours as more rational based on your presuppositions.

Let me demonstrate this with a Martian example. Let's say that someone talks about grooves on Mars that look like dried canals, and says that this is evidence that there used to be water on Mars. Your response is like someone else saying that the wind can cut those grooves, we know that there is wind on Mars, and so it is more likely that the wind did it since we know that, and so we ought to conclude that there was no water on Mars, even though it's shaky whether the wind would cut grooves like what we've seen while water very likely would. This is not a good argument, as I hope you can see.

So we need something better than that to determine what beliefs a particular individual must accept as more rational.

This is your defense of God-belief? You have to call all understanding a binary choice (knowledge or mere belief), and that way, you can argue that God-mere-belief is rationally equivalent to any other mere belief?

Um, no. Not at all. Knowledge being justified true belief and all that, meaning that you also know what you believe, but you can also believe what you don't know. So I'm really not sure where you're coming from here. At any rate, this simply leads in to the discussion of deciding how to rationally form beliefs when you don't know if something is true, and I'll outline mine here briefly, and then you can provide yours:

Since we form beliefs from a lot of sources, we end up with a web of interconnected and justified beliefs. Often, we won't be able to define what formed the belief in the first place. However, as we act on our beliefs constantly, we test this web in place, and correct it when it gets things wrong (ie we don't get the results we expected). So when this happens, we adjust the web to get ourselves back on track. There are a couple of basic principles to consider here:

1) If you come to know something, you have to adjust your Web of Belief to accomodate it.

2) You should adjust your Web of Belief as little as possible when faced with a new belief, in order to preserve what has already been tested.

Given this, I adjust my beliefs as needed but not until needed, and only as much as needed. Also, new beliefs that I don't know to be true will likely not get accepted until I either come to know them or they make more sense when considered against the rest of my beliefs.

Your turn. What's your way to determine this? Because I think that you use the same one, but won't admit it because you rely on your presuppositions, all of which are beliefs that you don't want to give up.

Wow, okay, i just want to make sure I have your position/logic clear: you judge the credibility of the claim by someone’s physical proximity to you. If they’re right next to you telling you their claim, that’s more credible than if they recorded their claim somewhere else and you got to see the claim played?

He doesn't. He judges their testimony by how well he knows them and how direct it is, which is pretty much how you have to judge testimony. If you want to be rational, of course. Wouldn't you be more likely to believe your best friend, say, than someone you watch in a video whom you've never met?

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

That all of them are equally well supported — or, for the most part, work equally well to explain the given empirical evidence that we have — is not an indication that you can yank one out of there and declare victory.

When we are comparing that theory to Goddidit, which does not work well to explain any empirical evidence at all, then yes, the former is a more rational belief than the latter. And no, it does not explain the constants; see below for that.

That's my primary point. The rest I consider secondary, so if you respond to a limited number of these comments, that's the one I think gets to the heart of prior posts.

Now, considering that you agree that you don’t have knowledge, why is it that those considerations must be paramount when determining what to simply believe?

Because nothing else in human history has worked as well to help us understand the world around us. Revelation-based methodologies for gaining knowledge are pretty obviously worse. Or don't you agree?

Just admit it: you prefer it because it’s natural and loosely scientific. That’s it. There’s nothing wrong with believing based on presuppositions

I prefer it because it explains several observations such as the flatness of the universe and the density and distribution of matter in it, while Goddidit does not explain those things or really anything.

Someone proposes that life here is evidence for the existence of God because we need something to set the cosmological constants.

But it doesn't explain that. Goddidit is untestable, unfalsifiable, and is consistent with any and all evidence observed, so it doesn't explain anything. EI is not: if we start finding magnetic monopoles or such things, it won't be consistent with that and we'll have to rethink it.

In fact, Goddidit is really just a placeholder. Substitute Zeus, Odin, Nyarlathotep, Deep Thought, they all have the same explanatory power: zero.

Since we form beliefs from a lot of sources, we end up with a web of interconnected and justified beliefs....
Your turn.

What a handwave, but its consistent with what I remember of what you consider a rational belief, which IIRC was a belief already in someone's network (such as a belief in God, or fairies, depending on where we grow up and what our families tell us) that isn't philosophically proven to be false.

We do indeed form beliefs from a variety of sources. But I disagree that we should be disturbing that network as little as possible. We should be disturbing it any time evidence bears on a belief in a positive or negative manner; supporting it or undermining it. Not necessarily eliminating beliefs willy-nilly, but changing our confidence in them up or down. And we should also be seriously reconsidering our adherence to beliefs in things or entities (i.e., beliefs about the things that occupy or physics and metaphysics, vice ethical or aesthetic judgments) that seem to be consistent with any evidence whatsoever, because those are (almost tautologically) disconnected from reality. And that's your God-belief. Disconnected from reality because nothing about reality can bear positively or negatively on it. It never gets stronger or weaker. If it's part of your web, all the connections are one-way going out from it; no new belief or observation can go into it and change it.

Wouldn’t you be more likely to believe your best friend, say, than someone you watch in a video whom you’ve never met?

On anal-probing aliens or revelations from God? No. I will certainly be more polite to my friend, but I'm not believing either without evidence of the alien or the God.

That's consistent. Your web-based strategy is not. Instead, if you have a belief in Yahweh then you're going to accept some extraordinary claim from a Yahweh believer more readily than you would the exact same extraordinary claim from a Vishnu believer. Because it takes less modification.

Oops, my apologies for the formatting. Its late.

Gordon: fair enough. If someone I consider credible tells me he won the lottery yesterday, he or she will be able to string me along for a while if they want. If someone I consider a regular liar makes the same claim, I will be skeptical.

But that difference is in part because of the nature of the claim: I have evidence independent of either person that humans do, in fact, win the lottery. I have no independent evidence of God, so if either person claims God appeared in their living room and had tea with them, I'm going to be skeptical of both. The same would be true if they claimed to fly to the moon on gossamer wings or spent the day shapeshifted into a marlin.
So, if your very credible friend made either of those last two claims, would you believe him/her? Or is it only nebulous divine interactions that get the credibility bye?

Hi Eric,

What you call "nebulous divine interactions" are in fact very real to people.

I have never heard a Christian claim to have flown to the moon on gossamer wings, so that and similar comparisons simply don't apply.

What you will hear instead are stories such as two Christians from opposite sides of the globe sharing a spiritual connection. One might tell a story about how God helped them escape from grave danger. And you might be skeptical about this story, but God's intervention on their behalf was very real to them. You would listen to the details and chalk it up to coincidence or good luck. Your belief system requires you to reach a different conclusion based upon the same set of facts.

Then the second Christian chimes in and tells how they were awakened in the middle of the night with a strong urge to pray for the first Christian. They did not know why, but they spent the next hour in prayer simply because of an inner urge to do so. The two then compare notes and find that the second one was praying during the very time that the first one was in danger. Now you have real "coincidence".

To these people, the intervention of God is real and inescapable. They know of no other way to explain it. And you would struggle to formulate a 'scientific' explanation that was not a pure leap of faith as well.

I have heard numerous stories like this. Can I verify them? No. Are they believable? Absolutely!

Has God intervened in my own life in a similar manner? Yes.

By Gordon (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

Gordon,
You and Phil are both saying that revelation trumps science - why are you unwilling to follow that to its logical conclusion? Oh right, as Sean S. has pointed out you don't understand logic.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael,

I answered Sean S. Still waiting on a response back.

Is it really so hard to figure out that everything has limits, even Science? The scientific method is a useful tool for understanding how the natural world around us works. It is completely useless in assisting us to understand the supernatural.

Revelation does not trump Science. They provide different forms of evidence for different situations. Some time we can use both in arriving at a conclusion, and some times only one of them is available.

The real confusion comes when atheists, who expressly deny the existence of God, call everything they appeal to 'scientific'. On this very thread the assumption was that the "multiverse" theory was scientific simply because it sought to provide an explanation without including God in the picture. The absence of God does NOT make an idea 'scientific'.

So perhaps your objection is that we consider revelation to be more reliable than pure speculation that is falsely called 'scientific'.

By Gordon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Michael Fugate (not verified)

What you call “nebulous divine interactions” are in fact very real to people.

Oh sure. I'm not denying the subjective experience. I also have no doubt that alien abduction is very real and frightening to the people who experience it. The question is not whether humans have these subjective experiences, but whether they are a product of the brain vs. some objective, external entity. There is no evidence of any external, objective entity. There is lots of evidence that these experiences are the product of the brain. Heck, you yourself would probably explain alien abduction experiences as a product of the brain. Its only when it comes to God that you carve out an exception to your standard empiricism.

To these people, the intervention of God is real and inescapable. They know of no other way to explain it. And you would struggle to formulate a ‘scientific’ explanation that was not a pure leap of faith as well.

There's no struggle. Its called the confirmation bias and its a fairly well-known problem that humans have.

But let's say you are right. Let's say that the intervention of God is real and inescapable. Then these folks have lost their free will, haven't they? They've been shown inescapable proof of God's existence. Faith isn't possible for them because they now have inescapable personal proof. And if faith is still possible for them after gaining inescapable proof of God's existence, then there is basically no reason God can't just show up on Earth and start curing cancer victims, is there?

Back to Eric at 32 if I might (after being away for too long, and catching up):

Quoting Eric: "Its not minimal, that’s the problem. You’ve snuck in sentience, benevolence, a fair amount of understanding, and potence if not omnipotence. A minimalist first cause would simply be a rule or law that allows for universes to come into being. No sentience, knowledge, or act of will necessary. If you want to posit a causa causans, you don’t technically need anything god-like at all."

I think you misunderstood. I was not describing the minimal conditions for a universe to come into existence. I was describing the minimalist version of a deity, which by definition also requires sentience and potency. Does not require benevolence: pure curiosity would also work. Does not require understanding at the beginning: that could be gained by experimenting with different universes over time.

My point here is not to advocate in favor of Deism (belief in a minimalistic deity), but to point out that Deism is not incompatible with a scientific worldview. The current arguement against Deism is that it is a "God of the gaps" belief. My counter-arguement to that, is that Deist types of beliefs preceded science-based arguements for the nonexistence of deities, and did so independently in more than one culture.

To my mind, what I would accept as incontrovertible proof that a deity exists, _for my own personal purposes_, is a successful application of the "tell me something I don't know" test. For example, "if you're really God, give me the equations for unified field theory." If the equations were validated by working physicists, then I would say that I could legitimately believe that they were delivered to me by a deity, and that the deity exists. That is not the same thing as overt empirical support with repeatable and independently measurable physical correlates.

I'm extremely skeptical of the conventional Abrahamic interpretation whereby it is assumed that a deity has a very directly personal interest in the daily activities and experiences of humans. But I'm equally skeptical of both types of fundamentalism: the one that asserts absolute certainty that a deity exists, and the one that asserts absolute certainty that a deity does not exist. Those certainties assume facts that are not in evidence.

Occam doesn't apply to a hypothetical singular phenomenon, because there is no basis for comparison with something else. Can we compare a universe with deity to a universe without, to ascertain what is different between them? If deities do not exist anywhere, or if they exist everywhere, no such comparison is possible. In any case we only have access to this particular universe, or rather, our local universe within it, so any such comparison is moot.

What we're left with is this: Some humans are hardwired to experience the universe as having a deity in it; some humans are hardwired to experience the universe as not having a deity in it. Both cases are neurobiologically innate, and between their respective poles, is a wide range that is susceptible to social/cultural inputs.

As a matter of policy in society, we have to recognize an innate person-right to think and feel in accord with one's nature on the subject, so long as one does not coerce or harm others. But also as a matter of neuroscience, we have to recognize that both types and those in between, are naturally-occurring variations, neither of which is demonstrably exclusively right, and both of which have adaptive value under different circumstances.

When we are comparing that theory to Goddidit, which does not work well to explain any empirical evidence at all, then yes, the former is a more rational belief than the latter. And no, it does not explain the constants; see below for that.

That’s my primary point. The rest I consider secondary, so if you respond to a limited number of these comments, that’s the one I think gets to the heart of prior posts.

Well, it's hard to address this primary point for two reasons. The first is that it seems to be an argument that is out of context here, since you seem to be claiming not that the God hypothesis is a bad one when compared to the multiverse hypothesis, but that it is instead just a bad hypothesis period; God as a hypothesis has and can have no explanatory value. At which point, there's no point in even talking about the multiverse alternative, because if it's just a bad explanation then it's a bad explanation regardless of whether or not there's any alternative. Explanations that simply don't work don't get considered if they're the only one available. Second, that's a very universal claim, that seems to be grounded in an underlying epistemology, that you have so far not really supported. But I'll deal with the rest of the comment and see if we can actually end up talking about something meaningful.

Because nothing else in human history has worked as well to help us understand the world around us. Revelation-based methodologies for gaining knowledge are pretty obviously worse. Or don’t you agree?

It's odd that right after you accused me -- incorrectly -- of fostering a false binary here you seem to be talking as if we can either do things scientifically or else we have to use revelation. There are other methods for working out what we ought to believe, and a strict scientific method is a bad one, as I have argued, for every day beliefs because it is so strict, and requires you to go beyond simply explaining the phenomena you have, which you usually don't have the time and resources to do. Science can take as long as it needs to to find the right answer; in every day life, we need to make decisions NOW.

Ultimately, the question here is what justification you have for saying that all beliefs must be formed scientifically, as you see it. Not knowledge -- although even that is debatable -- but why you insist on that for belief-formation, what exactly that entails, and what the consequences of doing that will be. From what I've seen, most people who take this sort of strong line end up being inconsistent and arbitrary as soon as they realize that a lot of the things they believe aren't justified that strongly.

(As an aside, if you haven't already, you might want to look into philosophical naturalism, which is the move to get philosophy to do things scientifically. It has a lot of problems with it, honestly, but it might be nice for you to read up on what the proposals are, how they work, and what the objections to them are.)

I prefer it because it explains several observations such as the flatness of the universe and the density and distribution of matter in it, while Goddidit does not explain those things or really anything.

EI does not explain that. Inflationary theories do, and EI is one inflationary theory. God's setting of the constants is compatible with most inflationary theories, including EI. It's potentially redundant with EI because EI has a potential alternative mechanism, but EI is only one inflationary theory that is at best no better supported empirically than the others that don't posit multiverses. So I say again that the only reason you accept that EI is a better explanation for the constants than God is because EI is natural and loosely scientific. Which is not really a stretch, since you pretty much state that in every comment where you talk about EI and multiverses vs the God hypothesis. Every time you challenge God, you bring up not knowing that it exists and link it to something unscientific and supernatural. You dismiss it continually simply because it, to you, does not meet the scientific standards of prediction and falsifiability. It's just not scientific enough for YOU. And that's okay. But since I don't accept that science -- or, at least, a science that must include those traits, depending on how they are defined, which you don't usually do -- is the only method we can use to form rational beliefs -- heck, I don't think it's the only way to get what we can reasonably call KNOWLEDGE -- I don't accept things just because they are scientific or reject them because they aren't. I see no problem with this, as I don't reject science either or accept things because they AREN'T science. For me, things are justified and/or rational or they aren't based on the merits of the arguments and the situation. That doesn't seem to be true for you, but if you want me to privilege science even when an examination of the arguments suggests to me that it ought not be privileged you need to argue for that.

And, no, an argument of "It's done really good at the things it's been really good at" is not a good argument. Science had better be the best at figuring out the things it really tries to figure out, but that does not mean it is the right approach for all questions or always has the right answers, or should always be given preference. In this case, EI and multiverses are not supported particularly well scientifically, and have a number of issues as an explanation of the constants. For example, what if this is the primary universe? The whole use of multiverses then goes out the window. More importantly, in order for multiverses to work as an explanation you have to assert that the natural laws that you observe in this universe hold in the parent universe enough to allow the formation of the new universes, but not so tightly that the new universes would inherit the original cosmological constants. And finally, you still have the issue of how the first universe came into existence to spawn off the multiverses. These are great difficulties.

As I said, multiverses seem like things that require extraordinary evidence. Why do you refuse to treat them that way?

But it doesn’t explain that. Goddidit is untestable, unfalsifiable, and is consistent with any and all evidence observed, so it doesn’t explain anything.

Since you do think that, say, the Problem of Evil raises a critical empirical problem for theism, it doesn't look like God, in general, is compatible with all evidence observed. Even taking the plausibility stance says that we should not have a world with this much suffering in it if God exists, which is a claim that God is at odds with the evidence. Since you have to accept that knowledge does not require certainty -- as you mock that notion often enough -- are you really claiming that even in the case of the constants you couldn't find empirical evidence that would at least remove any requirement for the involvement of an intentional, intelligent being, such as we've seen with evolution?

Yes, because the God concept is vague, it is hard to nail God to the wall empirically. However, if you could indeed demonstrate that only a Deist god is possible, you've killed theism. I seem to recall you arguing that that is the only sort of god that's possible, so if that's true, then you can't say that God is untestable and unfalsifiable in principle ... or else you have to concede that you can't ever possibly know whether or not God exists, which seems to be a bit of an issue for you ... at least, if you want to force people to stop believing in this thing that they've claimed to experience.

What a handwave, but its consistent with what I remember of what you consider a rational belief, which IIRC was a belief already in someone’s network (such as a belief in God, or fairies, depending on where we grow up and what our families tell us) that isn’t philosophically proven to be false.

Does it ever bother you that every time you try to sum up someone's view you always get it terribly wrong? I wouldn't bring it up, but you did it badly to Gordon's comments on testimony, did it at least once to me in this thread, and now here claim that I hold a view that I don't even recognize? First, you talk about it "not being philosophically proven to be false" but I already pointed out that I don't require certainty and am pretty sure I said that science produces knowledge, which means that it doesn't have to be philosophically proven. Also, that part of "where we grew up" was pointing out a way that we get beliefs, and so wasn't a part of the argument. Ultimately -- and please read this carefully to really get it -- my stance is this: it is rational to maintain a belief that I have if:

1) The belief does not contradict any other beliefs I have, which both includes beliefs that are justified -- and so are known to be true or false -- and beliefs about what it means for a belief to be rational.

2) I don't have/have not been presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that I know the belief is false.

So, if someone believed that fairies existed as a cultural belief, it would not be irrational for them to maintain that until they are either a) given the evidence that is sufficient for them to know that fairies do not exist or b) shown that believing in fairies is inconsistent with the standards they use or ought to use in deciding what it is rational to believe and what isn't or c) it is shown that believing in fairies contradicts something else they believe.

Think about it this way: take someone who existed way, way back in human history, long before science had demonstrated what really caused thunder, say, and when they likely believed that it was a god that did it. Can you reasonably say that that belief was irrational? It was wrong, but since they didn't and couldn't have had the evidence to do better it's hard to say that it was irrational. Isn't it?

We should be disturbing it any time evidence bears on a belief in a positive or negative manner; supporting it or undermining it. Not necessarily eliminating beliefs willy-nilly, but changing our confidence in them up or down.

Wait ... who said anything about not adjusting confidence in a belief? I do indeed adjust how confident I am in a belief, and use that to determine how far to act on a belief and how careful I am when doing so. I didn't bring that up here because it's not relevant to this discussion, where we are indeed trying to decide what and when it is rational to hold specific beliefs. Unless you are going to derive whether or not you should hold a certain belief by how confident you are in it -- and have an objective way to measure that -- it's just not relevant to deciding whether we should believe in multiverses or in God given the issue with the cosmological constant. I want to know what criteria you use for determining if it is rational to hold or maintain a belief, not a notion of confidence in it, as my view is conservative about the beliefs you hold, not necessarily about your confidence in it.

And we should also be seriously reconsidering our adherence to beliefs in things or entities (i.e., beliefs about the things that occupy or physics and metaphysics, vice ethical or aesthetic judgments) that seem to be consistent with any evidence whatsoever, because those are (almost tautologically) disconnected from reality.

Except that the whole argument here is about how reality needs a God -- or similar intelligent creator being -- in order to explain this facet of it. That's hardly disconnected from reality. Your complaint here is far less about God being disconnected from reality and more about God being so vaguely defined that it's too easy to adjust the concept to fit the scientific reality. I see it, then, more as frustration at what you see as a constant redefining of God to fit any gaps that there might be than as an a priori claim that it's just not falsifiable, because if as you expect science will eventually fill in those gaps then eventually it won't be a viable theory anymore. Evolution, for example, has already hammered a bit on the credibility of God by removing one of the main things that we needed to explain.

So, if you are confident that science will fill in the remaining gaps eventually, why are you so epistemically insistent that God is unfalsifiable? If you're right, then we will eventually literally have no need of that hypothesis, and won't even have Deism anymore, let alone theism.

Disconnected from reality because nothing about reality can bear positively or negatively on it. It never gets stronger or weaker.

If we need an intelligent creator being to set these constants or else have to accept that we won a tremendously unlikely dice roll, then it would get stronger. If multiverses are demonstrated and so we don't need that intelligent being, then it gets weaker. So it definitely gets stronger and weaker, and has indeed weakened over time. So this just seems false.

On anal-probing aliens or revelations from God? No. I will certainly be more polite to my friend, but I’m not believing either without evidence of the alien or the God.

That’s consistent. Your web-based strategy is not.

Actually, it's the same strategy. First, I think you have to accept that in general you are more likely to believe that from your friend than the stranger, it's just that you aren't likely to believe it regardless, so it isn't that you treat your friend and the stranger the same way. You don't typically. So why are they in the same category here? Because in your existing set of beliefs you doubt that aliens exist, or rather it seems -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that you believe that they don't. Because it would conflict with something that you already believe, you are more willing to accept that your friend was lying or delusional or had an hallucination even if you had no reason to think that beyond the fact that they've just claimed to see an alien. And why do you think that? Because aliens existing would undercut a massive number of your existing beliefs, while the other options would undercut a much smaller number. Heck, even your constant arguments of how God isn't like a wolf in the analogy because you at least know wolves exist are out-and-out statements that you are assessing evidence and forming beliefs in reference to what you already believe, which is doing precisely what I'm doing.

This even ties into your challenge for me. Of course I'm more willing to accept claims about things that I already believe to exist than about things that I don't believe exist and where I have beliefs that contradict that. Seriously, that's about the only way anyone CAN assess new information or evidence. For you, accepting something supernatural would undercut a major portion of your beliefs, so you accept any natural explanation first. For me, I am not a naturalist, so I evaluate everything based on what I already believe and what the evidence is suggesting without even bothering to classify the hypotheses as natural or supernatural, scientific or otherwise. If I had a strong sensory impression of something that seemed to be supernatural and no reason beyond its content to think that it might be an illusion or hallucination, I'm not going to let anyone insist that it has to be an illusion or hallucination because they don't want to accept that such things exist/happen. The same thing applies to arguments. This seems pretty reasonable to me ... and seems to be similar to what you do except that you accept more general presumptions than I do (probably because having done philosophy I've come across more cases where what seems obvious, when examined, seems utterly unjustified). So, then, what's wrong with that?

Or, alternatively, what do you ACTUALLY do? Because without comparing it to what you already believe, how you treat your friend becomes inconsistent, as you trust them to not hallucinate and tell you the truth most of the time, but in some cases you just don't accept it, and so to avoid that you'd need to say why you do it in those cases. And the appeal to "It's an extraordinary claim" always works back to my view unless you have some proven, objective way to determine what is or isn't extraordinary. Without that, extraordinary always ends up at "It clashes a lot with my existing beliefs".

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS,

Your statement in #151 brought to mind the following:

"The tendency ... is to represent the Irish or the Celts as a strange and separate race, as a tribe of eccentrics in the modern world immersed in dim legends and fruitless dreams. Its tendency is to exhibit the Irish as odd, because they see the fairies. Its trend is to make the Irish seem weird and wild because they sing old songs and join in strange dances. But this is quite an error; indeed, it is the opposite of the truth. It is the English who are odd because they do not see the fairies."

-G. K. Chesterton
Heretics [Celts and Celtophiles]

By Gordon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Verbose Stoic (not verified)

VS:

you seem to be claiming not that the God hypothesis is a bad one when compared to the multiverse hypothesis, but that it is instead just a bad hypothesis period

One does not preclude the other. :)

Ultimately, the question here is what justification you have for saying that all beliefs must be formed scientifically, as you see it.

I don't say that. Its fine if some beliefs are formed from other sources. Its not fine if one claims a belief as an explanation for the constants of the universe when that belief doesn't have any explanatory power because it is consistent with any observation. Its also not fine if one claims that said belief is of equal explanatory power to a different hypothesis that does explain some observations about the world, an hypothesis that is testable and not consistent with anything we might find.

Which is what you are doing.

EI does not explain that. Inflationary theories do, and EI is one inflationary theory.

Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure the second two statements imply the first. All(A's) -> (B). A' is an (A). Therefore A' ->B. Are you using some nonstandard logic to claim that a member of a set does not have the property all members of the set have?

EI and multiverses are not supported particularly well scientifically, and have a number of issues as an explanation of the constants. For example, what if this is the primary universe?

That's no an issue, there is no primary universe. What this shows is that you don't understand the theory well enough to even poke holes in it.

it is rational to maintain a belief that I have if:
1) The belief does not contradict any other beliefs I have, which both includes beliefs that are justified — and so are known to be true or false — and beliefs about what it means for a belief to be rational.

2) I don’t have/have not been presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that I know the belief is false.

I don't see how you think I got it terribly wrong. Sure, maybe wrong in some details but my description of your views reasonably matches this. If one already has bigfoot in one's belief-network, you think bigfoot-belief is rational for that person as long as it isn't directly contradicted. Is that correct?
Basically, under your definition of rational belief, all non-disproven current beliefs are rational, for any and all people. To include belief in God. Fairies. Bigfoot. Alien probes, and so on. Every entity belief is a rational belief under your system, so long as it's in a person's network and not directly contradicted by something.

Except that the whole argument here is about how reality needs a God — or similar intelligent creator being — in order to explain this facet of it.

If that's the whole argument, then let's start and stop right here. Tell me how Goddidit explains a set of constants when we have no idea what the probability of them having these values really is. The whole fine tuning argument relies on improbability, and you have no idea what the probability is. So start there, and show me that Goddidit is needed to explain an event which has an unknown probability somewhere between 1 >= x > 0.

Michael Fugate,

“You and Phil are both saying that revelation trumps science – why are you unwilling to follow that to its logical conclusion?”

I accept revelation, especially prophetic revelation, because the very nature of it makes it testable.

On the other hand, some conclusions that are called scientific are not logical at all. They are all about atheism and have nothing to do with science.

Phil:

On the other hand, some conclusions that are called scientific are not logical at all.

Let me guess (again): the conclusions that we call scientific and you think aren't logical at all are those conclusions from science that disagree with your own personal interpretation of the bible. Quite a coincidence, that! Gosh, how could scientists from the past hundred and fifty years have planned that outcome? Again I hear Carley Simon...you probably think this science is about you....

So Phil would you convict someone of a crime on revealed testimony? Would you allow yourself to be convicted on revealed testimony?

I don't believe you would. I don't think any creationist would if they could get off using science - science no different than that use to study evolution.

But of course, It is easy to dismiss evolution because it has little personal impact - or at least you think it doesn't.

I find amazing that some story told by somebody thousands of years ago was claimed by somebody else to be revealed from some god and you believe it. This is not like a story from your neighbor Bob who goes to your church. There are thousands of these stories each equally credible and none exactly the same. On the other hand, we have centuries of scientists studying nature (almost all the early ones Christians) who have shown that the actual evidence from nature demonstrates that original story to be at best an allegory - meant to convey things that we can't actually know because of time and language. There were never just two humans, there was never a bottleneck with even 10 or so on the Ark, there were never bottlenecks in animal populations. No garden guarded by a sword. No tree of good and evil or whatever. There wasn't and couldn't ever be a worldwide flood. All symbolic not real. This had nothing to do with atheism, but everything you say has to do with your version of theism and nothing else.

None of this means there are truths about the human condition in the Bible - just not truths about astronomy, geology and biology.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

“the conclusions that we call scientific and you think aren’t logical at all are those conclusions from science that disagree with your own personal interpretation of the bible.[?]”

No, the conclusions that are way outside of science, like the simpler replicators that led up to your supposed last universal common ancestor. What science has actually observed is minimal gene sets for organisms to live and replicate. Everything behind that is hopeful materialist fantasia.

Michael Fugate,

“There wasn’t and couldn’t ever be a worldwide flood.”

I asked Dean about this just before another thread expired. In saying that a worldwide flood couldn’t have occurred, you are implying that you know what the evidence should look like if it had. So what would it look like?

Jason,

Nothing to say in reply to my post at #123?

Agree with me, or just too busy?

Eric,

I have never met a single person who claimed to have been abducted by aliens, so I have not had to contemplate what would make someone believe this.

On the other hand, if I met ten different people, at different times and places, and they did not know each other, but all told me about their abduction experience and there were amazing similarities, I would not be looking for some psychological explanation.

If eight out of ten told me that the aliens had three eyes, and that one was blue and another green and the third one pink, I would have to assume that these people all had the same experience. If they then described further details, most of which matched what the others had said, I would start believing in Aliens.

This is the part you miss about the testimonies of people who have had experiences with God. I can meet a complete stranger and soon learn that he knows the same God I do. Not that he quotes the same Bible verses, but that real life experiences he describes line up with my own. I can then read a book about someone from 300 years ago, or 3000 years ago, and find the same thing. Their experiences are in line with my own. Ergo, we all experienced the same supernatural being.

I have an aunt who hears voices. My fundamentalist mother thinks her sister is listening to demons. But these voices don't tell my aunt to do any bad things, so clearly they are not demonic. So with an open mind I started comparing notes with my aunt. I shared my experiences with her, and I listened patiently to hers. There was little correlation. My experience with God was leading me to see more consistency in the Bible, and helping me to find the answers I needed in life. My aunt remains generally confused (but not crazy), with no clear direction for her own life and no helpful advice to offer others. So I concluded that, irrespective of where these voices are coming from, they are not from the same God who I know and who the Bible authors knew.

I note that you and Michael continue to hound Phil over a question that was directed at both of us, and that I answered. Neither of you could fault my answer, yet you continue to go after Phil simply because he was not quite so clear in stating the exact same position as mine.

Gordon,

I would agree with you. If everyone who claimed to experience alien abductions agreed independently on details that they would not be expected to agree upon a priori, then we would have to give credibility to their accounts. Where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that those who claim to have religious revelations DON'T agree on details in similar fashion. Heck, they don't agree on basic fundamentals, let alone intricate details.

You seem to want to limit your consideration of revelations to those who practice the Christian faith. You do realize, right, that there are quite a few non-Christians in the world. In fact the majority of people in the world are non-Christian. There are people among this majority who claim to experience religious revelations who completely disagree with the Christian revelations. We can agree, right, that there either is one all-powerful God or there is not. Many Hindus, just as one example, have revelations that indicate that there are many gods, none of which are all-powerful. That seems to me to be a pretty large discrepancy between Christian and Hindu revelations.

Further, is it not just a bit coincidental that the individuals who claim to experience revelations of a Hindu nature seem to be mostly confined to the Indian Subcontinent? Why are there no Hindu revelations in the US, Europe or Africa? Why are there very few Christian revelations in India or China? Would it not make sense to believe that somehow the prevailing culture in which the individual claiming to receive the revelation had something to do with the nature of that revelation? Is that what we'd expect from a Christian God who wants us all to believe in Christianity?

I guess my (long-winded) point is this. Is it really necessary to explain the fact that two people who are strangers have similar real life experiences by postulating a deity? Could not societal or cultural norms explain the same phenomenon? You seem to be begging the question here. You conclude that such people must be experiencing the same deity, but you start first by assuming that there is a deity to be experienced. I am simply contending that a deity is not required to explain why people experience similar real life experiences - just being human involves many similar experiences, such as dealing with death, ensuring that basic physical needs are met, etc.

Besides, I think you might be subject to a bit of selection bias in your assertions. How many 300 year old books by African tribesmen have you read? How many 3000 year old Chinese books? I would suspect that you would be much harder pressed to find similarities between your experience and theirs than you would be when dealing with people with whom you share greater cultural commonality.

eric,

One does not preclude the other.

No, in fact the former rather implies the latter ... which is the problem. The argument turns into a bait and switch, starting from one where discussing the relative merits of the two theories to each other, and then moving to one where the merits of the multiverse theory don't matter at all, meaning that all discussions of that theory are and always were irrelevant to the person arguing against the God theory. Which at best feels like all of that was a waste of time.

I don’t say that. Its fine if some beliefs are formed from other sources. Its not fine if one claims a belief as an explanation for the constants of the universe when that belief doesn’t have any explanatory power because it is consistent with any observation. Its also not fine if one claims that said belief is of equal explanatory power to a different hypothesis that does explain some observations about the world, an hypothesis that is testable and not consistent with anything we might find.

Which is what you are doing.

Except I'm not, because you're misrepresenting both the God theory and the multiverse theory, as I talked a lot about in my last comment and you didn't even deign to address.

Um, yeah, I’m pretty sure the second two statements imply the first. All(A’s) -> (B). A’ is an (A). Therefore A’ ->B. Are you using some nonstandard logic to claim that a member of a set does not have the property all members of the set have?

You've brought this up repeatedly and I've addressed it repeatedly, but maybe this will help put it in focus: What reason do you have for preferring EI instead of another inflationary theory that doesn't require or even allow for multiverses? If you don't have any empirical evidence that justifies you believing in EI over the others, then I can equally well and equally empirically accept ANY of the ones that don't allow for multiverses and point out that therefore you still have a problem with the cosmological constants, which then leaves you without an evidenced alternative theory PERIOD. So why accept EI over the others? You can't use the things that they ALL explain to justify accepting EI over the others, and if you don't accept EI over the others then you have no reason to think that multiverses exist at all ... except specifically as a way to get around this problem, which you insist you don't do.

That’s no an issue, there is no primary universe. What this shows is that you don’t understand the theory well enough to even poke holes in it.

From reading the wiki, by my understanding the in-universe justification for multiverses in EI is that we see similar events to what is believed caused the creation of our universe in our universe and so these could be creating new, separate universes as well. The most obvious way, then, to apply that to our universe is to posit that there is some kind of primary universe that works in a similar way, causing other universes which cause more universes which cause more universes until we get to the one we want. and allowing for infinite tries at getting the constants to the point where life can exist. You can argue that it isn't a universe that starts all of this, but you still have to say that it is something and is indeed something where there are laws of nature that can then work to create universes in the right way, which is pretty much a universe if we don't insist that it has to look like ours; it's still, essentially, something that exists and has laws of nature and physical -- in the science sense -- interactions. Alternatively, you could use a Big Bang/Big Crunch repeated model ... but then this is indeed always the primary universe (all we have are cycles on it) and the evidence of vacuoles that look like events that could create universes is irrelevant.

So, what model, then, are you actually focusing on to insist that you don't need some kind of primary universe/thing to spawn universes from inside itself? Only Big Bang/Bing Crunch doesn't allow for that, even if we are only talking about segmentation of a universe and not direct and newly caused ones.

Basically, under your definition of rational belief, all non-disproven current beliefs are rational, for any and all people. To include belief in God. Fairies. Bigfoot. Alien probes, and so on. Every entity belief is a rational belief under your system, so long as it’s in a person’s network and not directly contradicted by something.

Yes, if someone believes something and it doesn't contradict their beliefs -- which include beliefs about how to belief and test things -- then it is still rational for them to believe it until they end up with a contradiction in their beliefs. In theory, that includes those sorts of beliefs. So the question I have to ask, then, which is where I think your misunderstandings usually come into play is: what's wrong with that? What ELSE can we do? You certainly don't accept any belief just because someone says it to you if it contradicts what you already believe and you don't drop beliefs just because someone shows you that they might be wrong or that you don't know them to be true, so how is that not precisely what you do, too? Remembering that your beliefs on how to form beliefs and when to keep them count as well, and that knowledge always trumps belief, once you have those justifications.

If that’s the whole argument, then let’s start and stop right here. Tell me how Goddidit explains a set of constants when we have no idea what the probability of them having these values really is.

So now, again, you've changed to a new argument. This isn't one that strikes at God at all, but at all theories that rely on these constants having a wide range of potential values that are set randomly, which includes multiverse alternatives. If these values are always and constantly set to values that support life through a totally natural process, then, yeah, you don't need it to be set by anything that has a purpose of creating a universe that can include life. But you also not only don't need to rely on a lot of tries to overcome the improbability -- which is what the multiverse theory brings to the table as an alternative here -- you'd also have to insist that even if multiverses exist these constants don't change with each multiverse spawned, which actually contradicts the common idea of multiverses. And, as it turns out, you don't actually have any reason to think that this is the case. We don't see any reason why these can't be much different values -- even for the stability of the universe you have -- and don't see any mechanisms that would set them. So, sure, you may be right, but you clearly don't know it and don't have any real empirical justification -- at least not yet -- for that claim, and it doesn't look like based on the evidence we have that this is the most reasonable position, even scientifically.

So, sure, you can believe it if you want to, but there's no real reason for anyone else to think that it makes sense. This is one argument that does seem to be invented just to avoid the question, and not because of any independent justification or evidence.

So as soon as we find out that that is probably true -- ie we come to know that it is true -- then it can trump both the God and multiverse alternatives for everyone rational. Until then, it would be just what you and others believe, and nothing more ... and not superior to the other alternatives in any way. Which, then. leaves my puzzled why you think it's such a good counter. It's effectively a "Maybe there's a good reason!" argument, which you reject rather assuredly for the Problem of Evil, but seem to actually advocate here.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon:

if I met ten different people, at different times and places, and they did not know each other, but all told me about their abduction experience and there were amazing similarities, I would not be looking for some psychological explanation.

I'd consider some social explanation, like "they all read the same alien abduction book before or after the event" to be more credible than an actual abduction.

If eight out of ten told me that the aliens had three eyes, and that one was blue and another green and the third one pink, I would have to assume that these people all had the same experience.

Or, again, that they read the same source material. Seriously, its not like the 'greys' aren't upbiquitous in alien fiction.

And I think Sean brings up a very good point, which is that if you consider global religious claims, it simply isn't the case that everyone agrees on (things analogous to) three eyes and eye color. There are radical theological differences in the people who claim to experience god or gods. You interact most often with people who share your theological beliefs. That is like someone starting a "I saw grey-type aliens" club and then marvelling at the unexplainable coincidence of how so many club members could've seen the same type of alien. Its selection bias run amok.

My experience with God was leading me to see more consistency in the Bible, and helping me to find the answers I needed in life. My aunt remains generally confused (but not crazy), with no clear direction for her own life and no helpful advice to offer others. So I concluded that, irrespective of where these voices are coming from, they are not from the same God who I know and who the Bible authors knew.

Your reasoning, above, is a very classic example of what's called the No True Scotsman fallacy. Her internal dialogue does not tell her what your internal dialogue tells you, so they are No True Revelation.

VS;

What reason do you have for preferring EI instead of another inflationary theory that doesn’t require or even allow for multiverses?

I don't know of any that "doesn't allow" for multiverses. And probably neither do you, since you seem wholly ignorant of their details. I prefer EI because without some rule in place preventing other universes, I don't see any way to reasonably expect them not to happen via the mechanics of inflationary expansion. Inflation is, roughly speaking, a meta-stable state becoming unstable and finding its way to a truly stable ground state. This is what we expect to happen over time. If it can happen, it probably eventually will. Thus, multiple universes.

If you don’t have any empirical evidence that justifies you believing in EI over the others, then I can equally well and equally empirically accept ANY of the ones that don’t allow for multiverses

Sure, and I really wish you would, because any of them is a more justified rational belief than Goddidit, which is the point. Your argument was not originally that different inflationary models were equally well supported, your argument was that atheists created "multiverse theory" to explain fine tuning, and that Goddidit was just as good. This is so error-filled as to qualify as not even wrong. Scientists developed inflationary theories to explain phenomena such as cosmological flatness, and Goddidit does not explain the flatness of the universe, or the CMB temperature, or the level of homogeneity/heterogeneity in it, or the lack of artifacts such as monopoles' so regardless of their equivalency on multiverses, Goddidit is not as good an explanation. It is true that EI is no better (at this point) than other inflationary models. But it is better than Goddidit, because of these other phenomena it explains. Somehow you seem to have gotten it into your head that if the former statement is true, the latter statement cannot be true. Wrong: they are both true.

Now, let's contrast your quote here:

and point out that therefore you still have a problem with the cosmological constants, which then leaves you without an evidenced alternative theory PERIOD.

With this:

[eric] Tell me how Goddidit explains a set of constants when we have no idea what the probability of them having these values really is.

[VS] So now, again, you’ve changed to a new argument.

This is no change in subject, its asking you to defend your original claims, the ones you made in @8 and repeated again in the first of the two quotes above. There you claimed that fine tuning was improbable ("faced with having to accept that we just got lucky with the universal constants"). A claim you reiterated in your last post ("you still have a problem with the cosmological constants"). So, show me your evidential support for this claim of improbability. What observations do you use to derive the conclusion that the constants can vary? What observations do you use to derive the ranges they can attain? What observations do you use to conclude that the values within these ranges are equiprobable or at least that our values are not highly probable?

eric,

So, show me your evidential support for this claim of improbability. What observations do you use to derive the conclusion that the constants can vary? What observations do you use to derive the ranges they can attain? What observations do you use to conclude that the values within these ranges are equiprobable or at least that our values are not highly probable?

This claim of MINE that you are so hot for me to now defend is actually ... JASON'S. The whole discussion started from multiverse vs God, and that only matters if you assume that, yes, there's an improbability here to deal with. So here's how the discussion between you and I has progressed:

1) We started debating whether the God hypothesis or the multiverse hypothesis was really a better explanation for the fine tuning problem that Jason talked about. After you winning on the argument that it wasn't just invented to solve the fine tuning problem -- since that's conceded multiple times, kindly stop referring to it, thanks -- we still turned to whether the multiverse theory was better, with discussions over how strongly it was supported by science, empirically supported, and if we knew it was true. This discussion presumes that we are considering that the God hypothesis actually could be an explanation for fine tuning, just that it isn't a very good one compared to the multiverse theory.

2) During that, you then insisted that the God hypothesis was never a good explanation for any phenomena at all, which is why it wasn't better than the multiverse hypothesis. Of course, if that was what you mean there was no reason to discuss the benefits of the multiverse theory, and this shifted the argument to a general one about what God explanations might be able to explain. Which I did engage in, arguing that many of your claims about its explanatory vacuousness were claims that even you didn't accept (eg that by the Problem of Evil you have to think that there are empirical implications of the hypothesis, refuting the idea that it is consistent with all empirical evidence).

3) In the midst of THAT, you suddenly started claiming that maybe there's no problem here to explain at all, which would make the starting point completely moot; there is no reason to compare multiverse theories to God hypotheses wrt fine tuning if there is nothing even remotely like a fine tuning argument to deal with.

I'm not accusing you of shifting the arguments, but hopefully with this summary you can see why it might look that way. We start out arguing about the differences in credibility between God and multiverses and end up simply declaring the problem not a problem, which implies that we shouldn't have even talked about multiverses wrt it either. And this didn't happen through concessions either on my side or your side that led to a refinement of the arguments, but with discussions you introduced while I was presenting arguments and evidence for the previous discussion. So we've come a long way, baby, but mostly off-track.

You also don't seem to understand the fine tuning discussion when you demand empirical evidence that there's a problem as if claiming that it is possible that it is more probable that these constants would come up in a way that supports a life supporting universe than not is a basic demand and not a different argument. The fine tuning problem is this:

We have a number of constants that, as far as we know, can take many different values. For a number of reasons, if these values weren't in a small range of values a universe that supported life would never occur. It would be a valid universe, but life could not form. The question, then, is how to interpret what those supported and clear empirical facts -- well supported by relevant science -- actually mean.

1) There is only one universe, and we got lucky. The problem with this is that without any reason to think that these numbers are more likely to occur than the non-life-supporting ones these seem like pretty long odds.

2) There is only one universe, and it was created with the purpose of supporting life, and so the thing with purpose explicitly set them to the right values so that the universe supports life. The problem with this is that if you say that, you pretty much need a God to pull that off.

3) This is not the only universe, and we have many, many -- and, in fact, infinite -- chances to get a universe with these constants, so even if it is long odds we'll get there eventually. The problem with this is that it relies on a lot of things we don't know, like how multiverses really work and even if they exist.

4) Well, maybe it's not a problem at all. Maybe there are natural law or other constraints that mean that it comes up with these values most of the time, and so most universes, then, would support life. The problem with this is that we don't have any idea what could indeed constrain this, and have no reason to think that "supports life" is a classification that universe-forming laws would hew themselves to.

This is why I say that it is another argument, because like all of the others it is one way to interpret what those data mean. It says that this is just how the numbers come up. The other theories don't accept that, and for good reason, since it can't posit any reason to do so. But the empirical data that generates the interpretations is proven and, to somewhat repeat, is essentially this: these constants are set in a way such that life can exist, there are lots of ways to set them so that life can't exist even though you could have valid universes, and there is no reason why universe-forming processes would be constrained only to those that support life. Ergo, it's an issue that we need to make sense of, somehow.

So your demand is indeed shifting to a new argument/interpretation.

Inflation is, roughly speaking, a meta-stable state becoming unstable and finding its way to a truly stable ground state. This is what we expect to happen over time. If it can happen, it probably eventually will. Thus, multiple universes.

Presumably, a meta-stable state is some kind of thing that exists, no? If so, all of my comments are correct and it is therefore rather odd that you aren't addressing any of them after simply dismissing it as "no need for primary universes".

Scientists developed inflationary theories to explain phenomena such as cosmological flatness, and Goddidit does not explain the flatness of the universe, or the CMB temperature, or the level of homogeneity/heterogeneity in it, or the lack of artifacts such as monopoles’ so regardless of their equivalency on multiverses, Goddidit is not as good an explanation.

But no one posits that Goddidit needs to explain those phenomena. You can't hold it against a theory that it doesn't explain things it was never meant and has no need to explain. And since even you have to admit that multiverses do not follow from inflationary theory, you can't use the success of inflationary theories to support multiverses and claim that THEY are better supported than God because, well, they ain't supported at all, specifically. It is suggested that EI specifically DOES support multiverses, but you even seem to be denying that here. At which point, you seem to have no support whatsoever for multiverses.

This is what was important about my statement. If I can accept inflationary theory and yet still reject that there are multiverses and would not be denying scientific fact, then you can't claim that the evidence for inflationary theories and what they explain can be used to say anything about the likelihood of multiverses, because inflationary theory can -- and does -- stand alone from multiverses. At least you'd want to argue that if multiverses were somehow proven false that that would have major consequences for inflationary theory, but from what I've read it wouldn't.

And all of this after you've admitted that you only believe that multiverse theory is true, and don't know it, and then used this aside to unceremoniously drop the important discussion of when it is rational/more rational to believe one proposition over another. Why is that more important? Because if you only believe and don't know that multiverses are true, and I only believe and don't know that God exists, then this all comes down to what we ought to believe in this case, which requires a standard for it, one that is preferably consistent, and one that you continually try to avoid talking about.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

Here is how I get "revelations" and maybe you guys can tell me whether they came from your God.

I have a problem that needs to be solved like how to better get my students to understand how drift and selection contribute to changes in gene frequency. I look at their answers on worksheets after they have worked through a simulation and on tests. I reread studies on selection and drift in the literature, I reread book chapters from population genetics and evolution textbooks. I set the problem out in my mind as completely as possible. I then take a break - go for a long walk or read a novel or work on some home repairs or simply sleep on it - something that has nothing to do with the problem at all. This may take days, but eventually a novel idea will come. I write it down and try it out when I get to work. Maybe it is a breakthrough maybe it isn't. Maybe I wait for another idea. I try what seems to be a workable idea out on students and evaluate the changes if any in understanding.

If it works - did this seeming idea out of nowhere come from within me or from your God? How can one tell the difference?

Notice how when confronted with a problem Moses wanders off to a mountain top, Jesus to a desert without food. These are isolating experiences and can lead to hallucinations - many others have used botanicals to enhance such an experience. All involve a problem, a step back that allows the mind to wander without competing input and seeing if a solution arises.

I mean if I can't complete an crossword after I have worked on it for some time - reading the same clues over and over and then walk away, come back the next day, and the solution is immediately present - your God is feeding me the answers. It cares that much?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

This claim of MINE that you are so hot for me to now defend is actually … JASON’S.

You are conversing with me while Jason is not. So if part of your conversation includes insisting there is a fine tuning improbability that needs an explanation (something you've asserted multiple times), it is perfectly fair of me to ask you, not Jason, to show me your evidential basis for asserting this improbability. Please do so.

3) In the midst of THAT, you suddenly started claiming that maybe there’s no problem here to explain at all,

I made that claim on the very first day you entered this discussion, February 2nd, in direct response to a question you posed. Go look it up, its @44. You might want to fact-check your replies before you hit "submit."

The fine tuning problem is this: We have a number of constants that, as far as we know, can take many different values.

We don't know this. We don't know what values they can take or the relative probability of those values. The most rational conclusion to draw from "I don't know how probable or improbable this event is" is "I don't yet know whether an explanation is even needed." It is not "God is required as an explanation for such a high improbability." So I will ask once again: what evidence or observation do you use to come up with your estimate of improbabilty? What is your estimate of the improbability? And since you have already arrived at the conclusion of improbabilty, show me your work on how you arrived at that conclusion. Surely you have such work.

Presumably, a meta-stable state is some kind of thing that exists, no? If so, all of my comments are correct and it is therefore rather odd that you aren’t addressing any of them after simply dismissing it as “no need for primary universes”.

Comments like this make me facepalm (as well as comments like "multiverse theory" and "atheists invented.." in relation to some scientific theory). Inflation requires there be some pre-existing scalar field for it to occur. Our universe cannot be what you're calling the 'primary universe' because we couldn't cause our own inflation. So now please stop with this whole 'you can't know we aren't the primary universe' spiel.

This is what was important about my statement. If I can accept inflationary theory and yet still reject that there are multiverses and would not be denying scientific fact, then you can’t claim that the evidence for inflationary theories and what they explain can be used to say anything about the likelihood of multiverses,

What I can say is this: EI is a better explanation for the values of the constants than Goddidit, because Goddidit predicts nothing, cannot be tested, is consistent with any and all experimental results, and is therefore not any sort of useful explanation at all.

I'm answering the question you asked way back in @12: "what reason do those who posit the multiverse option have for saying that it is a more rational or reasonable option than saying that God did it?" Answer: the multiverse explanation is more rational than saying Goddidit because a multiverse is one of several predictions made by a hypothesis (EI) which has had its other predictions confirmed. EI is a member of a set of hypotheses that cannot yet be distinguished from each other, but since Goddidit has made no confirmed predicitons at all, belief in any of the theories in the inflationary set, including EI, is more rational than belief in Goddidit.

Furthermore, multiverse is more rational than Goddidit because the hypothesis that gives rise to it it is testable, is falsifiable. No, I'm not a Popperian who thinks falsifiability is the end-all and be-all of science. But if one explanation (EI) is falsifiable and another (Goddidit) is not, that qualifies as an answer to your @12 question: falsifiability is a reason for saying EI is a more rational or reasonable option than Goddidit.

eric,

You are conversing with me while Jason is not.

You replied to comments that I made in a specific context, which means that you accept that context for the sake of discussion and do not demand things of me that were assumed in the argument under discussion, unless you clearly demanded them of the originator of the argument, in this case Jason.

I made that claim on the very first day you entered this discussion, February 2nd, in direct response to a question you posed. Go look it up, its @44. You might want to fact-check your replies before you hit “submit.”

Well, in the interests of "fact-checking", let's reproduce that comment here (it's short):

You’re wrong. I guess I have no way to prove it to you, but I never thought the fine tuning argument was valid in the first place* so I don’t need a multiverse explanation to overcome it. My tentative acceptance of it derives from the fact that inflation is a best fit model for cosmology, and there is no reason not to think inflation couldn’t happen over and over again. Should some other theory come along and overturn the inflationary model, I’ll likely ditch my acceptance of a multiverse. Its no skin off my back.

*The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance. We don’t know what values the fundamental constants could attain – whether the range is wide or narrow or whether they are deductively fixed due to some undelying law. If they can vary within a range, we don’t know whether all possible values are equiprobable or not. So the fine tuning argument is like a claim that we won the lottery and this is a remarkable fact that requires God to explain it…without us even knowing the odds of winning. That’s kind of important information to know before we start multiplying entities to explain the improbability, isn’t it?

So, the specific argument is a footnote in a comment that addresses the aside claim about how at least some atheists preferred multiverses because it solved this problem -- and I did address later that, yep, at least some do -- by pointing out that you, personally, don't do that because you don't see it as a problem anyway. And in 50, I conceded that and we moved on to talking, again, about the evidential support for multiverses. You did not leap immediately to insisting that the whole point was about that and demand that I give that empirical evidence here. No, we walked through all sorts of discussions of God and multiverse and then here, at the end, did you bring it up as if it was THE KEY POINT rather than the mostly irrelevant aside that it was when you brought it up ... and then insist that I need to "fact-check" when the context makes it abundantly clear that my interpretation was still valid.

We don’t know this. We don’t know what values they can take or the relative probability of those values. The most rational conclusion to draw from “I don’t know how probable or improbable this event is” is “I don’t yet know whether an explanation is even needed.”

Um, saying that the values might not in fact be able to take a wide range of values or that some are more probable than others IS an explanation for what we observe: that these numbers that can take on values that would not allow for life in this universe really, in general, don't take on those numbers. Again, we know what a universe that had those constants set to those values would be like, so it's not like there's a known natural law precluding it, nor do we have any evidence of any external causal factor that would stop them from taking on those values. Therefore, it's certainly a reasonable -- and I'd say a more reasonable interpretation -- that these constants can take on any values that would produce a valid universe. So, your explanation is not evidenced and strains credulity; it really DOES sound like an explanation that you could only prefer because it avoids you having to consider this a problem, especially since that's about the only argument you've given for it.

But the key point is this: your comment here is an interpretation/explanation, just as much as the others are.

Inflation requires there be some pre-existing scalar field for it to occur. Our universe cannot be what you’re calling the ‘primary universe’ because we couldn’t cause our own inflation. So now please stop with this whole ‘you can’t know we aren’t the primary universe’ spiel.

I listed multiple problems, and the one I referenced here is your claim that there is no primary universe, which you claimed in 152. I actually explicitly stated that this possibly being the primary universe is, in fact, not the most important problem back in 151:

For example, what if this is the primary universe? The whole use of multiverses then goes out the window. More importantly, in order for multiverses to work as an explanation you have to assert that the natural laws that you observe in this universe hold in the parent universe enough to allow the formation of the new universes, but not so tightly that the new universes would inherit the original cosmological constants. And finally, you still have the issue of how the first universe came into existence to spawn off the multiverses. These are great difficulties.

Note that the key point is indeed about the laws and what that requires, and also about how it still leaves you searching for a First Cause. Yes, the First Cause problem does NOT impact the fine tuning argument, but the natural laws problem does.

About the only way you can dodge discussions of primary universes is to insist that universes cannot spawn off multiverses inside themselves, or at least ones that inflate can't. If they can, then a universe can be that stable state and since we know that they exist you should love that. Then this one could be the primary universe if we weren't spawned from another universe. If you say that they can't, then any evidence from events that happen or are still happening in this universe will never demonstrate multiverses, and so it looks like multiverses themselves become untestable ... just like God.

Again, eric, context does not seem to be something that you easily grasp.

What I can say is this: EI is a better explanation for the values of the constants than Goddidit, because Goddidit predicts nothing, cannot be tested, is consistent with any and all experimental results, and is therefore not any sort of useful explanation at all.

I've already pointed out that Goddidit, as you put it, generally is seen as having empirically observable results, even by your own standards. Thus, I think I'm going to be a bit mean here and insist that you outline in some detail what you mean when you say that it is unfalsifiable, untestable, and consistent with all possible results. Just for fine tuning, if you ever managed to prove your hypothesis that the constants simply physically cannot take non-life-supporting values then it's clear that there is no need for God -- or multiverses -- as an explanation there and so that would fall out of the picture, just as God has wrt evolution. So unless you want to claim that there is no way to know whether or not the constants can take on non-life-supporting values it seems that the God hypothesis is not consistent with all possible experimental results.

In short, if you can demonstrate a non-God-requiring theory, then the God-requiring theory is not consistent with the results that would demonstrate that. And if you can't IN PRINCIPLE demonstrate a non-God-requiring theory then it's just as untestable as the God-requiring theory is. You can't have it both ways; either you can demonstrate that a naturalistic theory is correct and so show that the God-requiring theory is not, or else you can't demonstrate a naturalistic theory in principle and so it is just as untestable as you claim the God theory is.

I'd appreciate you actually addressing this point this time, since this is in fact at least the second time I've explicitly stated it.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

we walked through all sorts of discussions of God and multiverse and then here, at the end, did you bring it up as if it was THE KEY POINT rather than the mostly irrelevant aside that it was when you brought it up
I didn't "bring it up." I responded to your post from yesterday, @161, where you claim I still have this problem. Here is your comment from yesterday: "therefore you still have a problem with the cosmological constants, " Similarly my latest request for you to give me your basis for claiming an improbability (me, @166) is a direct reply to your last post (you, @164) . Where you again assert that there is this improbability.

Look, I think I'm being very reasonable here. If you think the improbability is a problem for my argument, show how you derive the improbability. If you don't think there is any improbability that needs to be explained, we can end with whole hearted agreement that "God is the explanation for the improbability" is a very irrational belief when there is no improbabliity in the first place.

I’ve already pointed out that Goddidit, as you put it, generally is seen as having empirically observable results, even by your own standards.

I don't think I have ever conceded that it has empirically observable results by my standards.

Thus, I think I’m going to be a bit mean here and insist that you outline in some detail what you mean when you say that it is unfalsifiable, untestable, and consistent with all possible results.

I mean that no proposer of the Goddidit hypothesis can tell me how to test it. Can tell me "if you look for this phenomenon, and see it, then the conclusion will be that God did not create the universe." In contrast, EI shares with other inflationary models the prediction that (for example) there are no magnetic monopoles. So if we find one, it will refute EI. In that case, inflation (of any current type) did not create the universe.

if you ever managed to prove your hypothesis that the constants simply physically cannot take non-life-supporting values then it’s clear that there is no need for God — or multiverses — as an explanation there and so that would fall out of the picture, just as God has wrt evolution

Those are two great examples. The responses to evolution included YECism, OECism, theistic evolution, and theism of the sort that says "God still did the whole universe thing, but this one bit of it is indirect rather than direct divine action." Likewise, if we were to find the constants are mathematically dependent values rather than independent values, you or your compatriots would respond "Okay, God did not set the constants, but you haven't shown he didn't create the universe."

What I want from you is a test of the hypothesis 'God created the universe.' Not just whether he set the constants, but a test of the sort "look for this phenomenon. If you find it, I will agree with you that, with reasonable certainty and standard scientific caveats regarding the nature of induction, God did not create the universe."

Sorry about the formatting. The first paragraph is VS', paragraphs 2 and 3 are mine, after that it should be fairly easy to follow.

One thing I hope we can ALL agree on is that a preview screen would be really nice. :)

In related news:
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Goodness, a few busy days at work and the thread goes hot. Figures.

Regarding Gordon’s credibility comments in #142; credibility to him seems to be based on what he knows of the speaker.

Science is different. Scientific credibility is based on the process. The scientific process weeds out errors (not instantaneously, but reliably) and it relies less on trust than personal relationships do: a credible scientific claim has to be explained well enough that a skeptic can try it for themselves. That’s what did in cold fusion: skeptics tried it for themselves and it failed. Or you have to have the samples for others to examine, which is what did in the Piltdown man.

Skeptics of religion can and have tried prayer, etc. I remain a skeptic because prayer failed for me. I accept evolution (and generally accepted science) because I can see the scientific process in action, self-correcting. I don’t have to trust in the give-and-take, it is evident and observable. Scientific results makes sense to me in a way religion does not. And I don’t see any self-correction in religious thought; none at all except when outside forces compel it.

It appears that Gordon trusts in prayer and religion because he believes it has worked for him. I see no reason to even try to tell him he’s wrong for himself, but it has never worked for me. God has never overtly intervened in my life. So I don’t believe. Gordon has no standing to say I am mistaken if I have no standing to say he’s mistaken.

Regarding in #148, “The scientific method is a useful tool for understanding how the natural world around us works. It is completely useless in assisting us to understand the supernatural.

Science is useless for understanding the supernatural because the supernatural can only be experienced by imagination or anecdotally. That does not mean it’s not real, but it does mean that those (like me) who have never experienced it in any form actually, objectively have no reason to believe the supernatural even exists.

And as Sean T. points out in #160, persons who claim to have had supernatural encounters vary wildly on the details. Anecdotal evidence loses credibility as the evidence becomes conflicted and muddled.

Also in #148: “The real confusion comes when atheists, who expressly deny the existence of God, call everything they appeal to ‘scientific’. On this very thread the assumption was that the “multiverse” theory was scientific simply because it sought to provide an explanation without including God in the picture.

I am not an atheist, but I know that multiverse theories (there are several) are not considered scientific because they exclude God, they exclude God because they are scientific. These theories might not pan out, but that wouldn’t make them unscientific either, it would just make them wrong.

The absence of God does NOT make an idea ‘scientific’.

True, but that is a necessary if insufficient criteria.

So perhaps your objection is that we consider revelation to be more reliable than pure speculation that is falsely called ‘scientific’.

Pure speculation can be scientific, it’s all a matter of whether it is eventually testable. Every good theory begins as pure speculation. They just can’t stay that way forever.

Phil wrote in #153, “... some conclusions that are called scientific are not logical at all.

Examples, please.

Finally, Michael Fugate (in #147) wrote, “Oh right, as Sean S. has pointed out you don’t understand logic.

Yes, but not on this thread. I’ll try to get back to that tomorrow or Saturday. Woik woik woik.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

sean samis,

“Examples, please.”

Examples are as endless as the things attributed to accidents that accidents cannot possibly produce. The more important point is the rationale that permits logic to be discarded. It is probably best displayed in Lewontin’s famous homily:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

"The more important point is the rationale that permits logic to be discarded."

That precisely sums up what you, sn, and the verbose clown have been doing.

If any of you were honest enough to admit you never had an intention of having an honest discussion, with an honest examination of the science, one would have understood your position from the start. As it is it didn't take long to see your lack on honesty, which continues to these posts.

dean,

But Dean, you don’t discuss things. You just do this. Your idea of of an honest discussion, or an honest examination of the science is not hearing anything that rocks your boat so that your worldview stays intact. See, you are not really engaged. You are, in the fine tradition of islam and pop liberalism, just generally pissed off.

eric,

I didn’t “bring it up.” I responded to your post from yesterday, @161, where you claim I still have this problem.

It's interesting to trace back the comment trail when you make these sorts of accusations, and in this case it's particularly interesting for a reason that I'll get back to in a minute. If we look back, in 161 I was saying that you were switching to a new argument -- the "maybe we don't have a problem at all" argument -- because of your reply to me in 152, where you said that the fine tuning argument relies on a probability that we don't know, which is clearly going after God being an explanation period. Except that was a reply to what I said in 151, which was clearly aimed at the OTHER thing we were talking about, which is about how you consider the God hypothesis disconnected from reality. So there you clearly took an argument meant to show that the God hypothesis aims, at least, at linking with empirical data and reality and instead used it against the idea that the God hypothesis wasn't a good explanation because it wasn't needed, and yet here you are saying that all you did was simply reply to me. You didn't, actually, because otherwise you would have addressed it in context -- that of showing that the God hypothesis at least tries to connect to reality and so is not a priori untestable or not an explanation -- instead of using that argument as a way to show that the explanation is not NEEDED in that specific case.

Now, it gets even more interesting when we look at what I said specifically, I apologize for quoting rather long sections from what I've already said here, but I think it important for two reasons. First, it shows you what I did say and what the context is for my comments, and more importantly second I don't think I can say it any better than I did there, without direct feedback from you. So, the relevant section of 151:

Except that the whole argument here is about how reality needs a God — or similar intelligent creator being — in order to explain this facet of it. That’s hardly disconnected from reality. Your complaint here is far less about God being disconnected from reality and more about God being so vaguely defined that it’s too easy to adjust the concept to fit the scientific reality. I see it, then, more as frustration at what you see as a constant redefining of God to fit any gaps that there might be than as an a priori claim that it’s just not falsifiable, because if as you expect science will eventually fill in those gaps then eventually it won’t be a viable theory anymore. Evolution, for example, has already hammered a bit on the credibility of God by removing one of the main things that we needed to explain.

So, if you are confident that science will fill in the remaining gaps eventually, why are you so epistemically insistent that God is unfalsifiable? If you’re right, then we will eventually literally have no need of that hypothesis, and won’t even have Deism anymore, let alone theism.

Your comments about YEC and OEC highlight this frustration. It's not that the God hypothesis is actually a priori consistent with all empirical evidence, but that people keep fitting God into any and all gaps that the science might leave. Sure, some will reject any scientific demonstration that would mean that God doesn't exist, but just as we don't claim that the "Earth is flat" theory is untestable because some people insist on maintaining that the Earth is flat, we don't have to claim that just because some people will reject science if it conflicts with their faith that therefore the God hypothesis is actually consistent with all empirical data. For our purposes, especially considering that I DO think that science produces knowledge, we can conclude that if you have to deny scientific fact in order to maintain a place for God, then the God option is less rational. However, that has to be scientific fact, and so anything that science does not know is a gap that you can fit God into and not necessarily be irrational. But you clearly believe that science will eventually fill in all of those knowledge gaps, so as said above you eventually think that you WILL eliminate the God hypothesis by that criteria. So, therefore, it's testable in principle. That some might use faith instead of science doesn't change that, and makes that sort of conclusion useless when dealing with someone like me.

Now, what did I say in 161 in that section?

So now, again, you’ve changed to a new argument. This isn’t one that strikes at God at all, but at all theories that rely on these constants having a wide range of potential values that are set randomly, which includes multiverse alternatives. If these values are always and constantly set to values that support life through a totally natural process, then, yeah, you don’t need it to be set by anything that has a purpose of creating a universe that can include life. But you also not only don’t need to rely on a lot of tries to overcome the improbability — which is what the multiverse theory brings to the table as an alternative here — you’d also have to insist that even if multiverses exist these constants don’t change with each multiverse spawned, which actually contradicts the common idea of multiverses. And, as it turns out, you don’t actually have any reason to think that this is the case. We don’t see any reason why these can’t be much different values — even for the stability of the universe you have — and don’t see any mechanisms that would set them. So, sure, you may be right, but you clearly don’t know it and don’t have any real empirical justification — at least not yet — for that claim, and it doesn’t look like based on the evidence we have that this is the most reasonable position, even scientifically.

So, sure, you can believe it if you want to, but there’s no real reason for anyone else to think that it makes sense. This is one argument that does seem to be invented just to avoid the question, and not because of any independent justification or evidence.

So as soon as we find out that that is probably true — ie we come to know that it is true — then it can trump both the God and multiverse alternatives for everyone rational. Until then, it would be just what you and others believe, and nothing more … and not superior to the other alternatives in any way. Which, then. leaves my puzzled why you think it’s such a good counter. It’s effectively a “Maybe there’s a good reason!” argument, which you reject rather assuredly for the Problem of Evil, but seem to actually advocate here.

To summarize, you don't know that this values are constrained in any way. You admit -- right back in 12 -- that that's what you believe. Fine . But no one else need believe it, and your so-called reasonable demand that I demonstrate that your belief is false or else I can't believe that there is an explanation needed here is, indeed, you demanding that I prove your belief false or else your belief is more rational than mine by default. We don't need to insist on a default presumption, especially since here the empirically well-supported scientific theory better supports the idea that there are no constraints than that there are, because the theoretical work can tell us what a universe would be like if those constants were changed -- no life, but a workable universe -- posits no mechanism itself that could constrain these constants towards life-supporting universes, and has given no natural reason why universe formation would be biased towards life-supporting universes. But even with that, I'm not saying that your belief is less rational than the alternatives, necessarily. I'm saying that it's a mere belief and I need not refute your mere beliefs in order to claim that your mere belief is not more rational than MY -- and a host of other peoples' -- mere beliefs. If you want to insist that your demand is reasonable when discussing mere belief but a demand that you demonstrate that there are these constraint is not equally reasonable, then you have to return to discussions of when it is reasonable or rational to believe something, which you have not done.

Thus, we return to the real key point: when is it rational to believe something, and how do we determine that? Again, I would like to see this addressed in the next comment, because as we both admit that we are in the realm of belief here, we aren't going to get anywhere without settling that. And I'm not even asking something that unreasonable since you did already, in this thread, spend time at least attempting to criticize my standard, so telling me what is wrong with it wrt the defenses I've given of it already should be something you're capable of doing; you should already know what you don't like about it.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Your idea of of an honest discussion, "

Hilarious - dishonest (again) - but still hilarious. It became clear you had no interest in an honest discussion early on in the evolution posts, when no matter what article was presented, with evidence that your statements were at least mis-interpretations of the science to flat out lies about it, your response was more misrepresentations and denials because - well, other than the fact that the science contradicts your choice of religion, it wasn't clear why you were intent on denying what evidence shows.
That, coupled with your comments about accuracy of events from the bible, despite historical evidence (no grand census of the type described prior to the birth of jesus, no external evidence for the crucifixion or jesus' rising from the dead), it became clear that discussion wasn't what you were after. Your comments about 'visions' and being a watcher, the racist-tainted comments about the others who are lurking to bring on end times - all combine to say the comments are coming from someone who is not acting rationally. After that point it makes no more sense to present facts to that person (you) since the constant response is "I reject reality and replace it with my religion."

You don't deserve respect for that behavior.

Lots of verbiage Phil and no examples. Why am I not surprised. Still no positive evidence for a designer after 100s of posts. Counter-intuitive doesn't mean logically inconsistent. It is counter-intuitive that the earth is moving, but it is moving nonetheless.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

dean,

“no matter what article was presented, with evidence that your statements were at least mis-interpretations of the science to flat out lies about it”

If you’re talking about mutations, you can look up the evidence for yourself. There are astonishing religious beliefs about mutations, and you might have a hard time distinguishing those from the facts, but it can be done.

But if you’re referring to abiogenesis, there isn’t any evidence to interpret. There is a collection of very poor ideas, but again, they are just religious notions, way outside the scope of empirical data…just keeping hopeless hope alive.
-
“Your comments about ‘visions’ and being a watcher, the racist-tainted comments about the others who are lurking to bring on end times”

Visions? Since you put the word in quotation marks, I’ll challenge you to find where I’ve used it in regards to myself. I have never personally had any visions, of any sort, at any time, about any thing, nor do I want or expect any visions. I have all the information that I need.

I do watch. I watch trends in markets, currencies, debt accumulation, crime statistics, geological events and moral disruptions. I watch Russia, Iran, China and Islam. If there was a way to gauge naiveté, I would watch that. I have a mandate to watch.

===

Michael Fugate,

“Lots of verbiage Phil and no examples.”

Like beneficial mutations Michael. Countless billions necessary, and a pathetic, impoverished list to show for it, which matches the depth of the explanations.

You want to try again? Click the picture, and give a very scientific accounting of how that little #7 cartilage pulley accidentally resulted from DNA replication errors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trochlea_of_superior_oblique

And feel altogether free to elaborate about how drift and selection helped make it all happen.

And I'm still interested to hear about the global flood evidence that you and Dean know enough about to say that it is missing.

Phil,

Dean's idea of an "honest discussion" is to call everyone else a liar. In two threads he has failed to add a single substantive point. Stop feeding the troll.

The previous thread is now closed, so I can't reply to you there. I will only respond to the first half of the first verse:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven"

Just as I said before, this is all about who is IN and who is outside "the Kingdom". Don't let the "of heaven" fool you. The other gospel writers call it "the kingdom of God." We are not talking pie-in-the-sky here.

And Jesus is specifically saying that acknowledging him as Lord (and savior) is not enough. Mere lip service changes nothing. But as I also said before, the whole "faith vs works" debate takes the discussion in the wrong direction. The reason is because by "faith", people actually mean dogma, not faith as the term is used in the Bible.

Until you can "see" the Kingdom, it should be obvious enough that you are not yet in it. And you have yet prove the exception to my observation that no Christians can actually tell us what the Kingdom looks like.

I am not saying anything to you that Jesus didn't say to the Pharisees of his day. The most devout, religious folks in fact had it completely wrong. They were busy straining out a gnat while they swallowed a camel. Jesus' teaching on money is the elephant (or camel) in the room that no one wants to talk about. Think about it.

By Gordon (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

Eric,

To finish the discussion from the previous thread which is now closed: Justice and Mercy go together. Each one has its place. Yet they will forever remain a paradox, because you must choose one or the other for each situation. It appears that God can be Just or Merciful, but not both.

If someone kills your father, justice demands that they be killed. "An eye for an eye". Yet mercy means you forgive him. So which is it? Can you demand that justice be done? Can we demand that you be merciful? There are no pat answers to this, and yet without hesitation you slap "all-merciful" on the same God who is shown to require justice in story after story in the Old Testament. In short, you condemn his justice.

This ties in with your demand that God play the role of over-protective parent. Since he is omnipotent, you demand that he watch our every step and make sure we never stub our toe. This is one of the temptations that Jesus answered after his time in the wilderness, but according to you, Jesus got it wrong.

Let's clarify several things. First of all, the poisoned cookie is simply inapplicable. Go back to your hot burner illustration, as that is the one that applies to this discussion.

Stoves are useful things, and unless we all want to eat cold food, then we need stoves and we are going to have hot burners. We cannot get away from hot burners. They are a necessary good. This is what you have missed.

So, in order to minimize harm from that necessary good, we must teach our children, "Do not touch!" That is all we can do. Otherwise you are suggesting never cooking, or chaining our children to their bed, or destroying all stoves. A casual reader of your posts would probably conclude that you are mad that God created stoves, and that he is now under obligation to chain all children to their beds.

And because we can show that he has failed to take both courses of action, this somehow proves that he is either not benevolent, not omnipotent, or simply doesn't exist. Yes, when you set up an absurdity, it is easy to prove your point.

I thought we already agreed that God was under no obligation to provide us with dry water. So why must he now provide us with hot stoves that cook food, yet don't burn children's hands? If he simply intervenes every time a child is about to burn their hand, then he has taken away Free Will, as I have said all along.

Free Will is the necessary good, and you seem very keen on doing away with it altogether. We could make a long list of the things you demand of God:

- Knives that cut food but don't cut fingers
- Cars take us places fast, but don't hurt anyone if they hit them
- Tall mountains with magnificent views that no one can fall down from
- Water to drink and swim in that you cannot drown in.

Ummmmmm, do I really need to go on? Actually, I am well and truly done with this conversation. If you still think you have grounds for complaining, take your complaints elsewhere. God made the world the way it is, gave some very simple instructions, and you for one, are not interested in following them. Neither is Phil, so don't think I am singling you out in this regard.

So if you buy a car from me, and put water in the gas tank, don't bring the thing back for a refund and complain that it doesn't work the way you want it to. I want a car that drives on water also. Got one for me?

This world remains under the power of death because WE all refuse to follow God's instructions. The tree was good, but we were not supposed to touch it. Now that we've been burned, most of humanity shares your conviction that its all the fault of the One who told us, "Do not touch!"

You also missed the point about my aunt. Her testimony does not match my own experience. It also fails to line up with what I read in the Bible. This is straight comparing of stories, and not some logical fallacy that you wish to pull out to quickly dismiss yet another valid point. I never said her "revelation" was invalid or untrue.

Sean S,

Explain to us how you are going to Test the multiverse theory, and I will concede that it is 'scientific'.

Explain how we can Test abiogenesis, and I will concede that it is scientific.

Explain how we can Test the changing of one creature into a distinct and more complex creature, and I will concede that Evolutionary theory is scientific.

Until you can lay out the criteria whereby these can be tested, the results observed, and the test repeated (the scientific method), it should be YOU who concede that these theories are in fact non-scientific/unscientific.

You are unable to see the underlying assumptions employed by the atheistic/materialistic mind. You are driven by an agenda that requires an explanation of absolutely everything without God in the mix. Phil's quote of Lewontin in #173 summarizes this perfectly.

So strong is this agenda that it is acted on at a subconscious level, and this does indeed cause to people to label any idea as "scientific" by mere virtue of the fact that it explicitly excludes God as part of the explanation.

I have given you three glaring examples above, of theories that are called 'scientific' and yet are not, because of the very criteria that you mentioned: they cannot be tested.

I asked Phil for examples of “conclusions that are called scientific are not logical at all.

Phil replied with: “Examples are as endless as the things attributed to accidents that accidents cannot possibly produce.

So, as endless as the examples are, Phil can’t provide even one. No big surprise there.

Regarding: “things attributed to accidents that accidents cannot possibly produce.

Examples, please.

Gordon asked: “Explain to us how you are going to Test the multiverse theory, and I will concede that it is ‘scientific’.

Actually, that’s already been suggested. If there are other multiverses, they likely collide with ours. Observational criteria has been suggested but it will take an observatory in orbit to find these.

And as the theories are detailed further, other implications will likely show up. Done.

Explain how we can Test abiogenesis, and I will concede that it is scientific.

Easy: identify at least one pathway by which abiogenesis occurs. Probably there are several, but only one needs to be found. Done.

Lewontin’s homily is empty. Who or what defines “commonsense”? What makes “commonsense” infallible? “Patent absurdity” is likewise a valueless, conclusory remark. Science makes no “extravagant promises of health and life”; some scientists do, but science does not. And for the most part, those scientists have been right: the application of scientific results has improved life and health.

Science excludes Gods only because Gods cannot be tested. This is not atheistic nor materialistic, it is just a practical necessity. Lewontin indulges in his own absurd preconceptions, driven by his “agenda that requires an explanation of absolutely everything with God in the mix. So strong is this agenda that it is acted on at a subconscious level, and this does indeed cause to people to label any idea as “UNscientific” by mere virtue of the fact that it explicitly excludes God as part of the explanation.”. Most of that quote was your words, Gordon, with a few tweaks to make it accurate.

sean s.

p.s: I have a response to Gordon to post over at Meaning of Life, but the site is closed to comments, reportedly for maintenance purposes. I’ll be patient.

ss

By sean samis (not verified) on 14 Feb 2015 #permalink

sean samis,

In this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome it says that:

“The ribosome is a large and complex molecular machine, found within all living cells, that serves as the site of biological protein synthesis (translation).”

It goes on to say:

“In bacterial cells, ribosomes are synthesized in the cytoplasm through the transcription of multiple ribosome gene operons. In eukaryotes, the process takes place both in the cell cytoplasm and in the nucleolus, which is a region within the cell nucleus. The assembly process involves the coordinated function of over 200 proteins in the synthesis and processing of the four rRNAs, as well as assembly of those rRNAs with the ribosomal proteins.”

If protein synthesis is dependent on ribosome, and ribosome synthesis is dependent on proteins, it is illogical to conclude that either one ever originated accidentally.

===

The Meaning of Life post is permanently closed.

Phil,

What you have is not a description of how ribosomes or proteins originated, but how they are generated in the body now, hundreds of millions of years (if not billions of years) after they originated.

It’s like the chicken-and-egg conundrum: which came first? The answer is NEITHER. They both came from some earlier creature that spun off pieces of its own DNA (something we still observe) and which accidentally bread with others like it.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 14 Feb 2015 #permalink

sean samis,

"The answer is NEITHER. They both came from some earlier creature..."

No, that's not a logical answer. It's just an illogical belief.

No, that’s not a logical answer. It’s just an illogical belief.

Phil, unless you are using the word logical incorrectly, you should be able to demonstrate the logical flaw. Try as you will, you cannot. There is no logical flaw.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 14 Feb 2015 #permalink

Sean S,

"We genuinely believe that at some unspecified future date we are going to be able to test this theory and/or explain it" does not magically transform some theory that presently CANNOT be tested and/or CANNOT be explained, into a "scientific" one.

You have proven my point, because you tenaciously cling to a faith in Science even when the scientific method simply CANNOT be applied. It CANNOT be applied to the multiverse, abiogenesis and evolutionary theories, or to God, yet somehow God merits a special place on this list as the only thing you are sure is "unscientific".

Your rewriting of my statement is patently absurd. Neither Lewontin, nor Phil, nor I, demand that God be included as part of any "scientific" explanation or theory. We accept Science for what it is and for all the good that it has brought us, but also we recognize its limitations. Put another way, we acknowledge that there are things in this life that simply cannot be reasonably explained without the existence of a higher intelligence. That does not make the explanation scientific. It is precisely where Science comes up short that it becomes reasonable to consider broader possibilities.

The logical flaw in your argument with Phil is simple. You can go back to an earlier creature, but you can't go back to the point of origin. You assume that the earlier creature just had the necessary ingredients, and that avoids having to answer the question of how they originated. You even claim that Phil is not discussing how they originated, but you are simply avoiding this question altogether.

By Gordon (not verified) on 14 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by sean samis (not verified)

Gordon,

“I will only respond to the first half of the first verse:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” “

This is actually a very harsh passage. I used to steer clear of it because the people who washed out were in fact prophesying, casting out devils and doing wonderful works, all in Jesus’ name. I was so focused on them, their failure and the severe consequences of that failure, that I wasn’t able to notice how not to fail. It is in the second half of the verse:

“ but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

Jesus spelled out precisely how to so that in John 6:39-40

“And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Moreover, in verses 28-29, someone asked Him a very direct question about works, and He did not equivocate in answering:

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

It is actually a very simple arrangement, with the bar set so low that people can trip over it and fall in: We cannot save ourselves. He has to do it. Cain offered his labor and came up a loser, and the rich young ruler asked the wrong question not understanding that he didn’t have anything to offer. But without ever learning systematic theology or doing a single worthy thing, the believing thief said nine words and wound up in the cool side of sheol. Doing the will of the Father makes it safe to die.

Hi Phil,

I know the modern evangelical 'gospel' all too well. And I used to subscribe to it fully. When it left me empty and looking for answers, as it does for so many, the only difference is that I did not abandon my faith. Rather I dug deeper.

I do not fault your adherence to the party line. In fact, you are so precise that it is a safe bet that you are either a Pastor or a Seminary student. So here is the fundamental flaw in the modern 'gospel'.

"Doing the will of the Father" has become, in practical terms, doing nothing. If we do anything, that gets labelled "works" and we are told that we have abandoned the faith. The catholics avoid this mistake by saying that salvation requires both faith and works, because true faith will lead to works of righteousness, as James clearly says.

And, if you look at the 'works' that James mentions, it is precisely the same works we see the Apostles engaged in at the end of Acts 4. No one is busy with supernatural shows like prophecy, casting out demons, or miracles. This is very practical, natural stuff. "Give us this day our daily bread" type stuff.

And herein lies the confusion. While Jesus performed miracles and cast out demons, he never once gave instructions on how to perform miracles or cast out demons. He fed the 5000 and told Peter, "Feed my sheep".

He told parables about forgiving debts, he scolded the Pharisees for ignoring "the weightier matters of the Law", such as the forgiveness of debts (mercy), and taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors". This is practical, everyday reality. It is something we can actually put into practice if we simply choose to. No hocus-pocus required.

But we walk into church and what do we observe? The same churches that cast out demons do not hold all things in common. They might have a program to feed the poor, but they don't first have a plan to ensure that all the needs of their immediate congregation are fully met. Rather, most members would have mortgages and be seriously in debt, and struggling to spare the 10% that the Pastor tells them is owed to God.

In short, the modern church is so heavenly minded (focused on the spiritual) that it is no earthly good. They say they believe IN Jesus, and get offended by claims that he was not God in the flesh or that he was purely a myth. They believe IN his historical existence, and they believe IN his power to forgive sins.

But THEY DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS! They read his words, and conclude that he must not have meant what he said. They then sit through long sermons that explain away those very words. You have already illustrated this perfectly. There is not a single passage I have brought up that you have not explained away the literal reading of.

The modern church hides subconsciously behind this word IN (or ON). They say with all sincerity:
"I believe IN Jesus
I believe his is the son of God
I believe he died and rose again
I believe he paid for us all."

And then they sit on their hands and DO nothing, because they mis-read John 6:39-40 and Romans 10:9-10. The will of God is not limited to mere mental assent. The bar is not actually set that low. If it were, we would already have Heaven on Earth, at least in places like Medieval Europe, where belief in Jesus approached 100%.

But you can observe this in your own church today. It is safe to say that among the members of your congregation, belief IN Jesus is basically 100%. And yet, if I met them outside your church during the week, I would notice no difference whatsoever between them and the average man on the street. They would not display a degree of happiness, or morality, or generosity, or any other virtue which would so surpass the others around them that I would take notice of them.

Only if we started talking might I find out that they are "believers", because of certain phrases they would use. They are not living a life of Heaven on Earth, and they are not witnesses of a better Kingdom. No, they are struggling to survive in the here and now, in the "kingdoms of this world."

Why are they struggling? Because they are still serving Mammon, rather than God. And if they wanted to give this up, then they would have to do what all the believers did in Acts 4. And NO ONE that you know wants to do that!

Gordon, your first sentence in #189 is a smoldering pile of trash.

The embedded quote is entirely of your making. Did you think I’d try to defend it? It’s a muddled straw-man. You wrote it, you defend it.

Further: no “magic” is required to “transform some theory that presently CANNOT be tested” into a scientific theory. No scientific theory has to be testable at birth. Eventually yes, but not at birth.

All scientific theories begin with an unknown, and posit an explanation. In general these explanations need to eventually be testable or useful. When Heliocentrism was proposed (by Kopernik a.k.a. Copernicus in 1543), it was not considered testable, but as soon as Kepler (d. in 1630) made his changes it became very useful. Heliocentrism was not proved for almost 300 years, until 1838 by Bessel.

Regarding the phrase you wrote, about “some theory that presently ... CANNOT be explained”, this is nonsense. A theory IS an explanation. So your concern is about explanations that cannot be explained? Do you even know the meaning of those words?

Regarding, “you tenaciously cling to a faith in Science even when the scientific method simply CANNOT be applied.

No. You have yet to show that the scientific method CANNOT be applied to multiverse theories or abiogenesis. It already has been to evolution. And as I wrote above, the present state of testability is not relevant. This is not faith, it’s just remembering history.

Regarding, “we [Lewontin, Phil, and you] acknowledge that there are things in this life that simply cannot be reasonably explained without the existence of a higher intelligence.

That’s not a fact to “acknowledge”, it’s a bald-faced assertion. No one has a moral or intellectual obligation to agree with it, especially since you have absolutely no evidence–neither physical nor logical–to back it up.

More importantly, how does anyone know that these things “cannot be reasonably explained ” without your deity unless someone tries and fails, and tries again?

And who decides if they succeeded? You regard it your right to pass judgment on the reasonableness of non-deistic explanations, but then hypocritically demand that your deistic explanations be granted an exemption from the same penetrating examination. Because in fact, you can prove nothing; you can demonstrate nothing.

As for my argument with Phil, my reasoning is clear. Describing how a process works is different from describing how the process itself originated. The question is not how the process works (which is what Phil described) but where the process itself came from (which is what I was on about).

Regarding, “You can go back to an earlier creature, but you can’t go back to the point of origin”.

Sure I can. How does anyone “go back to the earlier creature”? Intellectually. The earlier creature is likely to be extinct or unknown, but if I can as a matter of thought-process “go back” to that earlier creature (which you said I could), then I can “go back” as far as evidence and reason will carry me. Which is quite enough to “go back” to the origin.

An interesting thought for you and Phil to ponder regarding ribosomes and proteins: why do we (you and Phil do it too) assume that the ribosome / protein conundrum applies to all life on earth? Notice that Phil’s description of the process (and your comments to me) omit any reference to any specific species. You yourself can only refer generically to some “creature”.

If a deity created life, that deity did not have to use the same biological processes in every creature. Certainly mammals need have nothing in common with birds or fish or reptiles, let alone with worms, mold, plants or bacteria. A deistic explanation cannot predict whether this relationship exists.

EVOLUTION REQUIRES IT AND PREDICTED IT. And lo! There it is.

Sure, your deistic explanation can fit it in. You think that’s its strength, but it is its weakness. If we’re looking for predictions of what we’ll find, deists can only shrug their shoulders and say “whatever”. It’s science that has to come up with testable predictions, and so Evolution has. Many times.

So when you or Phil comment on the problem of ribosomes and proteins, you are already utilizing an evolutionary conclusion.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 15 Feb 2015 #permalink

Put another way, we acknowledge that there are things in this life that simply cannot be reasonably explained without the existence of a higher intelligence.

Even if your statement were true, the diversity of life on earth is not one of them. Even the origin of life on earth is not one of them.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 15 Feb 2015 #permalink

Phil way back in @157 - see Arthur N. Strahler "Science and Earth History" - the most comprehensive look at the "science" behind creationism.

You guys can't exclude from science those questions you don't want it to answer. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 15 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Fugate,

“see Arthur N. Strahler “Science and Earth History” – the most comprehensive look at the “science” behind creationism.”

Well, I’m sure it’s a fine book. But it probably doesn’t directly answer my question, which was pretty straightforward.

Gordon,

“And then they sit on their hands and DO nothing”

That’s a pretty heavy accusation.

“because they mis-read John 6:39-40 and Romans 10:9-10.”

You could probably add Romans 4:4-5 and Titus 3:5 to the list. But I think it is actually hard to misread what is being said. The distinction between belief and works is an often-visited subject in the NT. Both are important, but the former is the more critical. Unbelievers can do fine service, but with terminal results, as the Matthew 7 passage illustrates.

On the other hand, properly motivated good deeds and good works are crucial. We have no way to gauge their actual value, but they are without question the basis for eternal reward. Some people will be rich for their service, and others will have no reward at all.

===

sean samis,

“…I can “go back” as far as evidence and reason will carry me. Which is quite enough to “go back” to the origin.”

The evidence ends with the minimum genetic profile that is necessary to live and replicate. There is nothing scientific behind, below or preceding that. You can imagine that there was once a human ancestor that could run a mile in 9 seconds, but there is no evidence or reason that actually carries you towards such a fantasy. You just have to like the idea.

Hi Phil,

You completely missed or avoided my point.

"Works" has a biblical meaning, yet the term is misused by the modern church.

"Faith" has a biblical meaning, yet the term is misused by the modern church.

So the phrase, "Faith without Works is dead" is completely misunderstood in our day, and the "Faith vs Works" argument is completely misguided.

If you don't get the meaning of the words right, how can you expect to get anything else right?

Funny enough, Sean S has missed or avoided my point as well. Different points, but it seems that no one wants to discuss the elephant in their personal living room.

Let's see if we can agree, or if you are going to stick with the wrong definitions.

Biblical Faith is a trust that God will always do what is best for you, and especially that he will provide for all of your needs.

The absence of such Faith is illustrated by the practice of thanking God for our food before meals, and yet those meals were bought from the supermarket with money, or from a restaurant with money. God had no role in providing them at all. People provided our needs because we gave them money. And we got that money from working, not from God either. End of story. No Faith required.

Modern "faith" is mental assent to a list of historical propositions or doctrinal beliefs. Perfectly illustrated by churches and ministries publishing a "Statement of faith". It is a list of propositions that you need to agree with in order to be considered "in" their club. They then confuse this with being "in the Kingdom" that Jesus speaks of.

Now whether my definitions are correct or not, you have to agree that there is a wide gulf that separates the two. One demonstrates an implicit trust in God, and the other merely describes your system of belief. You cannot call them both "Faith". More importantly, we must know which one applies when we claim that salvation is by "faith alone".

You claim that salvation is by belief alone, which is indeed a very low bar. I claim that true biblical Faith is in fact a much higher bar. Otherwise it would be meaningless for Jesus to say:

"Oh ye of little Faith", or
"If you have Faith as a mustard seed ...", and
"When the Son of Man returns, will he find Faith on the earth?"

Faith is hard to come by. It is a rare thing. And when you compare the two definitions above, you will have to agree that we have churches full of people who 'believe' the right things, but try and find a man who truly lives by Faith that God will provide ALL his needs, and you will be lucky to find a single one.

"The just shall live by Faith" is another meaningless statement unless Faith here means an implicit trust in God's provision. And we don't see anyone around us living by this kind of Faith. They are all caught up in the mad scramble for money, which is a system that requires no Faith at all.

Now match this up with the works spoken of by James. If you trust God to meet all your needs, then you will naturally find it easier to provide for others. You will not be possessive of what God has provided. You will share it freely, as the Apostles illustrated for us in Acts 4.

These are not the works spoken of by Jesus. What he called "wonderful works" were shows of religiosity. "Look how spiritual I am! Look how in touch I am with God!" It was against this that Jesus was speaking. Not some misguided notion that if you feed the hungry and clothe the naked that he will say, "I never knew you."

To the contrary, this distinction is the very basis upon which the nations are to be judged. Read Matthew 25:31-45, where he separates the sheep from the goats.

It is the very act of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, i.e. of being the instruments whereby God meets the needs of his people, that distinguishes the righteous from the unrighteous.

THIS is the "righteousness that comes by Faith" that Paul speaks of in Romans. HERE are the works that naturally spring from true Faith that James is speaking of.

And THIS is what I condemn in the strongest terms possible when I say, without hesitation and based upon decades of observed evidence, that the modern church sits on their hands and DO nothing. True Faith leads to action. Modern 'beliefs' require no specific action. In fact, they lead to inaction, because the churches teach that no matter how good your works are, they don't count for a hill of beans in God's eyes. You are a step above this by linking works to eternal reward, but that misses the main point as well.

True Faith is a here-and-now proposition. It should radically alter how we live our life in the world today. We should regularly attract the accusation that was made against the Apostles:

"These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also."

By Gordon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

Sean S,

Ok, you've clearly spelled out your system of blind faith. So long as there is a belief that at some unspecified future date the theory may be testable, then the theory is scientific. How could I possibly argue with that? We are all entitled to our beliefs.

The "logical evidence" that backs up our acknowledgement of a higher intelligence is precisely what the OP here was all about! Perhaps you assume that Jason's position is irrefutable, but then that only means that you failed to read my detailed rebuttal in post #123. Thus far, neither Jason nor anyone else here has responded to that post.

Which reduces your argument down to repeating the tired and false "absolutely no evidence" line, like a tenant of faith, because you have absolutely nothing else to say.

You are similarly avoiding answering Phil's point, because the earliER creature must at some point become the earliEST creature, and then you are faced with the dilemma posed by Phil. Your position is, "they always just were", and that is far more implausible and incredible than any notion of a divine Creator.

Paley's watch keeps right on ticking.

VS:

you clearly took an argument meant to show that the God hypothesis aims, at least, at linking with empirical data and reality and instead used it against the idea that the God hypothesis wasn’t a good explanation because it wasn’t needed, and yet here you are saying that all you did was simply reply to me. You didn’t, actually, because otherwise you would have addressed it in context — that of showing that the God hypothesis at least tries to connect to reality and so is not a priori untestable or not an explanation

I am not even sure how to parse all that. But I will try to respond in context: the Goddidit hypothesis fails to connect to reality because (IMO) there is nothing we could discover about reality that would convince the theist community (or, since humans tend to be stubborn, let's set the bar at >60% of the community) God did not ultimately do it. I won't ask for complete conversion, but tell me a scientific experiment we could perform for which a particular result would make theism as rejected as geocentrism.

It’s not that the God hypothesis is actually a priori consistent with all empirical evidence, but that people keep fitting God into any and all gaps that the science might leave.

and

we can conclude that if you have to deny scientific fact in order to maintain a place for God, then the God option is less rational. However, that has to be scientific fact, and so anything that science does not know is a gap that you can fit God into and not necessarily be irrational.

I think in this case we mostly agree with what is going on, and just disagree with whether its rational or not. I don't consider a god of the gaps strategy rational. In fact, Wikipedia has this to say about it: "The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence." God of the Gaps was a term invented by theologians themselves because they consider it fallacious reasoning. But, you seem to think it is a rational strategy to take.

To summarize, you don’t know that this values are constrained in any way....We don’t need to insist on a default presumption, especially since here the empirically well-supported scientific theory better supports the idea that there are no constraints than that there are

Correct, we don't know. Which is why I think it is irrational to posit a supernatural entity to explain a probability when you don't know what that probability is. Just say "I don't yet know if this is even something that needs an explanation" and be done with it. OTOH, you do need to insist on a default presumption to justify a God-as-mechanism conclusion. You must presume the values are improbable before that makes any sense at all. And lastly, please tell me the well-supported scientific theory that states the values are unconstrained. QM? Relativity? Inflation? AFAIK, none of them or any other major theory says anything about it. You're just making stuff up when you claim there is a theory that explicitly supports your position.

Thus, we return to the real key point: when is it rational to believe something, and how do we determine that? Again, I would like to see this addressed in the next comment,...telling me what is wrong with it wrt the defenses I’ve given of it already should be something you’re capable of doing; you should already know what you don’t like about it.

I believe we've had this conversation before. I see your definition of rationality to be somewhat analogous to Pascal's wager, in that its an argument that supports multiple contradictory conclusions equally. It defines as rational beliefs that can be arrived at through no reasoning whatsoever. If some belief gets in your net via unreasoned processes, and it's not obviously contradicted by something, then you consider it rational.
IMO it puts too many beliefs in the 'rational' category, rendering it essentially useless as a means of comparing and evaluating the credibility of various beliefs.

Moreover, I think it departs significantly from how most people - including most philosophers - would use the term "rational." This sows confusion and is somewhat deceptive (albeit unintenionally on your part), because when someone like me claims a belief is not rational and you claim it is, most often the disagreement is stemming from the fact that you are using a much much wider net than I am...or anyone else is, etiher. This communication problem is why I have several times made comparative statements or asked you to do so, because I think they help eliminate the miscommunication problem. So, do not just tell Gordon and Phil and I that goddidit is a rational belief, tell your audience that the way you define rational, goddidit is as rational as fairydidit. As rational as nyarlathotepdidit. That will correctly communicate to them that you are defending God-belief using a definition of rationality that captures many beliefs that most people would consider irrational. And I think the communicative burden is on you here, not on your audience. It is not up to them to ferret out what you mean: if you want to honestly promote your idea, it is up to you, the speaker, to clearly descibe to them what you mean by rational. Using examples like the ones I mention above do that. Heck, if you really support this idea that you have for a definition of rationality, you should be proud to lay out examples like that, because they very effectively illustrate that you are not just making some very minor tweak to the term, but arguing for a significant, substantive change to how we think about 'rational belief.'

So, there you go. A discussion of your definition of rational and what I see as the two main problems with it.

Gordon:

It appears that God can be Just or Merciful, but not both.

I agree. Thus I conclude that any religion which claims God is all-merciful or infinitely merciful and also perfectly just must be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, I conclude that since the people claiming these things are claiming they know them through divine revelation, divine revelation cannot be trusted as a credible means of gaining knowledge. Put another way, theologians want to treat them as a form of evidence, but IMO we should be treating them more like untested hypotheses. Things for which evidence must be gathered rather than evidence itself.

Stoves are useful things, and unless we all want to eat cold food, then we need stoves and we are going to have hot burners. We cannot get away from hot burners. They are a necessary good. This is what you have missed.

I didn't miss it. Stoves are necessary to humans because humans are not omnipotent. Were we omnipotent, there would be no need for us to expose our children to the danger of hot stoves, and in that case it would be immoral for us to do so. God created the tree. God chose to put the punishment in it; chose to have it cause death. That is profoundly immoral. Unless you are clamiing he had no choice in the matter, that he is not omnipotent when it comes to creating trees?

This world remains under the power of death because WE all refuse to follow God’s instructions. The tree was good, but we were not supposed to touch it. Now that we’ve been burned...

I think punishing my cat and all other living things in the cosmos because humans refuse to follow instructions is evil (and you've never once responded to the collective punishment issue). I also think its evil to design a tree to inflict death on people who don't follow your instructions about not eating it. Well, either evil if he chose that design, or it shows he is not omnipotent if he could not design the tree any other way.

Eric,

It appears you have a dispute with reality itself. Much in life is a paradox. Rather than hide from this fact or get angry about it, religion has sought to make sense of it.

Forget God. Just tell me what you want. In criminal court cases, do you want the courts to deliver Justice, or to be Merciful? You can't have both. So which is the right one? Because in your view, one of the two is pure Evil. And if you can't pick only one, then you have applied a double-standard to God.

Likewise, you have declared the men who design, or build, or sell automobiles to be Evil incarnate as well. Cars kill people. Without cars, fewer people would die. Pretty simple. Same thing with tall buildings. It is obviously Evil to build a building over one story tall, because then someone might jump off of it and kill themselves. We are not omnipotent, but we do have the power to minimize the risk. And obviously we should, by outlawing tall buildings and cars (along with stoves), or we are an immoral society.

This is the world according to Eric. You accuse me of applying a lower standard to God than I do to mankind. Well, how about applying the same standard to mankind that you apply to God? The fact is, I can handle paradox. It is you who are inconsistent.

Until we get these basics straight, there is no point in expanding the argument. But if you can finally stop beating your drum on the above, I will be happy to address the collective punishment issue.

The point that "the complex, functional interweaving of parts in a watch immediately implies a watchmaker", is valid on its own. This is so simple and so obvious that atheists usually ignore it, or as you do, attack it for being misapplied. This is common sense that must be ignored or denied by everyone who says there is "no evidence whatsoever" of a Creator.

By Gordon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

Gordon, you are hardly in a position to complain about others not responding to things. You see the motes in our eyes but not the log in your own!

Most of your #123 is irrelevant, the only part I saw that matters is about abiogenesis, and that you say until it is observed it is “merely an alternative notion”.

Your claim that “... neither Jason nor anyone else here has responded to that post” is whining. The topic of abiogenesis has been discussed a lot. Maybe no one’s responded directly to your post because it says nothing new.

You wrote that “The “scientific method” requires something to be observed, and testable, and repeatable. If all three requirements have not been met, then any idea cannot be labelled as “scientific”.

Wrong. Science is an activity. It is a process for observing something and then trying to learn more about it. We observe that life exists and wonder where it came from. Abiogenesis is a legitimate explanation.

Scientific theories are explanations. Sometimes theories are born conjectural or speculative. That does not make them “unscientific” unless they are also untestable and unverifiable. Deistic explanations are untestable and unverifiable. Abiogenesis is testable and verifiable.

Everyone concedes that we cannot observe, test or repeat abiogenesis today.

Umm, No. Abiogenesis has been tested since at least 1952 (Miller-Urey). Tests continue to this day. These tests are very repeatable. Abiogenesis has not been verified yet, but that does not matter yet. Tests have been done; tests will continue.

It does not matter what we can do TODAY>. The word verified is not limited to “verified today”.

Abiogenesis is testable, it continues to be tested. No test has demonstrated it yet, but that YET is not trivial. No test has demonstrated abiogenesis is impossible, or even implausible. So abiogenesis is a scientific theory which remains unverified AND FOR WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE.

You have a religious alternative. Fine. Carry on, and leave others to their business.

Regarding, “You are similarly avoiding answering Phil’s point, because the earliER creature must at some point become the earliEST creature, ...

That’s not even logical. Some currently known “earliER creature” does not have to be theearliEST creature”.

Paley’s watch keeps right on ticking.

[snicker.] There is a meme that runs through many creationist arguments, including your own. Some are quite forthright about it, you are not. The meme is that we must decide NOW what is or is not science, what is or is not true. This meme rejects the idea of waiting for further results. No! We must decide NOW based only on what we know NOW!

But of course, we need not. Reasonable people look forward to the future, when we will know more, when we will have new questions. Creationists fear the future because they know that time is not on their side. They urge for a premature commitment in the hopes of holding off the inevitable.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon @197:

you failed to read my detailed rebuttal in post #123. Thus far, neither Jason nor anyone else here has responded to that post.

Are you talking about your abiogenesis argument? Correct we have not observed it in toto. We have observed most of the jajor steps needed for it to occur. We've observed natural inorganic synthesis of simple organic molecules. We've observed natural polymerization of organic monomers into polymers (which is what a protein is). We've observed natural autocatalysis. We've observed the natural formation of micelles, liposomes, and bilayers.
What we have not observed is supernatural entities specially creating anything, ever. So the abiogenesis hypothesis has a bunch of evidential support for it while the goddidit hypothesis has none; that makes the first much more credible.

Secondly, a minor historical refutation of your point: Paley was arguing for the special creation of every species, with all their particular traits. He was making an argument about the origins of species, not the origin of life. So yes, we have refuted Paley, because special creation is not how new species arise. Ditching most everything about his idea that Paley himself thought was important, and then grafting it onto the OOL debate, does not mean Paley's argument is alive and well. It means it failed so miserably for what it was designed (heh) to argue that you had to repurpose it entirely just to salvage it.

Phil; “The evidence ends with the minimum genetic profile that is necessary to live and replicate.

If we’re trying to determine where the ribosome/protein process originates, then we are not limited to even the earliest recognizable living organism.

The whole point of abiogenesis is that some “biological” processes originated as non-living events. Drawing a line at the first living thing is senseless then. It’s like trying to explore the roots of a tree but drawing a line at ground level; “search no deeper.”

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

Your definition of science, Gordon, means that you reject criminal forensics - which was the point of my earlier comment that you dismissed out of hand. The past is the past and if you or anybody else were not there to observe it, then you are saying science can't study it. We might as well pray and hope for a god to clue us in - and who actually believes that will happen? Can you imagine a criminal justice system relying on revelation? Didn't think so.

The funny thing is Hume had already rendered Paleyism anachronistic before Paley was born. Paley's was an apologetic response to the growing transformationism coming out of France - science was rapidly catching up with Hume's philosophy and the clock was running out even before Darwin stopped it dead.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

@203 - techincally every observation is "of the past," because light does not travel at an infinite speed. Observation of a far-away star shows you many years in the past. Observations of the moon are from 1.3 seconds in the past. Observations of the person next to you? About 3 nanoseconds in the past.

Phil,
If the flood were true, we would expect organismal remains to be sorted by size and density with bigger denser organisms and rocks on the bottom and smaller less dense organisms and clays on the top.

You can demonstrate this yourself -http://thehappyscientist.com/category/earth-science/earth-science/rocks…

This is not what we see in sedimentary layers. Cobbles can be above siltstones. Clams above foraminiferans.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon,

“Biblical Faith is a trust that God will always do what is best for you, and especially that he will provide for all of your needs.”

This implies that that God will do this directly, and not involve other people. Did the apostles operate without drawing on the resources, including money, of others?
-
“Modern “faith” is mental assent to a list of historical propositions or doctrinal beliefs. Perfectly illustrated by churches and ministries publishing a “Statement of faith”. It is a list of propositions that you need to agree with in order to be considered “in” their club.”

I think that’s a little tight. I don’t care for creeds (mostly because they often misidentify the Creator), but if a church is honest enough to spell out their teachings up front, I don’t have a problem with that.
-
“They then confuse this with being “in the Kingdom” that Jesus speaks of.”

I’m not clear on what you regard as the kingdom. But I am convinced, based on verses like Matt 25:34, 26:29 and John 18:36, that nobody has seen it yet.
-
“Faith is hard to come by. It is a rare thing.”

Oh, I don’t think it is that rare. In Acts 2, three thousand people became disciples because they had adequate faith, and more in the days following. If this was not the case, the chapter wouldn’t end with the notation “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
-
“It was against this that Jesus was speaking. Not some misguided notion that if you feed the hungry and clothe the naked that he will say, “I never knew you.” “

But as I noted, the heathen can do these deeds, and frequently do. You have to match the losers recounting their good deeds with the great white throne judgment in Rev 20:11-13. These people are not being condemned for their sins, since all the sins were judged at the crucifixion. They are being judged “according to their works”, and every last one of them will come up short.
-
“You are a step above this by linking works to eternal reward, but that misses the main point as well.”

I don’t think so. That isn’t my idea. There is ample information about this in 1 Cor 3.

Also, I meant to tell you, I’m neither a pastor or a seminary student.

"The whole point of abiogenesis is that some “biological” processes originated as non-living events."

Nice try, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.

sean samis,

I neglected to insert your salutation before the last two paragraphs in the previous post. My apologies.

Far out Sean!

I have written extensively in this thread and the previous one, and replied to you every time. What issues have you raised that I have failed to respond to?

Then you follow such nonsense by dismissing most of what I wrote as irrelevant! I rebutted the OP, but it was irrelevant? Exactly what is it that YOU wish to discuss here?

I see now why we disagree on the application of the term 'scientific'. We are debating whether certain hypotheses are scientific, and what I missed is this: a 'scientific hypothesis' must be falsifiable.

While it is true that some testing takes a lot of time, this appeal to time effectively makes a notion like abiogenesis impossible to falsify. And thus my objection to calling it 'scientific'.

But I see now that Abiogenesis is not actually the hypothesis. It is rather a notion based on a faith that Life can be explained without a Creator.

Those who accept the notion then set about to develop hypotheses that could explain how abiogenesis could occur. Most of these hypotheses are falsified as soon as they are tested. Like Edison's light bulb, we know a thousand ways how NOT to create Life.

But the faith keeps the faithful churning out new hypotheses. So in one sense, you are right. This is part of the scientific process. So long as the hypothesis is then tested and proven true or false, then it was scientific. It just happens that every one to date has proven false.

But the original notion of abiogenesis that produces so many hypotheses is never falsifiable, because the true believers will always simply come up with another hypothesis. You CANNOT prove that you CANNOT create Life, because it is impossible to prove a negative. There is always the (hypothetical) possibility that someone will come up with a working hypothesis tomorrow morning.

So my objection is that this process of endless speculation, which is in fact driven by a system of belief, gets to call itself 'scientific' by mere virtue of the fact that they continually churn out another bad hypothesis. Even though no one has the slightest idea how to create life, and even though no experiment to date has even come close, you still get to claim credit for trying.

If I prayed to God 1000 times and my prayer was not answered 1000 times, you would tell me that prayer doesn't work. But if you fail to create Life 1000 times out of 1000, you get to call this failure, "Science".

So I have a plan. Me and my fellow Creationists are going to put our heads together and come up with a new hypothesis each week of how to put God in a jar so we can sell him. Now I fully expect to fail the first 1000 times, but by God, we will confidently announce to the world that we are in the process of 'scientifically' proving the existence of God.

And you won't be able to call us wrong or ridiculous or anything. Because at some unspecified future date, we MIGHT succeed. In fact, you will have to start teaching our new theory in High School Science textbooks!

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Michael,

It is you, who in rejecting the Bible, reject the evidential basis of criminal forensics.

You want to speculate about the past which no one observed, even while you throw out the past that others did observe, and recorded for us.

Hi Phil,

I have spelled things out as clearly as I can. You are not really hearing what I am saying.

You have to "unlearn" a lot of what has been spoon-fed to you over the years. This takes time, I know.

God bless

Gordon,

I take the Berean approach...listen, and see if what you've heard agrees with what is written.

Hi Phil,

On your previous post you opened by saying that I was implying that God would meet our needs directly, without involving other people. Yet further down the same post to which you were replying, I had stated:

"It is the very act of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, i.e. of being the instruments whereby God meets the needs of his people, that distinguishes the righteous from the unrighteous."

I have tried my best to paint a complete picture, all directly from the words of Scripture, but little of it has actually clicked for you, as illustrated above. You demonstrate a cognitive dissonance with what you already believe many verses mean, more than a true Berean attitude.

Nevertheless, you are the only Christian who has even been willing to engage me in the last wee while, and for that I thank you.

By Gordon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

eric,

And lastly, please tell me the well-supported scientific theory that states the values are unconstrained. QM? Relativity? Inflation? AFAIK, none of them or any other major theory says anything about it. You’re just making stuff up when you claim there is a theory that explicitly supports your position.

Let's start with this one, and note first that I said "supports" not "states", But you can look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

The details are here:

One possible explanation for the small but non-zero value was noted by Steven Weinberg in 1987 following the anthropic principle.[15] Weinberg explains that if the vacuum energy took different values in different domains of the Universe, then observers would necessarily measure values similar to that which is observed: the formation of life-supporting structures would be suppressed in domains where the vacuum energy is much larger. Specifically, if the vacuum energy is negative and its absolute value is substantially larger than it appears to be in the observed universe (say, a factor of 10 larger), holding all other variables (e.g. matter density) constant, that would mean that the Universe is closed; furthermore, its lifetime would be shorter than the age of our universe, possibly too short for intelligent life to form. On the other hand, a universe with a large positive cosmological constant would expand too fast, preventing galaxy formation. According to Weinberg, domains where the vacuum energy is compatible with life would be comparatively rare. Using this argument, Weinberg predicted that the cosmological constant would have a value of less than a hundred times the currently accepted value.[16] In 1992, Weinberg refined this prediction of the cosmological constant to 5 to 10 times the matter density.[17]

We know what would happen if this constant was negative or a large positive value, and we'd get valid universes that wouldn't support life. Sure, it is possible that there is something that constrains it, but there is no reason to think that given any particular universe that they would have to have a small positive value. And on its relation to physics and cosmology as a whole:

The cosmological constant is the simplest possible form of dark energy since it is constant in both space and time, and this leads to the current standard model of cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model, which provides a good fit to many cosmological observations as of 2014.

That you would accuse me of simply making this up shows only that you are trying to talk about the fine tuning argument without actually understanding it. As even Jason said in his post, this argument DOES start from a valid theory of physics, and then uses a teleological argument to get to an intelligent creator. You're trying to challenge the physics for some reason, as opposed to the interpretation.

At any rate, given what I've just shown, the belief that this constant can take a wide range of values and that there's no mechanism to force them to the small, positive value that would allow for life is at least as well-supported as your belief that multiverses exist, and so at least as rational. If you want to argue against it, you either have to allow for more than one belief being rational depending on the person, or show that you know that it isn't true.

I am not even sure how to parse all that. But I will try to respond in context: the Goddidit hypothesis fails to connect to reality because (IMO) there is nothing we could discover about reality that would convince the theist community (or, since humans tend to be stubborn, let’s set the bar at >60% of the community) God did not ultimately do it. I won’t ask for complete conversion, but tell me a scientific experiment we could perform for which a particular result would make theism as rejected as geocentrism.

That's not what unfalsifiable means in the context of science, or in the context of empirical observation. What you are asking here is "What scientific experiment can I run to convince people who take the existence of God as an article of faith such that they would deny scientific or empirical evidence if it conflicted with their faith?". And the answer is, rather obviously, none. But that doesn't mean that you can't actually refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science, such that either someone has to arbitrarily reject science and scientific knowledge in order to preserve it. That's about the best you can do, and you can do it by filling in the gaps that you , in fact, think can be done.

God of the Gaps was a term invented by theologians themselves because they consider it fallacious reasoning. But, you seem to think it is a rational strategy to take.

Science and everyday reasoning both, in fact, use gaps arguments when faced with potentially contradictory evidence. All that the gaps arguments do is adjust beliefs based on empirical data. As long as you don't know that the belief is false, then maintaining a belief in that manner isn't irrational, unless it produces a contradiction.

God of the Gaps is irrational in this case if you can say that you know that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can. But this gets us on to the discussions of rationality.

I see your definition of rationality to be somewhat analogous to Pascal’s wager, in that its an argument that supports multiple contradictory conclusions equally.

In one person? Not possible, since having multiple contradictory beliefs is explicitly claimed to be irrational in my model. Between different people? Yes, but that's a feature, not a bug. Whether it is rational for any person to believe X or not is going to depend a lot on what they know and/or believe. Even if there is sufficient evidence to know that something is true -- or false -- if I don't have access to that evidence you can't consider me irrational for not believing something that I am not actually justified in believing true. Heck, even take the argument over naturalism. You don't know that naturalism is true, but you believe it. And that's okay. But by necessity that colours the beliefs you form. Since I lack that belief, that will colour my beliefs as well. As such, we will have a different set of beliefs. Repeat this for all of the beliefs we hold, and of COURSE you and I will believe different things. But if we do that, how do you determine which beliefs are rational or not, outside of knowledge, and from the outside of our own beliefs?

It defines as rational beliefs that can be arrived at through no reasoning whatsoever. If some belief gets in your net via unreasoned processes, and it’s not obviously contradicted by something, then you consider it rational.

I consider it rational for me to believe it, yes. Presumably, if the belief is false, reality will contradict it eventually. And nothing stops me from examining it myself if it matters.

IMO it puts too many beliefs in the ‘rational’ category, rendering it essentially useless as a means of comparing and evaluating the credibility of various beliefs.

Why? You can still look at how the belief was formed, and what process formed it, and what evidence you have for it to determine its credibility. All my view talks about is when it is no longer rational for you to keep believing it; again, confidence/credibility is another matter, as I said already. Do I need to break the quotes out again?

Moreover, I think it departs significantly from how most people – including most philosophers – would use the term “rational.”

How? What do YOU mean when you talk about rational, and how do you judge the rationality of holding a specific belief? What do you think most people mean?

This communication problem is why I have several times made comparative statements or asked you to do so, because I think they help eliminate the miscommunication problem. So, do not just tell Gordon and Phil and I that goddidit is a rational belief, tell your audience that the way you define rational, goddidit is as rational as fairydidit. As rational as nyarlathotepdidit.

Why would I tell them that? For most people, they AREN'T; the God belief is clearly more rational based on what they believe. That's the problem with your comparisons, and in fact with pretty much all of your response here: you aren't taking my view and argument for it, but insisting that these comparisons hold without actually showing how it DOES follow from my view. Yes, if you had a strong cultural belief that fairies existed, and there was no evidence that contradicted that, then it would be rational for you to believe that fairies existed. However, that isn't what people have in this day and age.

Again, the whole key point that you keep missing is that I insist that we evaluate the rationality of believing in something by reference to the information and beliefs that a person actually has, and not in reference to some sort of ideal set of information at an objective level. This is indeed a little bit different than common ideas of rationality, but it avoids the problem of having to insist that, say, people were irrational for believing that the Sun moved around the Earth when all of the information they had access to and the information from their most reliable process -- their vision -- insisted that it did. It allows us to see the clear difference between being irrational and being wrong.

So I don't see how i'm being misleading in any way. Given their beliefs, they are rational to maintain it. They don't know that it's true, and I'm very clear about that part. So I don't see the issue here.

Heck, if you really support this idea that you have for a definition of rationality, you should be proud to lay out examples like that, because they very effectively illustrate that you are not just making some very minor tweak to the term, but arguing for a significant, substantive change to how we think about ‘rational belief.’

Except, you know, that I'm NOT. Or, if you think I am, you need to outline what view of rational you think we have and how mine is indeed radically different from it. So, you're up. What method do you use and how do you justify it?

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon:

Just tell me what you want.

I want people to observe that when their God does things we would term "evil" in the stories about him, this is facially inconsistent with a claim of a perfectly benevolent God.

In criminal court cases, do you want the courts to deliver Justice, or to be Merciful? You can’t have both. So which is the right one? Because in your view, one of the two is pure Evil.

I want them to try and reach the best decision they can given the particulars of the case. When they do this, I won't call them evil because humans are imperfect and cannot be blamed for doing the best they can given their limited power and knowledge.
Likewise with car manufacturers. I expect them to try and make the best decision they can but I don’t expect perfection, because they are human and humans are not all-powerful or all-knowing. So when GM finds a defect that would require a recall, the default does not imply evil; it implies human imperfection. When GM chooses not to report the defect, that act is evil.

You accuse me of applying a lower standard to God than I do to mankind. Well, how about applying the same standard to mankind that you apply to God?

Sure, okay. Collective punishment when you have the knowledge and power to target the wrongdoers specifically is evil, for both God and humans. So if our justice system knows my dad stole a car and yet decides to throw me in jail or kill my cat in response, that would be evil. Likewise, when God punishes animals with death for human sin, that’s evil. When God says he’s going to punish people “unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5) for worshipping other gods, that is evil. Nobody’s great great grand-son should be punished because their great great granddad worshipped Baal. That is not benevolent. If you think it is benevolent, tell me how. If you agree it isn’t, tell me how you can believe God is perfectly benevolent when he does such things?

Gordon:

The point that “the complex, functional interweaving of parts in a watch immediately implies a watchmaker”, is valid on its own.

Its valid for a watch because we have independent evidence of how watches are produced, and we also have independent evidence that watches do not descend with modification. There is nothing wrong with such reasoning applied correctly; anthropologists must consider such questions regularly when they find some chipped rock and have to decide whether it’s a product of non-human natural processes or a human artefact. In such cases they may consider the complexity and pattern of the chipping, the age, any known human habitation remains in the area, and so on to arrive at “hand axe.”

This is so simple and so obvious that atheists usually ignore it, or as you do, attack it for being misapplied.

The analogy does not hold for biological organisms because they descend with modification, something watches can’t do. This is a critical failure in the watchmaker analogy that renders it essentially invalid. Any mainstream scientists will probably heartily agree that if organisms did not descend with modification – if they were like watches in that respect – then evolution would be impossible and could not explain the origin of species or their features. But organisms are not like watches in that respect. The analogy fails.

Eric,

So you won't acknowledge the paradoxical nature of life, much less discuss it. No problem. You blame a God who does not exist for screwing up the design of the world. As I said, religion seeks to understand the paradoxes that we observe. You just blame God for not making life simpler.

Since you can't get past this, there is no point in discussing why God would punish the wicked "to the third and fourth generation" in one verse, and reward the righteous "to a thousand generations" in the exact same verse. First, you ignore the reward and how far out of balance it is. Second, you basically blame God for punishing anyone for anything, so we know you demand ALL Mercy and NO Justice, at least of God. You certainly will not apply the same standard that you apply to the courts.

Finally, you lose the plot entirely when it comes to the watchmaker. You throw out the analogy because God has come up with a BETTER design than we are capable of. Because of the wisdom of building in adaptability, that scrubs all notions of a designer. Sure, makes perfect sense to you, and to everyone else with a need to get back at God by denying his existence.

This is where we part ways Eric, for there is nothing more I can say to help you get a grip on reality.

By Gordon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

VS @214: Weinberg using the (weak) anthropic principle to claim the cosmological constant will be something that would produce our universe is not a theory that predicts the constants are unconstrained. Its a conditional argument that if they are unconsrtained, they will attain values that would give us a universe like what we see. Which is fine, but it says nothing about whether they are constrained or not.

I don't see anything in your quotes at all that is what I asked for. Saying the cosmological constant is the simplest explanation for dark energy also has nothing whatsoever to do with my request. Give me something like this: "here is this published cosmology model. Under this model, lambda (your cosmological constant) is predicted to be nondeterministically in the range 1E-110 and 1E-140 [for reference, the current estimated value is 1E-122]. It can't be outside that range, and inside that range, any of values are equiprobable." There is no such theory, no such model in physics. Current leading physical cosmology models say as much about whether the constants can vary as the theory of evolution does - which is to say, they are silent on the subject.

the belief that this constant can take a wide range of values and that there’s no mechanism to force them to the small, positive value that would allow for life is at least as well-supported as your belief that multiverses exist, and so at least as rational.

But we aren't talking about that comparison of rationality, are we? We are talking about Goddidit as a mechanism vs. Eternal Inflation as a mechanism, and one of those hypotheses makes testable independent predictions which have been confirmed, while the other does not. One of those is falsifiable, the other is not. So the way I see it, one is more rational than the other.
Of course according to your definition of rationality, they may be equally rational. The only requirements for a belief to be rational under your definition is that such a belief is a sincere part of someone's net of beliefs, and is not directly contradicted by evidence or logic.

But that doesn’t mean that you can’t actually refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science,

Okay, tell me which experiment to run to refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science. You say it can be done, tell me how.

You can still look at how the belief was formed, and what process formed it, and what evidence you have for it to determine its credibility.

I'm not sure whether you're modifying your definition here or making an "aside" statement that not all beliefs which your definition considers rational will be credible. If the latter, I agree: your definition produces many ridiculous yet 'rational' beliefs. That's (IMO) a bug, not a feature. OTOH, if you're modifying your definition, I forsee problems for your god-belief. Under your (unmodified) definition, getting conked on the head and then believing there's a fairy living in the sun is a rational belief. If you tell me that we can assess "getting conked on the head" as a an untrustworthy method of belief-acquisition and thus this is not a rational belief under your system, then I'm going to apply that same logic to beliefs acquired through revelation, and thus they will also now be irrational under your system.

How? What do YOU mean when you talk about rational, and how do you judge the rationality of holding a specific belief? What do you think most people mean?

I think most people mean something like: a belief based on valid reasoning from a set of well-accepted premises or observations. In contrast, your definition gets rid of the highlighted bit: personal, idiosyncratic experiences not accepted by anyone else can form the basis of a rational belief. I think that departs from standard usage and greatly widens the field of what counts as rational, far wider than most people would accept.

[eric]
So, do not just tell Gordon and Phil and I that goddidit is a rational belief, tell your audience that the way you define rational, goddidit is as rational as fairydidit. As rational as nyarlathotepdidit.

[VS] Why would I tell them that?

So that they understand what calling a belief "rational" under your definition really means. What it implies about their belief. You want them to understand the argument you're making, right? You don't want them to mistakenly think that you are using my definition of rational, right? Because if they did, they would miss your point.

the whole key point that you keep missing is that I insist that we evaluate the rationality of believing in something by reference to the information and beliefs that a person actually has, and not in reference to some sort of ideal set of information at an objective level. This is indeed a little bit different than common ideas of rationality

Actually I would say that that part is the same as the vernacular usage of rationality. We do not expect people to have perfect information to call a belief rational. Where you depart (IMO) from standard usage is in allowing idiosyncratic beliefs with no support whatsoever to count as allowable premises for a "rational" belief. I think in vernacular usage, to count as 'rational' a belief must be based on generally uncontroversial premises, the sort of statements the vast majority of people would find unexceptional or undisputable. Because humans can think wrong things even en masse, this (my) definition is therefore also subjective and what is considered rational can change as new observations are made. However, it is far more stable, more conservative in terms of what counts, and far less individualistic than yours. Look, say it's May 20th 2011. Harold Camping has predicted the Biblical end of the world on May 21. I think the vast majority of people would count this as an irrational belief. Why? Because it was not based on premises most people accept as true. It was based on an ideosyncratic belief in his network of beliefs: some set of claims probably not held by many other people. In contrast, your system considers this rational for Camping to believe. You don't see that as a problem?

Gordon,

You seem to be confused. You think we humans could not come up with a better design for the human body? That's patently ridiculous. If we were working on the design of the human body, we could certainly make many improvements.

We would certainly start by building separate pathways for food intake and respiration. Humans are unable to swallow and breathe at the same time. This has caused many problems in the past, especially before the Heimlich (sp?) maneuver was invented. We could also then reactivate the gene for vitamin C production so that people would not contract scurvy when faced with dietary deficiencies of that vitamin. You do know, right, that most animals are quite capable of synthesizing this vitamin and thus do not have a dietary requirement for it. (Golly gee, what a coincidence that, besides humans, it is mostly other primate species that lack this ability. I'm sure that's just coincidence, not any evidence that we and these other primate species might have inherited this deficiency from a relatively recent common ancestor). We might also design our eyes a bit differently so that we have the optic nerve attached to the retina on the correct side, thus eliminating the blind spot. We might also eliminate things like the appendix that seem to cause more harm than benefit.

I'm sure that there are many more such imperfections that others could point out to you. The point, of course, is that if the human body were designed by God, why would there be ANY imperfections? Of course, with an evolutionary process, such imperfections are to be expected, and a perfect design would be evidence AGAINST evolution.

Gordon:

You blame a God who does not exist for screwing up the design of the world.

I do no such thing. This is no hard to understand: the point atheists make about the problem of theodicy is that the data is inconsistent with theist's definition of God. And in fact that scriptural references to God's acts are also largely inconsistent with that definition. This is a soundness argument: we are saying that your conclusions do not follow from your cited premises, your source material. We don't have to accept your source material or your premises as true to make that argument.

there is no point in discussing why God would punish the wicked “to the third and fourth generation” in one verse, and reward the righteous “to a thousand generations” in the exact same verse. First, you ignore the reward and how far out of balance it is.

I'm doing exactly as you asked, judging God to the standard I hold humans. If a human punished someone's great-great-grandson for their crime and rewarded someone else's great-great-etc. grandchildren for their goood deeds, that person would not be acting morally. Helping Alice's family for Alice's good deed does not make killing Bob's son for Bob's crime a moral act.

Finally, you lose the plot entirely when it comes to the watchmaker. You throw out the analogy because God has come up with a BETTER design than we are capable of.

I said nothing about goodness of design at all. I said that we have independent evidence of how watches are made, and that watches don't reproduce, which makes the analogy invalid. Both of my statements are factually true claims - watches are factually, indisputably disanalogous to organisms in those characteristics - and in fact Hume criticzed Paley on these points years before Darwin even published OOS. So this isn't even an evolution vs design issue; philosophers were taking apart Paley's analogy before the theory of evolution even appeared on the scene.

Sean:

We might also design our eyes a bit differently so that we have the optic nerve attached to the retina on the correct side, thus eliminating the blind spot.

I enjoyed most of the new Cosmos series despite the fact that I didn't learn much from it. One part that was new to me was the discussion of the vertebrate eye, and how it evolved to see underwater, leading to it being a suboptimal design for seeing in air. Something do to with refractive indexes of a water-filled orb or something. My memory is hazy (I guess I need to rewatch it), but I remember that the argument he gave was well beyond the standard blindspot one, and far more problematic (for design proponents) as it affects the quality of vertebrate sight not just our field of vision.

Gordon,
Me speculating? No the evidence is all on my side. Scientific methodology is on my side. Please tell me the difference in methodology between criminal forensics and evolutionary biology or paleontology. You have got nothing - just the assertion of an answer based on a prescientific story that was shown to be inconsistent with the evidence well over 200 years ago. You could easily study the history of biology, geology and astronomy to find out why the Bible is rejected as scientifically accurate (as pointed out before this was all done by Christians who began with the hypothesis that the Bible were fact). You could easily find out how science works by reading some philosophy of science. All of these things are possible, but unlikely.

The only argument you have for god design is completely circular. Without knowing how gods design things, we have no idea what those designs would look like. With humans this is different - we can use circumstantial evidence to distinguish between a stone ax and a cobble.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

Phil wrote “‘The whole point of abiogenesis is that some “biological” processes originated as non-living events.’ Nice try, but that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Really? What then, do you think abiogenesis means?

Gordon;

Regarding, “what I missed is this: a ‘scientific hypothesis’ must be falsifiable ...

You are correct, a valid scientific hypothesis must, at some point be falsifiable, abiogenesis included. You object to the idea of waiting; OK: how long is too long? Heliocentrism took about 300 years. Is that the limit? OK, then from the publishing of Darwin’s work, 300 years expires in 2159. So we’re still good. If you propose a lower limit, please justify it.

Regarding, “Abiogenesis is ... a notion based on a faith that Life can be explained without a Creator

No. Abiogenesis is based on the notion that science can explain the origin of life AT ALL. Since hypotheses based on deities are not falsifiable (one of the scientific criteria YOU specified) any scientific explanation of the origin of life necessarily excludes deities. At least until someone can tell us how to verify or falsify a deistic explanation; there’s a Nobel Prize waiting for that person.

Regarding, “Like Edison’s light bulb, we know a thousand ways how NOT to create Life.

... which means we only have a few thousand more ways to try. Only one needs to work. At least when one works, we’ll be able to validate it. Not so for deistic explanations.

Regarding, “But the faith keeps the faithful churning out new hypotheses. ...

Not really faith, certainly not comparable to religious faith. But the rest of that paragraph is correct; this is just part of the process; and nothing for anyone to object to.

Regarding, “So my objection is that this process of endless speculation, ...

Well, as you wrote right before, this is part of the process; so really this seems to be an objection to the scientific process itself. As asked above, please justify a time-limit on abiogenesis research. When does the clock run-out and why then? Why not later?

Regarding, “no one has the slightest idea how to create life, ...

Actually, there are several ideas still in play.

Regarding, “... and even though no experiment to date has even come close, ...

How close is close? What non-living result would you accept as “close”. If the answer is “none” then this complaint rings hollow.

Regarding, “If I prayed to God 1000 times and my prayer was not answered 1000 times, you would tell me that prayer doesn’t work.

Now you bash me with a stereotype. I would never tell you that “prayer doesn’t work”, I will only say it has never worked for me.

Regarding, “So I have a plan. Me and ...

Go for it. It’s science when you can tell me how to verify or falsify that you succeeded. Until then, you and your friends just have a hobby.

And please be clear about my comment: You could succeed, but I’m saying you’ll never be able to verify that you did. Your effort is unfalsifiable. If you think it can be falsified, please explain.

Regarding, “we MIGHT succeed

Yes again, you might. But until you show that it’s actually possible to verify or falsify your results, it’s not science.

Abiogenesis can verify the results: non-living stuff processed in such a way that it becomes living.

Regarding, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

A good strategy. But until you tell us how we will know it’s God in the bottle, you haven’t joined ‘em. You’re just pantomiming.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon @209:

But I see now that Abiogenesis is not actually the hypothesis. It is rather a notion based on a faith that Life can be explained without a Creator.

Not based on faith, based on an enormously strong trend in empiricism that has held true for, well, pretty much ever. People make many different hypotheses, some of them spiritual/supernatural, others natural, and historically the natural ones have always won. Always. Thousads of explanations of millions or billions of observations and every single successful explanation has been natural.
Now, being induction, this does not mean the next test we do must result in support for a natural explanation. But it means the guy who thinks it's going to be is making the best bet in the house. In the explanation race, the horse Naturalism has beaten the horse Supernaturalism every time, thousands of times. It doesn't take faith to think Naturalism is going to win the next one. It takes a leap of faith to think otherwise.

But the faith keeps the faithful churning out new hypotheses.

Again, not faith but induction coupled with empiricism. The types of explanations that have been most successful in the past are likely to be the ones successful in the future. Is this guaranteed? No. Its just a more inductively justified belief than that the type of explanation that has never been successful, ever, will be successful on this one next time.

You can bet on the longshot. Lots of people do. But when you claim the favorite is the longshot and the longshot is the favorite, you have dipped into irrationality. A natural explanation for the origin of life is the favorite at this point because natural explanations have been immensly successful at explaining every other phenomena we've ever explained. A supernatural entity performing a divine intervention is the longshot because that explanation has never been right before.

eric,

But we aren’t talking about that comparison of rationality, are we? We are talking about Goddidit as a mechanism vs. Eternal Inflation as a mechanism, and one of those hypotheses makes testable independent predictions which have been confirmed, while the other does not. One of those is falsifiable, the other is not. So the way I see it, one is more rational than the other.

It's absolutely amazing how quickly you lose the track and context of a discussion. Remember, we started talking about their rationality in the context of THE FINE TUNING PROBLEM. Is the multiverse alternative really more rational than the God alternative? As we went into that, you insisted that we couldn't even talk about that until we had some reason to think that there was a problem AT ALL, as you believe that there isn't. I pointed out that it is as well supported by the science as your INDEPENDENT belief that multiverses exist (ie you don't accept multiverses as a way to solve this problem). You demanded that I show that. I did. Now you are doing two things:

1) Continuing to demand that I prove to the level of knowledge that these constants can take a wide range of values. I reply that I am not interested in proving your belief false or else I cannot believe what I believe to be true, or to concede that if I can't then your solution is automatically the better, or the default that we should accept. Things don't work that way. Remember, I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that we have no more reason to think that there isn't a problem than that there is, so solutions that accept that there is an issue and try to solve it are just as rational as your solution that proposes that there is some kind of unknown mechanism that constrains these values.

2) Insisting that an idea that, as far as I can see, follows just as well from the existing science as multiverses is somehow unacceptable while refusing to show how it isn't. Remember, you conceded already that you didn't know that multiverses existed and your big evidence for multiverses is that if the way a universe formed happened once, then it could easily happen more than once. That's certainly no better than my big evidence for the constant that we can describe perfectly good universes with those different values where the only problematic element is that they don't support life, and we currently have no reason to think that there are any mechanisms that can constrain it ... let alone mechanisms that would constrain it based on how well it works to support intelligent life.

If you want to compare multiverses to God in this context, then you need to drop the argument that there might not be a problem because both theories assume there is one and work to correct it. In fact, multiverses solve it by implying that there will, in fact, be universes where these constants ARE set to those values and so work just as predicted. If you don't, then you have to accept that you have no more reason to think that there is some kind of process or mechanism here that constrains the value only to a value that supports life than anyone else has for thinking that there is no such process or mechanism and so it can take values that produce those valid universes that don't support life.

Okay, tell me which experiment to run to refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science. You say it can be done, tell me how.

There isn't one critical experiment that can do that. As I already said, you need to plug the gaps. You think science can plug the gaps. When you see what experiments you would run to plug the gaps and make it so that there is no room for an intelligent agent interfering, then you'll have your answer.

Under your (unmodified) definition, getting conked on the head and then believing there’s a fairy living in the sun is a rational belief.

Actually, no, it isn't, because as I said repeatedly your beliefs about how to rationally form beliefs ALSO COUNT. You bring up this example because you don't believe that that is a reasonable way to form beliefs. I agree with you. So once I trace the origin of my belief back to that process, then it isn't rational for me to believe it anymore.

So, back to the specific processes for God beliefs. For me, as you well know, it is cultural, but I do believe that it is reasonable to form beliefs by cultural inheritance because that forms a large number of our beliefs and a number of them do indeed turn out to be true. I don't think it would produce knowledge on its own, but that beliefs that it produces can be maintained as long as things remain consistent and I don't know they're false seems fine to me. That may not be the case for you, but I think you'll have some problems if you actually try to implement that in life. But let's put that aside for now, since I don't think you could possibly have an argument showing that it is unreasonable but, hey, maybe you will and I'll learn something.

The other alternative is revelation. I don't really consider it reasonable for myself because I don't really understand what it is and because it seems tied to emotions, which as a Stoic I distrust. But people who use it DO think it a reasonable way to form beliefs. I think them wrong if they claim it -- or faith -- as a way of knowing and as a way to get knowledge, and think I can demonstrate that (or, at least, that they can't know that it is), but as a way to form beliefs ... I don't think I can disprove that. So then in their view they can form beliefs using it as long as those beliefs are consistent and it doesn't contradict what they know. You reject that, but again that seems to be just what you believe, and not what you know. And if that's the case, we have a fight over beliefs, and fights over beliefs, barring proofs of internal inconsistencies, boil down to knowledge.

Which you don't have.

If the latter, I agree: your definition produces many ridiculous yet ‘rational’ beliefs.

How do you define "ridiculous"? Does the primitive who believes that the Sun circles the Earth have a ridiculous and irrational belief if they are unaware of the science and evidence that shows that to be false? Are they irrational, or merely wrong?

So that they understand what calling a belief “rational” under your definition really means. What it implies about their belief. You want them to understand the argument you’re making, right? You don’t want them to mistakenly think that you are using my definition of rational, right? Because if they did, they would miss your point.

Except that, as I pointed out, your view of my argument is WRONG. Restoring the quote that you seem to have ignored where I point that out:

For most people, they AREN’T; the God belief is clearly more rational based on what they believe. That’s the problem with your comparisons, and in fact with pretty much all of your response here: you aren’t taking my view and argument for it, but insisting that these comparisons hold without actually showing how it DOES follow from my view. Yes, if you had a strong cultural belief that fairies existed, and there was no evidence that contradicted that, then it would be rational for you to believe that fairies existed. However, that isn’t what people have in this day and age.

So why would I tell them something that isn't true, eric? Why would I lie to them?

Where you depart (IMO) from standard usage is in allowing idiosyncratic beliefs with no support whatsoever to count as allowable premises for a “rational” belief. I think in vernacular usage, to count as ‘rational’ a belief must be based on generally uncontroversial premises, the sort of statements the vast majority of people would find unexceptional or undisputable.

I think here you're pushing more for something like "knowledge" than mere belief, and insisting that a rational process is one that can or does produce knowledge. A lot of the things that we believe true are not things we know, or produced by processes that produce knowledge under the conditions where they reliably produce truths. That's why they're beliefs and not knowledge.

Alternatively, you are talking about rational processes in a sense where, in the vernacular, we would distinguish between reasoning out a specific belief and believing something based on intuition or emotion or the like. By that standard then, yes, my view allows for beliefs that are not produced by such rational processes, but my reply to that challenge is, well, who cares? And I think you will find that people will indeed accept beliefs that are based on those sorts of irrational processes, like cultural inheritance, intuition and, yes, epistemic faith (which is related to but not necessarily the same as religious faith), at least in part because a LOT of our beliefs come from that, and we decide what to believe a lot of the time based on how the belief "feels" to us, if it seems to make more sense than the alternatives. In fact, I'd dare say that your acceptance of multiverses and of there not being a fine tuning problem is precisely that sort of belief, because you certainly don't have enough evidence on your side to accept it based on the results of a rational process ... or else many of the processes and beliefs you reject and chide people for holding could be accepted by a similarly "rational" process.

So, well, which is it? Which line of attack do I have to address here? Or is it something else? Inquiring minds want to know [grin].

Look, say it’s May 20th 2011. Harold Camping has predicted the Biblical end of the world on May 21. I think the vast majority of people would count this as an irrational belief. Why? Because it was not based on premises most people accept as true. It was based on an ideosyncratic belief in his network of beliefs: some set of claims probably not held by many other people. In contrast, your system considers this rational for Camping to believe. You don’t see that as a problem?

Do I think he was irrational to believe that? Probably not, if he was consistent. Was he wrong? Yes. Did he know that it was true? No. Should he have had a lot of confidence in that belief? Probably not. Would anyone else have been compelled to accept that belief? No.

But the issue here is this: why do you see that as a problem as long as his beliefs were consistent -- including his epistemic ones -- and he wasn't believing counter to what he knew, if it was just belief and not a knowledge claim? Your whole argumentative strategy has been an exceptionally weak one, where you simply toss off beliefs that you -- and hopefully, I -- think ridiculous that someone accepts and expect that everyone will just accept that and think "Yeah, if they believed that, then that MUST be wrong!" and prove your case. It doesn't. If for no other reason than all the beliefs that YOU hold that the majority of other people think ridiculous -- like multiverses, for example, given Jason's starting point of how in general that answer gets mocked -- and so, by the whole "what most people think" counter, you are irrational to hold. That's, well, utterly unreasonable. So we need something better. And I say I have it, with only a small alteration from the normal, which is merely to push people to stop thinking that beliefs are irrational just because THEY don't believe it.

So what's the problem with that?

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon, a good short commentary on Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
I am sure there are others. Let's face it, you know absolutely nothing about this god - even if it does exist.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

Dear Verbose Stoic and eric;

Please pardon the interruption; I don’t want to get in between you two in your debate; clearly there’s a lot of history I am totally unfamiliar with. But there are a few things #225 that I wish to comment on.

With regard to comparisons between multiverse theories and deistic explanations, we might not know how to test multiverse theories now, but we do know that there’s no way to ever test deistic explanations, so right there we have a big difference. There is no parity between them, they are categorically distinct. Deistic explanations are not even possibly verifiable, multiverse theories at least are possibly verifiable.

Regarding, “tell me which experiment to run to refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science.

I can’t easily figure out who asked that question, but no one has to refute “the God Hypothesis”. As is standard practice in logic and science, the proponent of an hypothesis bears the burden of proof. Proponents of multiverse theories bear the burden of proving their hypotheses; proponents of “God hypotheses” bear the burden of proving their hypotheses; actually they bear the burden of proving their “God hypotheses” are even theoretically verifiable. That’s a very great burden.

Regarding, “you need to plug the gaps.

Plugging the gaps with something that cannot EVEN IN THEORY be tested is not plugging anything.

Regarding, “it is reasonable to form beliefs by cultural inheritance because that forms a large number of our beliefs and a number of them do indeed turn out to be true.

The problem being that a large number have turned out to be false, and many are untestable and therefore unverifiable. Defaulting to a “cultural inheritance” is not rational unless it is necessary. God-beliefs about the origin of the universe are not necessary.

Regarding, “beliefs ... maintained as long as things remain consistent and I don’t know they’re false seems fine to me.

This seems evasive. Is this lack of knowledge about falsity because these beliefs are untestable by anyone, or because they are unquestioned? Willful blindness is not rational.

Regarding beliefs and knowledge, I was taught:

A Belief is a state of mind relative to particular proposition in which the mind is inclined to assent to the truth of that proposition.

Knowledge is composed of beliefs which are justified by evidence or logic.

Therefore, all knowledge would be belief, but only some beliefs would be knowledge.

The whole topic of justified beliefs is not a topic, it is a discipline.

Regarding, “Do I think he [Mr. Campings] was irrational to believe that? Probably not, if he was consistent.

I think the rationality of some particular claim needs more than mere internal consistency. Rationality needs a more holistic consistency. Even if Mr. Campings beliefs about the impending end of the world were consistent within themselves, they probably were not premised on principles that governed most of Mr. Camping’s life. I might be wrong, but I bet not. If I am right, then his beliefs regarding the end of the world were incoherent with respect to his overall beliefs. That, imho makes them not rational.

We now return to your regular programming.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

sean samis,

“What then, do you think abiogenesis means?”

It isn’t the definition. It’s the implausibility of the concept.

“The whole point of abiogenesis is that some “biological” processes originated as non-living events.”

You are talking here about inanimate components accidentally bonding to form something that will somehow make biological sense. Proteins do not just form. They are synthesized in living cells using extremely precise, extremely complex processes involving, DNA, RNA and enzymes.

But that’s just the mechanics of it. The real rub is purpose.

Gordon,

“saying that you “believe in Jesus” will not count for anything in the long run.”

I wasn’t going to say anything else, but that is so horribly reckless, I winced when I read it. He is a Savior.

Hi Phil,

My statement is only horribly reckless if it is wrong.

If I am correct, and there are millions of people who think they bought their ticket to heaven by sincerely affirming, "I believe in Jesus", but who will instead stand there in shock as he says, "I never knew you", then my statement is not only not reckless. It is required.

Jesus' words were harsh. Extremely so. That's why I already know that the sermon preached in your church this coming Sunday will be based on a passage from Paul.

Unless it is about Tithing, in which case it will be the only sermon all year based on the Old Testament!

Lukewarm Christianity at its very best. Only suitable for spewing out of the mouth.

By Gordon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Phil (not verified)

Eric,

You cherry pick a single statement and then want to argue it in absence of the wider body of information already established on the subject.

I have shown how you have deliberately separated Mercy from Justice, and will not allow the later back into the discussion. I assume this is because it would complicate your overly simplistic argument.

You ask, "Is God all-merciful", and will only accept a simple Yes or No answer, so you have something simple to attack. And you go so far as to claim that you have accurately represent the"theist's definition" with this simplistic statement.

You have set up a straw man so you have an easily winnable argument. I will not engage such silliness any further.

You once again assert that a BETTER design takes that obvious design outside the realm of design altogether. Keep talking. Your fellow atheists are cheering you on. I, on the other hand, cannot in good conscience affirm your delusional state of mind. And with rationality off the table, this discussion is also over.

I'll address the abiogenesis issue in my reply to Sean S.

Sean T,

My statement was that it was a BETTER design than we are capable of producing. Since we cannot produce life at all, this is unarguable.

You wish to start a completely different discussion about whether or not it is a Perfect design, and you then proceed to point out things that you believe would be an improvement IF we had the ability to create man in our own image.

Such discussions are easy, of course. Being a critic requires no skills, no abilities, and no efforts whatsoever. It is easy to find fault in absolutely everything.

But what is not easy, and actually impossible in most cases, is to be the one who comes up with the replacement: that better, functional, working design.

Movie critics do not make movies. And they never will. And movie Directors do not spend their spare time critiquing the movies of others. They have too much respect for the massive effort involved in making ANY movie, even a bad one.

So I am not interested in debating whether the design is perfect. I have my own list of faults. I am an Engineer. It is not hard for me to imagine myself doing a better job than God.

This is exactly what Eve did. She questioned the wisdom of the Creator, and then concluded that she did in fact know better. We still think the same way today, and then wonder why our world is screwed up. Hmmmmm, tough one.

Contact me again once you've achieved omniscience, and I'll be very interested to hear your ideas for a better design.

Sean S,

"Abiogenesis is based on the notion that science can explain the origin of life AT ALL. "

Yes, exactly. And this belief springs up in the midst of a situational reality where we, in fact, haven't got the first clue.

No one has any idea how life could have originated naturally. There is no combination of chemicals or sequence of events or any other natural explanation that begins to purport to know. Nothing.

You ask, "how close is close (enough)?". Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades, as I was taught as a child. I can't give credit to wishful thinking. Life just happens to be so complex that it is safe to say that nothing to date begins to approach what could even be debated as "close".

But what does exist is a presumption that EVERYTHING can be explained naturalistically, and that given enough time, Science will be able to explain the origin of Life as well.

This presumption is pure Faith. Nothing more and nothing less. There is NOTHING else to support it. Put a million scientists in a million labs running a billion tests, and not one of them changes this reality until someone comes up with an idea that has a chance of success somewhere above non-existent.

But it is worse than that. Because we have this gigantic laboratory called Earth, and in it, on an every day basis, in no place and at no time do we observe any phenomena that remotely resembles the spontaneous arising of life.

In fact, when queried why this is, we are told, "The conditions were different back then." Really? But isn't all radiometric dating based on the presumption that the conditions have never changed? So which is it? Which sacred cow are you prepared to skewer?

So we come to a question of reasonability. Is it more reasonable to believe that Science can, at some unspecified future date, explain the origin of Life (abiogenesis), or is it more reasonable to believe that there simply is NO natural explanation and/or that we will never understand it, and that therefore a supernatural explanation makes more sense?

This is a question of belief. Your statement I quoted at the start is clearly a statement of FAITH. You believe with all your heart that Science will one day find an explanation, despite having no evidence to go on at present.

Eric puts this in terms of betting, which is as reasonable a basis for faith as any. He believes that naturalism has won every time, since it is true that a number of previously supernatural explanations have since been replaced with very reasonable natural ones.

If Eric's assertion were not true, no one would place any credence in Science at all. It had better be getting results. And it does serve a very useful purpose, even when it only serves to underscore the importance of ancient religious practices previously believed to be purely ritualistic, such as hand washing.

So we have two systems of belief up against each other. One asserts that there is no God, and therefore must implicitly accept that all phenomenon can eventually be explained purely in naturalistic terms. The other asserts that we are not omniscient, and never will be, and so there will always be some things we cannot understand or explain. And the origin of Life is one of them.

So if you look at the two horses as one being that we will eventually be omniscient, and the other that we will not, I can tell you which horse I am betting on to win in the end.

I was not bashing you with the prayer comment. Sorry you took it that way.

And you are right about my "plan". How could anyone prove that God was NOT in the jar? After all, he is omnipresent, right? So I think I will have to scotch than plan for now.

Michael,

I have started reading the link you gave summarizing Hume's work. I have a few comments so far.

First, Hume's approach IS my approach.

'Hume maintains, we need to “reject every system … however subtle or ingenious, which is not founded on fact and observation”'

Even in my teens I was already highly analytical. It was a hobby of mine to observe human nature and the problems of the world, and to try to understand their root cause. Although already a Christian, I brought no religious presumptions to the table.

What I found, time and again, was that the conclusions I came to were not new ones. They had already been fixed as biblical laws thousands of years prior. The difference was, now I knew the exact reason for the law, and why it fit so well with observed human nature. Had my conclusion not been found in scripture, I would not today hold that book in the high regard with which I do hold it.

To give just one example, usury (interest on loans) is forbidden in the Mosaic Law. But I can tell you exactly WHY usury is such a bad thing, and HOW it causes many of the worst problems that we see in our world today. But I did not start with the question of "Why did Moses forbid usury?" I started with observed problems and asked, "What is the root cause?" Only once I reached the conclusion of "usury" did I even recall that Moses beat me to the punch on that one.

As an aside, I then put this to every church pastor I could. Dozens of them over the next few years. I got one of two responses every time:
1) That's in the Old Testament. It no longer applies to us
2) Yes, you are exactly right, but there is nothing we can do about it.

And this then points out the real problem. NO ONE, including the people who claim to believe the Bible, will actually obey the rules it contains! Hume simply failed to see that he was reinventing the wheel. He thought that no one had ever figured out human nature before.

It has been well and truly figured out, almost from the beginning. But no one has, as of yet, figure out how to CHANGE it in any meaningful way, so as to get us to stop doing stupid things that actually prevent us from having the fulfilling lives we were created to have.

Worse still, religion definitely gets a black mark for placing the emphasis on justifying suffering, as if that is what God put us here for. Just keep in mind that God and Faith do not get this same black mark. Only organized religion, when it spends its time explaining away God's clear instructions. Read some of my exchanges with Phil if you want to see this in action today.

Second, compare Hume to my present discussion with Sean S:

'Although Hume does not mention him by name, Newton (1642–1727) is his hero. He accepts the Newtonian maxim “Hypotheses non fingo”, roughly, “I do not do hypotheses”.'

I have criticized the atheistic faith grounded in 'hypotheses', and shown why I consider it pure faith/belief rather than Science. It appears that Hume would support me. Tellingly, Newton gave us the law of gravity, which is true Science and truly useful. Because he used no hypotheses, no one sits around endlessly debating his work.

Apply Newton's maxim, and Abiogenesis, Evolution, the Mulitverse, and a whole lot more of such speculation would simply be gone. Apply Newton's maxim, and you are left with true Science, free of dogmas, biases and beliefs. If only atheists and scientists today actually listened to Hume!

Finally, "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." Like many before me, I truly do know my Creator. I know him well enough to have certainty about many things that rely upon Faith. While I cannot know him completely, you could not be more wrong in assuming that I "know absolutely nothing" about God.

I am an Engineer, therefore well schooled in the scientific method. I embrace it for what it is, and I use it wherever it applies.

But I live in a larger world. I live in a world that goes beyond the limits of my own mind, of my own ability to comprehend. I do not claim omniscience, nor do I even consider it a goal to be obtained by myself, or by mankind collectively. By recognizing my own limits, my world has become infinite.

I live in a world where anything is possible, and I contend that there is no other world worth living in. The world where man is the measure of all things, is a very small world indeed. I make for a very poor god. Don't believe in me, please. You will be disappointed. Likewise should you choose to believe in yourself, and nothing else.

God bless

sean samis,

Don't worry about getting in the middle; the more the merrier.

However:

I think the rationality of some particular claim needs more than mere internal consistency. Rationality needs a more holistic consistency. Even if Mr. Campings beliefs about the impending end of the world were consistent within themselves, they probably were not premised on principles that governed most of Mr. Camping’s life. I might be wrong, but I bet not. If I am right, then his beliefs regarding the end of the world were incoherent with respect to his overall beliefs. That, imho makes them not rational.

While this seems to be a criticism of my view, my view agrees with this, as I have said repeatedly in an attempt to get through to eric on this point. The whole point of my view is that if you have an inconsistency in your beliefs -- ie his beliefs about the end of the world are incoherent with respect to his overall beliefs -- then the belief is not rational. This includes your beliefs about what you ought to believe and how you ought to decide what to believe. So I don't really see how this is any kind of criticism of my statement there; "As long as he is consistent" INCLUDES the sorts of considerations that you make here, for me.

With eric, I think that he would argue that even if, say, Camping thought that the way he came to that conclusion was a valid way to get there, and used it frequently, then that belief would still be irrational, even if eric didn't know that the belief was false or that the method didn't work. I reject that because it means that you have to insist that what you think works is rational even if they disagree and have no way of knowing otherwise. You don't have a good definition of "rational belief" if it means that someone who has no way of knowing that they are wrong is considered irrational just because they happen to be wrong, even if the process they are using to come to that wrong conclusion is one that usually works.

Regarding beliefs and knowledge, I was taught:

A Belief is a state of mind relative to particular proposition in which the mind is inclined to assent to the truth of that proposition.

Knowledge is composed of beliefs which are justified by evidence or logic.

Therefore, all knowledge would be belief, but only some beliefs would be knowledge.

The whole topic of justified beliefs is not a topic, it is a discipline.

I'm not sure what the point if this is, unless you want to make a claim that the only valid or rational beliefs are the ones that we know to be true, which is ... problematic, to say the least.

With regard to comparisons between multiverse theories and deistic explanations, we might not know how to test multiverse theories now, but we do know that there’s no way to ever test deistic explanations, so right there we have a big difference. There is no parity between them, they are categorically distinct. Deistic explanations are not even possibly verifiable, multiverse theories at least are possibly verifiable.

First, we'd be talking about theistic explanations here, not deistic ones. That might be what you meant, but when it comes to testability there is a significant difference here. Second, a major part of the debate between myself and eric here is that he is insisting that the God explanation is untestable in principle and I'm saying that it isn't and asking him to justify that assertion. So simply stating that they are untestable isn't progressing things at all.

In the context of the fine tuning argument, you can definitely demonstrate that their values are not set by an intelligent being and so refute the use of the god explanation there. Fill that in for pretty much all places where God claims are used and you've refuted theism. And how do you do that? Prove that naturalistic explanations are true for those phenomena. Which eric and, presumably, you think is reasonable.

About the only claim left is that there is no overall scientific experiment that can test God as a whole; all you can do is remove the need for God. But since God is not a scientific hypothesis in that way, then it isn't a negative that it can't provide. It MIGHT be possible to scientize God that way and turn it into a full hypothesis, but it doesn't need to be and it might be difficult to do. But you can definitely try if you want to.

I can’t easily figure out who asked that question, but no one has to refute “the God Hypothesis”. As is standard practice in logic and science, the proponent of an hypothesis bears the burden of proof. Proponents of multiverse theories bear the burden of proving their hypotheses; proponents of “God hypotheses” bear the burden of proving their hypotheses; actually they bear the burden of proving their “God hypotheses” are even theoretically verifiable. That’s a very great burden.

It was eric, and note that in this context he and others are making hypotheses that they need to support as well. Note that I'm not claiming proofs at all, as I'm not claiming knowledge, and so don't have that burden. And note that insisting that we need it to be verifiable in the way science wants things to be verifiable is a claim of your own, that needs to be supported.

The problem being that a large number have turned out to be false, and many are untestable and therefore unverifiable. Defaulting to a “cultural inheritance” is not rational unless it is necessary. God-beliefs about the origin of the universe are not necessary.

I'm not claiming it as a way of knowing, but as a way we form beliefs. You can't say that a belief formed that way is necessarily false, so at best we are left not knowing if it is true or not. But once it's there, we can indeed use it as explanations if we don't know otherwise. Multiverses aren't necessary either, and we don't know that they are true, so why are THEY the default ... even for people who don't believe they are true?

In this case, your testability argument doesn't hold. Either it has to be done by an intelligent agent or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the God hypothesis doesn't work in that case. If it does, then the God explanation is better than the multiverse one. Surely you believe that we can settle that, right?

This seems evasive. Is this lack of knowledge about falsity because these beliefs are untestable by anyone, or because they are unquestioned? Willful blindness is not rational.

We simply don't have time to directly examine all of our beliefs, but that doesn't result in willful blindness. We rely on acting on the beliefs to, in some sense, test them by seeing if our actions work as expected. But I'm not sure what this accusation is aimed at, so it would be good if you could clarify what you think is the issue in my view here.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon,

You've missed my point. You are claiming that we cannot come up with better designs, but WE don't have to. If God really did design life, then He is the one who came up with better designs, but for some reason, He did not use these better designs in humans. There are, for instance, organisms other than humans that cannot choke on their food, that lack structures such as the appendix, that have eyes with an unrestricted field of vision, and that can synthesize vitamin C. You were the one who claimed that there could be no better design than the design of the human body. We need only look at other biological organisms to see such design improvements.

This is most certainly NOT what you would expect from a divinely-designed organism. (or even just an intelligently designed one). A divine designer would certainly not, one would think, leave out a mechanism for vitamin C synthesis.

BTW, this lack of vitamin C synthetic capability is certainly an evil action on God's part. I did not see any objection to sean samis' definition of evil given earlier, so I'll apply it. Evil is the intentional and unnecessary infliction of harm. Lack of a vitamin C synthetic pathway is certainly harmful to anyone whose diet is vitamin C deficient. Scurvy results from that condition. This harm is unnecessary; God put the synthetic mechanism into other animals so He could have put it into humans. It certainly seems to be intentional. God is omniscient, so He must have known that He was leaving out this mechanism. The gene needed for it is even in our genome, but a mutation has rendered it inactive. That surely seems to meet the definition of evil, doesn't it? God could have prevented human suffering by simply not breaking a gene that was already there. I don't see how free will gets you out of this one either. Whose free will would be violated if scurvy were eliminated?

Sean T,

To engage your debate, I would have to claim to know all the reasons for each design decision. The example you cite of Scurvy arose in men at sea away from fresh fruit for months at a time. An unnatural condition created by man, not God. Perhaps God had a very good reason for not including vitamin C production into man's design. He certainly provided vitamin C in abundance for us, in the form of very palatable food.

You actually reverse your position when you claim that this 'design flaw' is Evil, because you assume you know all that there is to know on the subject, and that no new knowledge will ever come along that contradicts your position. Apply that same logic to abiogenesis, and you are forced to agree with me.

Michael,

Don't worry. I won't bother reading anything else you send. It was obviously a mistake to assume that you agreed with it.

Love the Salem Hypothesis. We Engineers are trained to make stuff work. We don't buy explanations that don't have a practical application. Funny how we can design, build and program working computers from scratch, as I have, and yet find God the most 'workable' explanation for those things we recognize as well beyond our capabilities. It seems that we simply know our limits, precisely because we know how many amazing things we are actually capable of!

Eric,

We are not yet to the point where a discussion on collective punishment has any hope of progressing. We are still at odds over really basic stuff.

Your argument about watches is that we can identify the watchmaker. But this misses the entire point of the analogy!

The point about the watch is that we recognize design - the application of intelligence - when we see it. If we come across a pile of rocks, we think nothing of it. If we come across a wall built of the same type of rocks, we immediately recognize design. Even without seeing who it was, we know that someone picked up those rocks and moved them into their present position. We concluded this simply from seeing the wall.

I think we are stuck on the same point-of-origin problem that Sean S has with Phil. You guys are happy to say that a living creature doesn't need a designer because it came from a previous living creature. This is true, but it fails to address the point of origin. And when we go back all the way, we end up at abiogenesis.

So even if you can justify with Evolution that no creatures needed a designer, which I frankly find quite preposterous and illogical and counter-intuitive, you still end up with the fact that the most basic forms of Life are still hugely complex. And so the analogy holds. As soon as you see the complexity, common sense tells you that a designer was required to put together all of those pieces in such a manner that they would not only work together, but even be able to reproduce.

Which brings us to your "several hundred million years" argument. Think about it. If the process of Life arising takes that long, then we should be able to identify multiple stages of that process presently under way in different places and conditions across the globe today. But instead, we have nary a one.

Unless "the conditions were different back then." Well, the one condition you cite is lack of oxygen, which is curious when we know that most Life depends upon the stuff. But an anaerobic environment is easy enough to replicate in the laboratory. Any good hypotheses out there on why Life could ONLY arise in an anaerobic environment?

The volcano example doesn't apply, because we still have plenty of volcanoes today. "Different conditions" provides a great excuse and a very poor explanation.

Funny how the deeper you dig, the more things line up with the Creation story. If you just ignore the time scale side of the argument, the sequence of events and the notion of an initial Creation of Life that is never again to be repeated are all basically the same.

So whether I say God created Life, or you say a meteor impact create Life, what is the difference? Neither one of us can prove it. But I have evidence for my story in the form of an ancient document, and you have nothing but a growing list of failed laboratory experiments and a lot of wishful thinking.

I accept your distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and I accept that Science, ideally, relies only on methodological naturalism. My point, however, is that research into things like abiogenesis is driven by philosophical naturalism. There is this fundamental need to remove God from the equation by proving that we can explain absolutely everything in naturalistic terms.

This is not driven by Science. It is driven by Faith. Otherwise, why the pressing need to explain how Life arose? Why not simply say, "We don't know" and leave it at that? The bulk of the planet simply say, "God" and find that explanation sufficient in itself.

By Gordon (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Sean T (not verified)

Gordon that was one big non sequitur - you always end up with what ever you want to believe and no amount of evidence affects it at all. Your Newton quote is just pure nonsense and even Newton had to know he was blowing smoke. I can see why you might like him though; he was an arrogant bastard who thought he knew everything - fits perfectly with you.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

[eric]Okay, tell me which experiment to run to refute the God Hypothesis in terms of science. You say it can be done, tell me how.

[VS]There isn’t one critical experiment that can do that. As I already said, you need to plug the gaps. You think science can plug the gaps. When you see what experiments you would run to plug the gaps and make it so that there is no room for an intelligent agent interfering, then you’ll have your answer.

So, just to be clear, you're claiming that method we should follow to reject the God hypothesis is to fill all the possible gaps where Goddidit could be. You think that is a reasonable and rational position to take. Is that correct?
You don't think this might be just slightly exceptionalist?

The other alternative is revelation. I don’t really consider it reasonable for myself...but as a way to form beliefs … I don’t think I can disprove that. So then in their view they can form beliefs using it as long as those beliefs are consistent and it doesn’t contradict what they know.

But you could write that exact same statement about getting conked on the head. What you've said above is that you (or your system) counts revelatory-formed beliefs as rational because the proponents claim they are rational and you have no way to prove that they aren't. You personally think they aren't (rational), but without the ability to disprove them, you accept what these proponents say.

That logic would apply to basically any justification whatsoever: the proponent claims it is rational and you cannot definitively prove otherwise. A conked-on-the-head person is going to claim the conking put them in touch with the fairy, and you can't prove otherwise. And so on.

So it seems to me that your system basically devolves into a test for self-consistency or internal consistency between beliefs and that's basically it, because if you're going to put the weight of evidence on the skeptic to show some belief-formation claim couldn't possibly, philosophically be rational, they're going to fail that every time and all belief-formation methods must be considered rational.

I think here you’re pushing more for something like “knowledge” than mere belief,

Yes of course. "Rational belief" should have more of the characteristics of "knowledge" than "mere belief does." It is not synonymous with "mere belief," tacking on the word "rational" implies that outsiders can give the belief a higher degree of confidence.

Maybe we are arguing past each other: are you using "rational belief" in way that is synonymous with "[no adjective] belief" or "mere belief"?

By that standard then, yes, my view allows for beliefs that are not produced by such rational processes, but my reply to that challenge is, well, who cares?

The people who use the term "rational belief" to denote belifes arrived at through reason probably care. That would be most of us. That is, in fact, the textbook definition of rational - "1.based on or in accordance with reason or logic." (OxfordDictionaries).
So when you develop a theory of 'rational belief' that includes beliefs not arrived at through reason (amongst the beliefs that are), you really are coming up with a different, nonstandard usage, and if you want people to understand what you mean when you call a belief rational, you have to communicate that you no longer mean a belief arrived at through reason.

But the issue here is this: why do you see that as a problem as long as his beliefs were consistent — including his epistemic ones — and he wasn’t believing counter to what he knew, if it was just belief and not a knowledge claim?

The problem is, your idiosyncratic use of the term 'rational' without explanation or comparison produces an inadvertent bait and switch. Similar to a theologian arguing they have a solid argument for God where their audience thinks they mean "Jesus" while the theologian means something more like "prime mover," I see you claiming that belief in God is rational, where your audience thinks you mean "arrived at by reason" when you mean something more like "arrived at by unreason but not inconsistent with the evidence." I object to that miscommunication, and even when I don't think its intentional, I'm going to push back against it. As a philosophical hypothetical, I have no problem with you inventing a new definition and seeing if its useful for solving problems or categorizing beliefs (though a discussion for another day is: what use has it been? What greater or clearer understanding has your exercised produced?). I just object to the confusion or conflating of your new invention with the old.
I agree that many religious beliefs are arrived at through cultural inheritance and not philosophically disproven by the evidence at hand. What I don't understand is your insistence that these two criteria are enough to call it rational. That certainly doesn't accord with the textbook definition.

Gordon:

You cherry pick a single statement and then want to argue it in absence of the wider body of information already established on the subject.

Okay, explain to me the wider body of information already established that makes collective punishment a moral act. I understand you have argued that God also engages in collective reward. Are you arguing that that makes collective punishment moral?

You once again assert that a BETTER design takes that obvious design outside the realm of design altogether.

No this does not address my points at all. Watches do not reproduce. We've watched humans make watches. In these ways, watches are not analogous to organisms. Both points of disanalagy cause Paley's argument-by-analogy to fail. If you're going to respond to that, please actually respond to those points rather than simply reasserting that I claim some better design, when "better" and "design" have not entered into my point at all.

Gordon;

Regarding, “There is no combination of chemicals or sequence of events or any other natural explanation that begins to purport to know. Nothing.

... yet. Current ignorance or inability does not prove that we must always be ignorant or unable. That is not faith; it’s history.

Regarding, “Life just happens to be so complex that it is safe to say that nothing to date begins to approach what could even be debated as ‘close’.

“Safe to say?” History says otherwise. There is no logical conclusion based on “safe to say”.

Regarding, “... in no place and at no time do we observe any phenomena that remotely resembles the spontaneous arising of life.

That’s what you desperately hope, but since you don’t know what “phenomena that remotely resembles the spontaneous arising of life” will look like, you are only wishing. You have set your mind. OK. Time will tell.

Regarding, “... isn’t all radiometric dating based on the presumption that the conditions have never changed?

Umm, no. Not even close. It assumes the laws of nature haven’t changed, but that’s not what we mean by “different conditions”.

If a volcano erupts, that changes conditions; the laws of nature are unaffected.

Regarding, “Is it more reasonable to believe that Science can,...

Yes, it is more reasonable. And history is on Science’s side.

Regarding, “You believe with all your heart that Science will one day find an explanation, despite having no evidence to go on at present.

There is evidence, beginning all the way back at Miller-Urey in 1952. And later. And the general success of science at solving riddles. There is no PROOF of abiogenesis, not yet. But there is evidence. And history.

Regarding, “two systems of belief .... One asserts that there is no God,

Science does not assert that there is no God. Explanations dependent on deities cannot be verified, so science does not bother trying until someone figures out how to verify them. This does not make science any more atheist than plumbing or computer programming.

Regarding, “The other asserts that we are not omniscient, and never will be,...

Hmm. Science is perfectly comfortable and compatible with the ideas that we are not omniscient and never will be. Omniscience is neither expected nor the goal. Learning is.

Regarding, “there will always be some things we cannot understand or explain.

Likewise, science is comfortable and compatible with the idea that. But science does not just throw in the towel when things get hard.

And the origin of Life is one of them.

Well, we don’t know that.

Replying to Sean T, Gordon wrote, “ This is exactly what Eve did. She questioned the wisdom of the Creator, and then concluded that she did in fact know better.

That’s not what Eve (or Adam) did. God told them to not eat the forbidden fruit, and they trusted him and did not. As Gordon wrote elsewhere, Adam and Eve did not even comprehend what good or evil were.

Then God sent (or allowed) the serpent to lie to Adam and Eve, and to urge them to do what they had refused to do: eat the forbidden fruit. Lacking the ability to comprehend good or evil, Adam and Eve trusted the serpent; they were completely unable to comprehend that the serpent could be lying to them.

So they ate the forbidden fruit.

God put the temptation there in the first place (His choice) and hid from Adam and Eve the implications of eating the fruit (another choice) and either sent or allowed the serpent to lie to them and urge them to eat (more choices by God).

So this God, who is actually responsible for all that happens, who entrapped Adam and Eve, put all the weight on them. Eve did not distrust God, she did not think she was wiser. She was an innocent who was deceived.

This is Gordon’s God.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon:

But it is worse than that. Because we have this gigantic laboratory called Earth, and in it, on an every day basis, in no place and at no time do we observe any phenomena that remotely resembles the spontaneous arising of life.

Right, because the earth is now filled with nasty little organic replicators that eat organic compounds that contain a lot of binding energy. There is also the problem of time scale: we could not reasonably expect a new OOL event to be directly observable (I.e., "appear under the microscope") to human science given that our best estimate is that this appears to take several hundred million years to occur.

In fact, when queried why this is, we are told, “The conditions were different back then.” Really? But isn’t all radiometric dating based on the presumption that the conditions have never changed? So which is it?

Yes really. We can dig into rocks and soil and figure out that, for example, the atmosphere used to be anaerobic. The reason radioisotopic dating can be used is because its a nuclear process unaffected by changes in chemical conditions. Doesn't matter what the atmosphere contains, Uranium will decay the same way.

So we have two systems of belief up against each other. One asserts that there is no God, and therefore must implicitly accept that all phenomenon can eventually be explained purely in naturalistic terms.

No, this is a mischaracterization of science, though a very common one so you can be excused for making it. What you've described is called philosophical naturalism. Science practices methodological naturalism, which does not assert atheism and does not insist all phenomena must have a natural explanation in the end. It says we should look for natural explanations because that method has worked so well in the past. It is a guiding principle for what you should test, not a claim about what the result of the test must be. Thus, methodological (not philosophical) naturalism.

And guess what? Even though science generally runs that way, it remains open to people who reject methodological naturalism too. Want to formulate, test, and publish your results of experiments on supernatural causes? Go to it! we will eagerly and happily await your results. The Discovery Institute has an annual budget of several million dollars. Supposedly they spend it on design research. Personally, I think they spend it on PR, but hey, I am certainly not going to object if they actually did some research with it. Maybe you can ask them why they don't do this; why, if they think supernatural causes should be hypothesized and tested by science, why they don't use their multi-million dollar research budget to use exactly that research methodology they claim is superior and everyone should use.

Gordon opines:

In fact, when queried why this is, we are told, “The conditions were different back then.” Really?

Classic ignorance - 5 seconds on google -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen

And you wonder why I am dubious about your knowledge of how science works? Not too mention that both you and Phil are engineers - Ever heard of the Salem Hypothesis? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric,

The people who use the term “rational belief” to denote belifes arrived at through reason probably care. That would be most of us.

Actually, that's probably hardly anyone ... including you. Because most of your own objections and beliefs don't work if that's what you mean.

1) You would end up charging people who believe in God on faith that their belief is not rational as if that is an objection. Since many of those people think that faith is not rational and are proud of it, that's not much of an objection. All you'd be doing is stating the facts. You'd need more to get that to be considered a Bad Thing [tm].

2) You consistently argue that arguments like the Ontological Argument or the Ground of All Being arguments or any such philosophical arguments are not valid because they are not empirical. You imply by this that they wouldn't produce rational beliefs. But as those are methods that are purely rational and rely almost exclusively on reason, they'd have to produce rational beliefs according to you as long as the reasoning holds out, which you rarely actually attack. They'd even be CLOSER to knowledge than methods that rely heavily on empirical data, by what you said in the last comment. So, if that was all you meant, you should be forced to consider those arguments strong arguments, and yet you don't. Why?

Well, I think the answer is this: that when you say that a belief is not rational, you don't (just) mean that it wasn't produced by a rational process, one that uses reason and logic, as per the definition you quoted. You in fact mean what I think pretty much everyone means: that the belief was produced by an invalid methodology for producing that belief, and that therefore reason and logic say that you ought not have that belief. For you, you seem to insist that for beliefs about the world we have to use empirical data and some reason and logic to make that work, or rather that it has to be scientific ... most of the time, anyway. But that's an additional step that you need to make.

People who believe on faith think that the claim that you need to have a scientific sort of justification is false. I also think that that is false for at least belief and is unproven for beliefs about the world. The only miscommunication I can see here is your insistence here that your point was somehow more limited than you argued.

Heck, even take your "conking on the head" example. You used that not because you thought it wasn't rational in a strictly rational sense, but because you thought it obvious that it was INVALID, and that beliefs formed that way would not link reliably to any truths. If your point was just about strictly rational methods, you wouldn't be bringing up invalid ones, but ones that were clearly not using reason, even if we use them all the time. Like intuition. So it seems, again, that you mean "invalid" here instead of at least simply "not rational".

I'm defending against invalid here. If you don't mean to use irrational in that way, then be clear about it and we can talk about whether or not that matters.

So, just to be clear, you’re claiming that method we should follow to reject the God hypothesis is to fill all the possible gaps where Goddidit could be. You think that is a reasonable and rational position to take. Is that correct?
You don’t think this might be just slightly exceptionalist?

Nope, because I hold all beliefs to the same standard. If you want to be able to disprove the existence of God to the level of knowledge, you have to actually have that, just as you have to have that to say that multiverses don't exist or whatever it is you want to say doesn't exist doesn't exist. It's you who segment out God and claim it supernatural and them dismiss it out of hand, and so are being exceptionalist here.

That logic would apply to basically any justification whatsoever: the proponent claims it is rational and you cannot definitively prove otherwise. A conked-on-the-head person is going to claim the conking put them in touch with the fairy, and you can’t prove otherwise. And so on.

Are you really going to claim that you don't know that conking someone on the head is not going to produce true beliefs about the world? Because THAT one I think I know, and so if you could trace either a belief or an experience directly back to the conking then I could say that I know that it wasn't true and they should stop believing it. I just don't think I have the same sort of justification for revelation. If you do, that's great, and I'd love to hear it.

BTW, as an aside, please never use the phrase "philosophical proof" or anything like that again. You ALWAYS use that to make a claim that I demand certainty no matter how many times I insist that I don't.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Fugate,

“Classic ignorance – 5 seconds on google –“

More like classic entrenched guesswork and cyanobacterial fairy tales…very difficult to get rid of. The story of oxygen on the earth is not unlike where the earth got it’s water, or the origins of the moon. The last answer was iron-clad till a less piss-poor one comes along.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/10/3/141.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10…

Sean S,

I have replied to most of your points in my reply to Eric, just above.

"That's what you desperately hope."

My faith is independent of what Science does or does not find. I don't require a certain result in order to 'prove' me correct.

Rather, I simply look at the world around me and try to reach the most reasonable conclusion given the facts. Given the facts, I am not holding my breath on anyone figuring out how to create life any time soon. Frankly, I can't see the point in even trying. It is such a long shot, why not spend our time on efforts that have a far greater chance of success, like solving world hunger?

"Time will tell." Personally, I am not keen on waiting the next 10,000 years to find out. I will have solved world hunger before then. You fail to see the assumption of omniscience implicit in your faith that Science can solve any riddle. This is the stuff of Science Fiction, not true Science.

Read the Adam and Eve story again. The serpent asked, "Has God said ...?" He then directly contradicted God's warning. Eve then had a decision to make. Who did she trust more? I consider that the serpent was really just her own natural doubts. But it does not matter if you think she is choosing to trust God vs. the Devil, or God vs. herself, the fact is that she chose not to trust God.

It is meaningless to say that she did not comprehend the concept of Evil, and therefore of lying. She had to make a choice. And she decided to ditch God's advice in the face of a second opinion. And this was my exact point. We all continue to do this today.

As usual, you want to blame God and completely ignore the fact of Free Will. Eric demands an over-protective parent, and that we outlaw stoves, cars and tall buildings. And he blames God for giving us the capacity of designing these evil things. As you are so opposed to Free Will, just come out and say it.

Otherwise, to leave Free Will in tact, God must allow us to make this choice: His way, or Our way. When we are given the same choice, we choose Our way, not God's.

God forbids usury. We think it is a good idea.
Jesus told us not to use money at all. Money is the last thing than people will consider giving up.

And on it goes. Free Will, plus a simple choice, and we have this bad habit of choosing wrongly every time.

Gordon,

Really, more copouts? I don't know why God would have designed humans with the inability to synthesize vitamin C, but I don't need to know that to know that, at least in this one respect, most animals have superior design to humans. Obviously, I am not the one claiming design here; you are. This inability makes perfect sense in an undersigned, evolutionary development of the human body. I have merely pointed out a flaw in your argument that the bodies of organisms are the product of design. It's up to you to explain why God would have left out the vitamin C synthesis mechanism when He designed humans.

As an analogy: suppose you go to New York and visit a skyscraper. That building has an elevator to carry people to the upper floors. You go to Chicago and see a skyscraper there that has an elevator. You go to multiple other cities and their skyscrapers all have elevators. Now, you go to London and visit a skyscraper where you have to climb up 70 floors worth of stairs to reach the top since there is no elevator in that building. Would you not start to ask questions about the designer of that building? Would you conclude that this architect was incompetent or insane or would you just say "well, he must have had his reasons."?

Hopefully you see the analogy. There is a design feature present in most other animals and missing in humans - similar to the elevator in the skyscrapers outside of London in my story above. This design feature is inarguably beneficial (another copout when you talk about scurvy only being a problem on sea voyages. God should have envisioned that humans would have the curiosity to explore and the ability to build seagoing vessels. Even if that's not true, there are human populations where scurvy is still a problem). A designer is postulated. This designer should have known about the beneficial design feature. Why then was this feature not included in humans?

Gordon,

Please explain why I must conclude that abiogenesis is evil. I don't get that one at all. Or are you just saying that we don't know all the details of how abiogenesis could have occurred. If that's the case, I certainly agree. However, why should science just stop now? Why should we say, "what we know now is all that we'll ever know, so let's just quit with the scientific investigations"? Of course, if new evidence comes out, I'll revise my beliefs; that's what rational people do. Would you revise your beliefs if evidence came out that your beliefs were wrong?

Looking at your responses to others, it seems like we may need to delve into what counts as "evidence", even though that seems to be a very basic concept. You count an ancient text as evidence. By that logic, I should probably quit my job and go out searching for the golden fleece. It must be out there, right? There's an ancient text that says so. The problem with relying upon ancient texts as evidence is that they are unreliable, unless of course you engage in special pleading for your own favorite ancient text. Nobody seriously believes that the Homeric myths or the story of Beowulf are true. Those texts are epistemologically in the same class as the Bible. We have no reason other than your own assertions (and those of others) that we should believe the Bible any more than any other text. Sure, the Bible does get a few historical facts right, but so does Homer. There was a city of Troy. Does that mean we should believe everything Homer wrote?

What does count as evidence is observations that we can all see and repeat (at least theoretically; most of us don't have the ability or facilities to repeat most scientific work). Using that methodology, we can provide some evidence that at least makes abiogenesis plausible. For instance, it was at one time believed that organic compounds could only be synthesized by living organisms (hence the term organic). That was conclusively disproven by experiments. We now produce organic compounds in the lab from non-living starting materials routinely. It was once thought that self-replicating molecules could not arise abiotically, but again that has been disproven experimentally. We have done experiments that show that certain compounds can arise abiotically, and that these compounds can naturally form bubbles, something that gets us very close to cellular membranes.

Further, you must realize that the simplest MODERN living organism is indeed very complex, but there's no reason to believe that earlier living organisms could not have been simpler than this. What is the definition of a living organism anyway? It's not as clear cut as you would think. For instance, are viruses alive? They certainly can reproduce themselves. They don't have metabolic functions. They can crystallize under some conditions. In many respects, viruses represent a grey area between life and non-life. I'm not saying that viruses are a stage in the process of abiogenesis, but just pointing out that the boundary between living and non-living may not be as clear as you think. Thus, crossing that boundary may not be as difficult as you think.

Verbose Stoic;

Regarding, “So I don’t really see how this is any kind of criticism of my statement ...

My comments on the rationality of particular claims was intended as a response to statements about whether Camping’s beliefs were rational merely by being consistent. It appears we agree on the standard.

There are too many nuances and trap-doors in how you phrase eric’s position to comment on it.

Regarding the paragraph which began “With eric, I think that he would argue that ...

There are some pretty convoluted sentences in this paragraph, so let me cut to the chase: it is not the conclusion that decides whether a belief is rational, but the logical process that “lead” to the conclusion. If the process is invalid, then I don’t need to know whether the conclusion is true, the belief is irrational. If the process relies on assumptions that cannot be verified, then the conclusion is very provisional and uncertain on those facts alone.

And the validity of the process is not dependent on whether the proponent is consistent in their logical processes: consistently wrong is still wrong.

Regarding, “I’m not sure what the point if this is ...

There were a lot of comments about beliefs and knowledge, and how they related, so I offered the rule I learned. Do with it what you will.

Regarding, “... we’d be talking about theistic explanations here, not deistic ones. That might be what you meant, but when it comes to testability there is a significant difference here.

I do not believe there is any significant difference in the logic or rationality of “theistic explanations” versus “deistic explanations”. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

Regarding, “... eric ... is insisting that the God explanation is untestable in principle and I’m saying that it isn’t and asking him to justify that assertion.

I think eric is right. You’re asking eric to prove a negative which is impossible. It is possible to provide evidence against “God explanations” by pointing at the failure of proponents of the idea to show how these can be validated. If “God explanations” are testable, it’s up to you (and others who agree with you) to show how this is done.

As the proponent of the idea that “God explanations” are testable, the burden is on you to justify your assertion. The only evidence eric needs or could give is your inability to justify your assertion. Your failure would not be proof that your claim is wrong, but it is proof we can ignore the idea until something changes.

Regarding, “In the context of the fine tuning argument, you can definitely demonstrate that their values are not set by an intelligent being ...

Oh? How is that done?

Regarding, “...there is no overall scientific experiment that can test God as a whole...

There’s no overall scientific experiment that can test God even in part. And it is not necessary to refute God’s existence. As we have been discussing, there’s no explanation of how we could test any “God explanation”, so science proceeds without them. That does not make “God explanations” false, just unusable. That’s a rational choice until something changes.

Regarding, “... as I’m not claiming knowledge ...

Actually you are. Any assertion you make is either a claim of knowledge, or a misrepresented opinion.

Regarding, “You can’t say that a belief formed that way is necessarily false, so at best we are left not knowing if it is true or not. But once it’s there, we can indeed use it as explanations if we don’t know otherwise.

We can, but it is unwise. And expecting others to treat this belief as plausible is unreasonable. Anything based on something we can never verify is itself tentative. And once we become aware of doubts, it’s irrational to maintain the belief without scrutinizing it closely. Reasonable doubts about God are numerous.

Regarding, “Multiverses aren’t necessary either, and we don’t know that they are true, so why are THEY the default … even for people who don’t believe they are true?

Multiverses are not the default; some think they are the best rational explanation (as I do) but there are other rational ideas. Yes, we don’t know multiverses are real, but we do know that they are probably testable or may become useful. We know that deistic explanations are never testable, nor have they ever been scientifically useful; so science will ignore them, until something changes.

Regarding, “your testability argument doesn’t hold.

I am not sure what you mean by my “testability argument” but this much does hold: we might not know how to test multiverse theories now, but we do know that there’s no way to ever test deistic explanations. I would include “God explanations” within the category “deistic explanations” since God is would be a deity. If you think this is inappropriate, please explain.

Regarding, “ I’m not sure what this accusation [of a position seeming evasive] is aimed at,

The comment was aimed at statements about relying on beliefs we don’t know to be false. Certainly we don’t have time to examine all of our beliefs, but with regard to beliefs about God and our existence, this seems a very big, critical belief for anyone to leave unexamined. I am not referencing you, this is a general statement.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon:

The point about the watch is that we recognize design – the application of intelligence – when we see it. If we come across a pile of rocks, we think nothing of it. If we come across a wall built of the same type of rocks, we immediately recognize design.

Great example of why you are wrong: archaeologists can't always tell the difference between a pile of rocks and a former human-built structure. They can't always tell the difference between a hand axe and a naturally chipped stone. In order to make that call, they bring in other data they know about possible designers: were there people living around here during that time? What other things did they do and build? Data about designer presence and behavior helps them decide hand axe vs. plain rock, cairn vs. pile. To put up credible theories about design or nature, archaeologists must be willing to honestly discuss the assumptions and hypotheses they make about possible designers. OTOH, ID creationists avoid saying anything about the designer because they want to claim it isn't about God, when we pretty much all know it is.

So even if you can justify with Evolution that no creatures needed a designer, which I frankly find quite preposterous and illogical and counter-intuitive

I would guess that most physicists find many things about QM to be absurd. Its certainly, IMO, far more absurd from a human intuition perspective than the TOE. This does not tell us that it's wrong, this tells us that our notions of what is preposterous and counter-intuitive are very poor judges of scientific truth or at least theory accuracy.

If the process of Life arising takes that long, then we should be able to identify multiple stages of that process presently under way in different places and conditions across the globe today. But instead, we have nary a one.

Both Sean and I explained this to you. We do not expect early Earth origin of life processes to be occurring today because (a) conditions are radically different and (b) current life forms tend to eat any organic compounds that contain a lot of binding energy. Almost literally every cubic millimeter of the surface of the Earth, including many miles underground, is jam packed full of billions of micoorganisms looking for a meal. This is not only a radically different chemical environment from a pre-biotic earth, but a far more hostile one for simple organic replication processes.

Any good hypotheses out there on why Life could ONLY arise in an anaerobic environment?

Because free oxygen is an incredibly strong oxidizer. Gee, you don't know the difference between nuclear processes and chemical ones, or why the chemical reactivity of oxygen might be an issue. What sort of engineer are you, that you don't even think about rust?

the deeper you dig, the more things line up with the Creation story. If you just ignore the time scale side of the argument, the sequence of events and the notion of an initial Creation of Life that is never again to be repeated are all basically the same.

The creation sequence of events in Genesis 1 puts the formation of the earth before photons (light). That's an enormous mistake. It puts the formation of grasses and fruit trees before formation of stars, the sun and the moon; again, a massive mistake. No, the biblical sequence is nothing like what the evidence supports.

My point, however, is that research into things like abiogenesis is driven by philosophical naturalism.

No, the research is driven by historical curiosity as well as the thought that this may tell us something important about biological and chemical reactions we don't yet know. The choice to test natural hypotheses and not supernatural ones is driven by methodological naturalism. I'd also be willing to bet that, despite the fact that you seem to think we are all out to undermine your religion, a lot of scientists in this field are theists, and even Christians, as a significant fraction of (American) scientists are.

There is this fundamental need to remove God from the equation by proving that we can explain absolutely everything in naturalistic terms.

To paraphrase Carley Simon (again): you're so vain, you probably think this research is about you.... IMO, nobody is doing this research with the motivation of taking God out of the equation. They are doing it because they are genuinely interested and curious in how life arose, they want to understand how biological and abiological reactions interact, and they think abiogenesis is the most likely explanatory contender. How their research might impact creationist religious beliefs simply isn't something that most scientists think about in their day jobs. Our research is not about you.

why the pressing need to explain how Life arose? Why not simply say, “We don’t know” and leave it at that?

Human curiousity, which I consider a good thing. Imagine all the modern discoveries and inventions that would never have been made, had we simply left other phenomena at "we don't know" or "god did it." Man, it's a good thing we didn't take your attitude towards disease, isn't it!

Gordon:

Eric demands an over-protective parent, and that we outlaw stoves, cars and tall buildings.

No, human risk-taking makes perfectly good sense to me because humans aren't omnipotent.What baffles me is people claiming God is omnipotent and benevolent when God makes a death-to-all-creation poison tree. Putting such a giant red self-destruct button within reach of our heroes may be okay for a caricature James Bond villain, but it just doesn't make sense for God.

And he blames God for giving us the capacity of designing these evil things.

Not the capacity, the disposition or predilection. Why put a disposition to do evil in some people when it is clearly and obviously not necessary for free will because not all people have such dispositions. As I said many messages ago, violent crime would be reduced by about 90% if 15-35 year old men had the violent tendencies of 45 year old women. "Free will" cannot possibly justify the excessively violent tendencies of one group of humans over another, as both groups have free will.

VS @243 re: 1) I really don't care for purposes of our discussion whether irrational beliefs are 'a bad thing' or not. I would be happy with the answer that you agree that, under standard definitions of 'rational,' belief in God is not rational (while under your different, broader definition, it is).

2) I don't think I've said much about the Ontological argument this go-around at all. My own (admittedly vernacular or fuzzy) defitinion of rational from above was "a belief based on valid reasoning from a set of well-accepted premises or observations." This would not necessarily eliminate non-empirical deductions such as the Ontological argument, as long as they are based on well-accepted premises. The OA in particular might not count as rational because it contains a lot of assumptions about god and what counts as "most X" which are not well-accepted even within the community of philosophers. But nonempirical deductions as a class are not eliminated.

If your point was just about strictly rational methods, you wouldn’t be bringing up invalid ones, but ones that were clearly not using reason, even if we use them all the time. Like intuition.

I bring them up because your definition of 'rational' permits them under the umbrella of rational belief. I'm pointing out a reductio problem in your definition. But okay, let's discuss intuition. Gordon in @245 specifically mentions intuition as his basis for rejecting the TOE. If there's nothing in Gordon's network of belief that directly contradicts this intuition, you would label his creationism a rational belief. I would not, because it is not a belief based on well-accepted observations. That is where your definition of 'rational' leads; to pretty much any belief under the sun which is not directly contradicted by someones' available evidence being considered 'rational.' Its an "everything is rational until you can show some compelling reason to reject it" standard.

If you want to be able to disprove the existence of God to the level of knowledge, you have to actually have that [i.e., you have to fill all the possible gaps where Goddidit could be].

Makes a nice contrast to:

You ALWAYS use that to make a claim that I demand certainty no matter how many times I insist that I don’t.

Look at that first quote - you ARE demanding certainty when it comes to someone saying "I know God doesn't exist"!!
If you weren't demanding certainty, you would not require us to fill all possible gaps in science before concluding against Goddidit.

Phil @244
Did you actually read the article you cite? Neither it nor the Wikipedia article claim free Oxygen was zero. What Gordon asked for is clearly shown - a change in free Oxygen over time. Free Oxygen was very low because of oxidation by the abundance of unoxidized iron-rich and other compounds. Please read what you cite.

Gordon,
You flounce over here pontificating about current science, history of science and philosophy of science and you proved you know nothing about any of them. Then, when shown to be completely ignorant, you claim that we should be feeding the poor instead of doing basic science. That's rich. I remember someone saying something about the poor always being with us - ring any bells?

Hume refutes pretty much everything you have claimed - design, knowledge about gods, revelation, miracles, etc. Yet you think he agrees with you? Are you really that self unaware?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael,

Hume starts with a presumption that everything must be explainable apart from God, so of course he is going to argue against gods, revelation and miracles.

I start with the opposite presumption, because I have experienced the supernatural, and yet I use the same approach as Hume. I rely on what can be observed. Why is that so troubling to you?

If Hume had an argument against Design that refuted me, and if you actually understood it, then you would simply present it here.

Instead, your replies consistently show all the hallmarks of a Troll: The other side is completely ignorant, and the answers were already written somewhere, by someone. Trust me!

By Gordon (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Michael Fugate (not verified)

eric,

I would be happy with the answer that you agree that, under standard definitions of ‘rational,’ belief in God is not rational (while under your different, broader definition, it is).

This is, I think, where the miscommunication is coming in, as I said, because there is a difference between saying "Belief in God is not rational" and saying "Your belief in God was not produced by a rational belief-forming process". The former definitely seems to imply or even state that the belief wasn't formed by a VALID belief-forming process, while the latter simply says -- or at least CAN say -- that it was not formed by one that is STRICTLY-SPEAKING rational, without saying whether or not it is valid or not. The problems with assuming that we are talking about the latter here are:

1) Most people don't take it that way. I don't, I don't think Gordon and the others do, and sean samis -- not to speak too much for him, but he volunteered -- in entering the discussion is all about the validity, and not the STRICT rationality.

2) Most of your arguments don't work interpreted as arguments of the latter type, as I already pointed out.

3) No one in this discussion cares about STRICT rationality. Gordon, as you pointed out, uses intuition. I use methods that I will admit are not STRICTLY rational. As I said, I only care about defending against charges of irrationality because the methods are not valid; I have no interest and so no benefit to wrangling over STRICT rationality.

So, if that's all you mean, you need to tell me why I should do any work or care in any way about STRICT rationality. Remember, you did say this:

“Rational belief” should have more of the characteristics of “knowledge” than “mere belief does.”

But why should it? And to contradict your comment, you don't seem to think so, because one of your first replies to me was challenging my challenge to Jason that purely philosophical -- ie purely rational -- arguments were interesting. You eventually did this:

Well, if you are starting with the premise that such arguments can prove existence, it would be nice if you could show an example of one doing so outside of/independent of the God question under debate. IOW: got any other examples of philosophical arguments being able to do what you claim they can do?

If you really thought that rational arguments were by their nature closer to knowledge, you wouldn't have demanded that I show that they can possibly do it at all.

But let's move on a bit, but in doing so remember that all of my previous arguments were about "beliefs that were formed by a valid belief-forming process but which fall short of a way of knowing" and not the latter stance that you are talking about here, so referring TO my definition in light of that is already risking equivocation; it was never meant to address questions of the latter stance, and is completely disconnected from it. I only talked about it because I thought you were talking about validity, as stated above.

But okay, let’s discuss intuition. Gordon in @245 specifically mentions intuition as his basis for rejecting the TOE. If there’s nothing in Gordon’s network of belief that directly contradicts this intuition, you would label his creationism a rational belief.

Do you think that you know that the theory of evolution is true? If you do, and think that he has been presented the evidence, then he would be justified in knowing that evolution is true and yet still believes that it is false. That is not rational by my definition -- which, again, is about validity, not STRICT rationality; I used intuition as a non-rational process, remember, so if you are really after that discussion then you had no need to even ask about its relation here, since it would be non-rational by that stance BY DEFINITION -- and so there's no issue there.

Look at that first quote – you ARE demanding certainty when it comes to someone saying “I know God doesn’t exist”!!
If you weren’t demanding certainty, you would not require us to fill all possible gaps in science before concluding against Goddidit.

Um, no. I'm not demanding that you fill in the gaps to the level of logical certainty, which is the certainty that you insist that I insist upon. I'm simply demanding that if you take a hypothesis that is used as an explanation for a number of things that you don't push it out of one of them and then insist that you're work is done. Let's use dualism as an example. If I say that dualism is necessary as an explanation for qualia AND for free will, you don't get to claim that you know dualism is false by explaining free will in a non-dualistic way. You still have to deal with the qualia problem. The only way around this is to push dualism into such a trivial part that the main explanatory benefit of dualism is completely lost, and it becomes pointless. I don't think that's true for God yet; your mileage may differ.

At any rate, though, this boils down to one simply question: do you think, even by your standard of knowledge, that you know that God does not exist? If you do, then tell me what your standard of knowledge is, how that is justified, and how God is eliminated by it. If you don't, then certainty is not required, because you don't even have non-certain knowledge.

(As an aside, sorry sean samis but I'm about to leave for the day. I'll try to reply to your comment tomorrow).

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

Michael Fugate,

“Did you actually read the article you cite? Neither it nor the Wikipedia article claim free Oxygen was zero”

Yeah, I read it. But what they are finding is not traces:

“University Park, Pa. -- Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologists.”
http://news.psu.edu/story/178269/2009/03/24/deep-sea-rocks-point-early-…

Eric,

You are in heavy denial.

When you insist on arguing against common sense, I simply will not engage you any more.

The moment someone uses the word "Wall", they acknowledge a design.

That's it. End of discussion. If you can't get that, you won't get anything.

Michael Fugate,

“the first paper says something completely different than the 2nd.”

The first one says:

“Geological evidence often presented in favor of an early anoxic atmosphere is both contentious and ambiguous. The features that should be present in the geologic record had there been such an atmosphere seem to be missing.”

The contentious part is on account of the ambiguous and missing parts.
-
“Other papers say the 2nd paper is wrong:”

No, they present a different opinion based on a “dispersion/reaction model”. They also acknowledge that none of this is settled science:

“The oxidation state of the atmosphere and oceans on the early Earth remains controversial.”

What is happening here is different camps trying to reconcile the geology and the biology. They have to walk a fine line with this because cyanobacteria already have the blue ribbon…you can’t touch that.

Sean T,

You realize of course that you are arguing that natural selection has failed us. You sound a like Creationist! Some "mutation" has had a bad result, rather than a good one, and the error has been retained in spite of the infinite wisdom of natural selection.

You have not shown the absence of a designer. It is equally or more likely that we simply lack a full understanding of the design.

The logic I wanted you to apply to abiogenesis was not that it was Evil, but that there was no new information to be gained with regards to it. All I was trying to point out was that it is just as reasonable for me to claim ignorance of God's design as it is for you to claim ignorance with regards to abiogenesis.

Just because I can't tell you Why God designed us without the ability to synthesize Vitamin C doesn't mean there isn't a good reason or that we won't understand some day. If you disagree, then your abiogenesis argument goes Poof!

If you can discern from the text where Jason hid the Golden Fleece after he found it, then by all means, mount an expedition. That is no different to someone who has found what he believes to be an old pirate's map.

For those who take the time, an awful lot can be discerned from the text itself. The story of the Golden Fleece has the qualities of a fairy tale. Most of us recognize that. The story of Troy is historical. So much so that an archaeologist mounted an expedition and indeed found the ancient city. Who would fund his expedition if they believed he was searching for an equivalent to the Golden Fleece?

Just read Genesis, the first book in the Bible. Some of the stories are allegorical, but most have the ring of truth from the beginning. I have already explained the profound truths revealed in the Garden of Eden story. Next we have two brothers fighting. It is rather boring reading, really. The second story in the whole book, and it lacks all the compelling features of a good fairy tale.

By chapter 10 we have a detailed genealogy. Names and ages. As boring as it gets. Name me an equivalent myth or fairy tale. Even the flood story gives specific details of what happened on which day. It does sound more like a fairy tale when you look at the events, but what fairy tale bothers to tell you that it happened, "in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month"?

Now, just like Eric, you can look at a stone wall and argue about whether or not it involved the intervention of man, but most of us can read the various texts and reach reasonable conclusions simply from what they say. I for one, will not be mounting an expedition to find the Golden Fleece any time soon.

Compare the Code of Hammurabi to the Law of Moses and thank your lucky stars that our modern legal systems are based upon the later. To dismiss the Bible as just another book of myths displays real and unjustifiable ignorance, as opposed to the ignorance of individual facts that atheists are fond of attacking.

If earlier organisms were simpler, then we should still have some of those in evolutionary development in our world today. Or if not, then we need a good explanation as to why they could only survive in an anaerobic environment, together with why this curious situation then naturally lead to the evolution of creatures that created an aerobic environment.

And if you could tell such a tale, it would sound as implausible as most fairy tales. Just think about the inherent contradictions in what has been claimed.

My advice? Go with the meteor impact story. Far more believable.

sean samis,

Actually you are. Any assertion you make is either a claim of knowledge, or a misrepresented opinion.

This, I think, is the main fundamental issue in our views. I'm not quite sure how to parse the "assertion" part, because I'm not sure what assertion you think I'M making that is then a knowledge claim. The furthest I get is "I believe that God exists" and "You don't know that God doesn't exist", both of which I can prove.

But on to the more important issue of knowledge versus belief. Belief, to me, is not mere opinion, although in some sense they can be seen in similar ways. The importance of belief is in how it impacts how we behave. In general, we act as if beliefs are true, but we also do act as if they are provisional; our confidence in their truth impacts what actions we will take based on them. For anything that we know, even if knowledge is provisional in a technical sense, we generally act as if knowledge is not provisional. So, for example, I believe that it will not snow tomorrow until later in the morning. Based on this, I am planning to go out for groceries early in the morning and am likely not going to get gas because I expect that I will go out in the morning and will get it then. However, since I only believe that, I am considering "hedging my bets" for things I need in some way. If I knew that, my plans would be solid and I wouldn't hedge one bit.

So that's the difference between beliefs and knowledge, to me, and it's a critical one. Beliefs, to me, are an important part of our epistemic toolkit. Do you disagree?

. If the process is invalid, then I don’t need to know whether the conclusion is true, the belief is irrational. If the process relies on assumptions that cannot be verified, then the conclusion is very provisional and uncertain on those facts alone.

And the validity of the process is not dependent on whether the proponent is consistent in their logical processes: consistently wrong is still wrong.

We mostly agree here, but there are two main issues:

1) Taking the last statement first, it doesn't matter how valid your process is, if you have an internal inconsistency then at least one of your beliefs is not rational; it is not rational to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. So, essentially, I agree that the validity of the process is important but just want to note that internal consistency is equally as important.

2) I agree that the process needs to be valid. I do not think that all processes are valid, regardless of what eric says. Again, I include beliefs about how to form valid beliefs, which is about what processes are valid. I just think that cultural inheritance IS valid to form beliefs, but is NOT valid to claim knowledge (er, probably). That's what the debate between myself and eric really should have been about, it seems to me, but hardly ever is.

I do not believe there is any significant difference in the logic or rationality of “theistic explanations” versus “deistic explanations”. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

Theistic explanations posit a deity that can and does interact in the world we have now, deistic explanations posit a deity that at least no longer does after starting it all off. Theistic explanations thus, at least in principle, are testable by either pointing out that the interactions that we should see don't happen OR by demonstrating that there are no other possible forces or interactions that could happen. This is quite hard to do, of course, with a being that is purported to be able to change natural laws as it sees fit, but there is a big difference in the empirical testability of the two claims.

I think eric is right. You’re asking eric to prove a negative which is impossible.

Oh, dear, you hit one of my big annoyances [grin].

There are two main issues here:

1) I am asking eric to defend what I think is a strong belief that God does not exist, in that I think he -- and probably you -- at least believe if not claim to know that the proposition "God does not exist" is true or, at least, that the proposition "God exists" is false. If that's the claim you want to make, then you need to defend it. If that means that you have to prove a negative, then the problem is not with me asking you to justify your claim, but in the claim you are making or insisting on holding. If you claim to merely believe that, however, I don't need to demand justification ... but then you can't claim that I ought to be compelled epistemically to accept it either.

2) You CAN prove a negative. We do it all the time. Science is BASED on doing that. All you have to do is prove that if the thing exists the universe would be a certain way, and then demonstrate that the universe is NOT that way. The Problem of Evil aims at that sort of disproof. So do comments about how if we were created in any way by a designer that we would have a different design than we have now, which are running rampant through this comment thread. You just can't prove a negative INDUCTIVELY. For example, you can't prove that your car keys are not in the house to the level of knowledge by looking really, really hard and not finding them. They might be somewhere you haven't looked yet, or you might have missed them when you did. However, if you find them lying in your driveway, then you have indeed proven to the level of knowledge that they aren't in the house ... because they're in the driveway. Too many people, it seems to me, confuse not being able to demonstrate it inductively for not being able to demonstrate it at all.

Oh? How is that done?

Demonstrate that it was set by an unintelligent, natural process, which is what physics is TRYING to do. For example, if you showed that there were multiverses and that the multiverses we see have that constant set roughly in accordance with that expected probability, then I'd say that we are justified is saying that we know that it wasn't set by God. That's not easy to do, but science is trying to do that now and think they might be able to at some point, so it's hardly untestable.

As we have been discussing, there’s no explanation of how we could test any “God explanation”, so science proceeds without them. That does not make “God explanations” false, just unusable. That’s a rational choice until something changes.

Sure, you can do that. But my objection is that this is presented as the a priori MORE rational choice and often as THE ONLY rational choice, and since you don't have knowledge of that I balk at such characterizations. If you're willing to accept what you believe and what I believe as long as neither of us knows otherwise, there's no argument here.

And once we become aware of doubts, it’s irrational to maintain the belief without scrutinizing it closely. Reasonable doubts about God are numerous.

Sure, but if we do scrutinize it and come up with "Inconclusive", what must we do then? I don't think dropping it is required, and that's what you hint at in your comments.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon,

I think you misunderstand what evolution is. Natural selection most certainly does NOT select for perfection. If it did it would be indistinguishable from design. Natural selection yields biological systems that are capable of survival, not ones that are in any measure perfect. The lack of vitamin C synthesis in the ancestral organism of modern primates undoubtedly was not a problem because the diet of that organism contained sufficient vitamin C. Once the mutation occurred that inactivated the synthesis mechanism, there would have been no great extinction of that organism. It would have continued to survive and reproduce, passing along all of its other heritable characteristics, with further genetic changes leading to modern primates, including humans.

By contrast, why would a designer leave out a feature that would have cost him ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to include in the design of humans? In fact, what purpose does it serve to not only leave out the feature, but to put in a BROKEN version of it? I might be able to imagine why the architect of a skyscraper might choose to leave an elevator out of a new building - maybe he thinks all the people working in that city are unhealthy and could use the exercise involved with climbing steps to get to work for example. Given that, though, why would that architect put in a BROKEN elevator?

Give me something here; I know you don't know the actual reason that we can't synthesize vitamin C, but surely you can give some reasonably plausible guesses as to why God would put in a broken mechanism for vitamin C synthesis. Or why God would give us a blind spot. Or why God would give us a structure that could kill us, but has little benefit for us.

Evolution can easily explain all these suboptimal features. Natural selection has never been claimed to produce perfectly optimal systems, just ones that are good enough to survive. It is design, especially design by an omnipotent, omniscient creator, that is expected to yield optimality. We can detect suboptimal functionality in ALL living organisms. That would seem to be quite strong evidence against design and in favor of an evolutionary process.

Please note, though, I am not arguing with this against the existence of God. This argument is not logically capable of doing so. Even though I am personally an atheist, I fully recognize that a situation in which God created the universe and used an evolutionary process to produce all the different species on earth is perfectly consistent with the evidence we have. I personally find that implausible, but I do recognize that the evidence for evolution does not, in and of itself, render the existence of God impossible. It does not even rule out the notion of design; it is possible that God could have personally created all the needed mutations to produce the organisms surviving today. We would just have to accept that God was okay with producing suboptimal designs in that case.

Sean T,

I am not going to "give {you} something here", just as you are not going to admit that researching abiogenesis is a complete waste of time.

And when did I say anything about Genesis coming from a single source? Moses merely compiled earlier stories, including multiple accounts of Creation just as we have 4 different accounts of the story of Jesus, called the four Gospels.

All I said is, read the stories for what they are. Stop looking for faults and start looking for buried treasure!

By Gordon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Sean T (not verified)

Gordon,

I think you are also confused about the Bible. What we call "Genesis" is read as a single work in modern times, but it was in fact assembled from multiple earlier texts. It contains (Ch 1 and 2), for instance, two creation accounts that come from completely separate source material. Just read Ch 1 and Ch 2 critically, and you can see significant differences between the two. It is likely that the ancient Hebrews handed down creation myths. Almost all groups of humans came up with such stories. It is also probable that, at some point, the Hebrews began to record genealogies. What makes you think that the creation stories and the genealogies came from the same sources? The fact that they were later combined together in Genesis means absolutely nothing for the truth or validity of the Genesis account. The genealogies could be accurate and the creation myths just that, myths.

Gordon,

(Last one, I promise :) ). I also think you missed my point regarding Homer. I agree with you; there was information in Homer that is historically accurate. That, however, does not mean we must believe that EVERYTHING Homer wrote is accurate. Must we really believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Should we really go to the temples of Apollo or Zeus and make sacrifices to keep those gods happy? I can't imagine you'd believe that, especially given the clear admonition of the first commandment.

Why should we think that ancient texts are more reliable than observational evidence? Were people living thousands of years ago more intelligent or wiser than we are? I'll give you an example. Suppose you are accused of murder. There is no evidence at all that you are guilty of that murder. The DNA found at the crime scene does not match yours. The murder weapon is a gun registered to someone else and has someone else's fingerprints on it (and lacks your fingerprints). The only reason that the prosecutor is pursing a case against you is that he found an ancient text that said "3000 years after the writing of this, a man named Gordon will commit murder." What would you think of such a prosecution? Would you submit willingly to your punishment? After all, ancient writings are more valuable for finding truth than modern scientific research, right?

Regarding past events that we simply have no chance of ever observing, we have a choice of the ancient texts, or pure speculation.

Remarkable how many people prefer pure speculation in this circumstance. And funny how these are the same people who say that the ancient writers were superstitious idiots.

I used to think it was up to me to solve all of the world's problems, until I figured out that I could see further if I stood on the shoulders of giants.

VS:

there is a difference between saying “Belief in God is not rational” and saying “Your belief in God was not produced by a rational belief-forming process”.

I think you are asserting what you are trying to prove. Under your definition of rational, the above is true. I do not howver concered that your definition is right. There are many cases where we would in fact say that rationality is all about process. Consider two people who both believe that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east. Person 1 says they arrived at that belief through past observation and an understanding of celestial mechanics. Person 2 says they have a coin with "E" on one side, "W" on the other, they flipped it this morning, and the "E" came up, so that's why they believe. I think in this example, most people would say that 1's belief is rational while 2's is not...even though their processes result in the same belief. The only difference is method/process. So if one of those beliefs is rational and the other is not, it must because one criteria for assessing rational belief is whether the belief acquisition process is rational.

[eric]
Rational belief” should have more of the characteristics of “knowledge” than “mere belief does.”

[VS]But why should it?

Because otherwise the adjective means nothing, adds nothing to our understanding. There is only value in discussing what makes a belief rational if you think there is some difference between a rational belief and a [no adjective] belief.

And honestly, if you think the word adds no different meaning, why are you so hard up on insisting God-belief is rational? If you really think that a rational belief is equivalent to a mere belief, why don't you go around insisting that everyone call God-belief is a mere belief instead?

[eric]...IOW: got any other examples of philosophical arguments being able to do what you claim they can do?

[VS] If you really thought that rational arguments were by their nature closer to knowledge, you wouldn’t have demanded that I show that they can possibly do it at all.

I couldn't follow your point here. You early on claimed philosophical arguments can prove the existence of entities, including God. So I asked for a non-god example of that (which you never provided, btw). Now you seem to be saying that I would not have asked that question if I thought 'rational belief' was closer to knowledge. I really don't see the connection at all. Are you trying to make the empiricism vs. deduction point again? I already answered that: I am fine with (some) deductive beliefs being called rational because I count as rational those beliefs which are founded on well-accepted observations or premises.

Do you think that you know that the theory of evolution is true? If you do, and think that he has been presented the evidence, then he would be justified in knowing that evolution is true and yet still believes that it is false.

Gordon clearly doesn't think the evidence is compelling or that he's been presented with observations that undermine ID. To call his belief irrational, you're going to have to appeal to some external communty standard of evidence. But if you do that, then sectarian beliefs in God are going to fall by the wayside too.

Look at your criteria for rational belief outlined in @151 #1 and #2. We have a case here where Gordon has met #1. He thinks #2 has been met too (he has not been presented with evidence....). You and I and basically the entire scientific community disagree; we think the presented evidence shows his belief to be false. How does your definition of rationailty resolve this disagreement? Is his belief rational because what matters is Gordon's own evaluation? Or is his belief irrational because #2 depends on some community understanding of sufficient evidence? I think your descriptions of your process align with the former (it's Gordon's assessment that matters, not ours; you imply this again immediately following the quote above, when you say your definition of rationality is all about validity), but in that case, his creationism meets your definition of rational. As does pretty much any belief that does not contradict itself or some other belief the person holds.


That is not rational by my definition — which, again, is about validity, not STRICT rationality;

I've bolded this because I think its a very succinct description of our differing opinions of when a belief can be considered rational. Yes, your definition is about validity, and that's why I think its a bad definition. Doesn't matter how crazy the premises, if someone has them in their belief-network and you draws a valid conclusion from them, VS' definition considers that belief rational. Personally, I don't think that's good definition and I don't think it's the standard/vernacular one. I think to earn the appelation 'rational,' a belief must also be able to make some claim towards soundness. Maybe not philosophically guaranteed soundness or a level of soundness at which we are willing to say "I know...", but the premises behind a rational belief differ from a mere belief in that they must be more credible; the community must have a higher confidence that they are true.

At any rate, though, this boils down to one simply question: do you think, even by your standard of knowledge, that you know that God does not exist?

Way to turn the burden of proof around. I have no evidential reason to believe this entity exists, so I don't. Which gets back to your very early claim that Goddidit is as rational an explanation for the formation of the universe as inflation. You are wrong, IMO. I have evidential reasons to believe inflation is credible. It makes predictions that have been found to be true. Goddidit makes no predictions. Evidence is irrelevant to it, as it fits any evidence that could occur. So it is not as rational an explanation.

Sure, Gordon. If we were really comparing texts of past events to pure speculation, I would fully agree with you. However, despite your claims to the contrary, it's not "pure speculation", but rather the weight of evidence that you're arguing against. To go back to my trial analogy, which is more reliable, eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence? The answer may be counterintuitive to some, but it has been demonstrated that forensic evidence is far more reliable. Similarly, do we take the word of sheepherders who lived 4000 years ago, or do we believe what modern scientific investigation has to say on matters such as the origin of species?

As for the Genesis account being from multiple sources, I don't particularly care one way or another. However, you seemed to be using the fact that the details of the genealogies were in there as a point to argue in favor of the Genesis account being superior to other creation myths. The only reason that I pointed out that Genesis came from multiple original sources is precisely that the creation myths in Genesis had nothing to do with the genealogies. To somehow ascribe greater reliability to the Genesis creation account due to the presence of the genealogies is dishonest. The genealogies are not part of the creation stories.

Gordon @258:

The moment someone uses the word “Wall”, they acknowledge a design.

Really?

By chapter 10 we have a detailed genealogy. Names and ages. As boring as it gets. Name me an equivalent myth or fairy tale.

Sure, Homer's Iliad. Chapter 2, start at line 570. Or you can just search the linked page for "But I shall list the leaders" and read from there.

As wierd as it may seem to us modern readers today, oral myths of the time (and their written versions) included laundry lists of people and things. IIRC, the leading explanation is that the itinerant storytellers wanted to make sure that whatever king or tribe they were visiting felt they were part of the story, that they were special. Sort of like a rock group today telling the audience "[your city] is one of our favorite places to play." The list doesn't support Genesis being a literal account, it supports it originating as an oral myth, because that's what oral mythology sounded like.

Regarding past events that we simply have no chance of ever observing, we have a choice of the ancient texts, or pure speculation.

False dichotomy. We can dig for ruins and artifacts, use genetics, etc.. to tell us about the past. For example, genetics tells us there was never any 2-person bottleneck in the human population (or a 7-person bottleneck after Noah), ever. Archaeology tells us (AFAIK) that there were no separate settlements of Jews in Egypt in the places and times Exodus claims they were there. Furthermore, archaeology also tells us that there's a very strong record of a stable, long-term development of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel; meaning the folks in these kingdoms did not migrate in from anywhere else at all, they just retconned their own kingdom's history. That's just two examples of how Genesis and Exodus get things drastically wrong; there are probably many many more.

Eric,

Anyone can misuse a word. Misuse of language proves nothing. Your argument has descended to the realm of the totally idiotic.

If the best you can do is link to a picture of the White Cliffs of Dover, which are unarguably cliffs and not walls, and use the fact that someone mislabeled their photo as the basis for you to continue a losing argument ....

Well, congratulations, you've won. Because even if you manage to put forward a rational statement after this, I will not be responding to it.

By Gordon (not verified) on 21 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

eric,

Ah, you continue to butcher the context in order to, well, completely confuse the discussion. I think you probably need to read in more detail before replying, seriously. Let's start at the top:

I think you are asserting what you are trying to prove.

No, I'm actually talking about parsing the English language sentence there, as I clearly said in the rest of the paragraph. When I -- and, it seems others -- see that sentence, I interpret it as "That belief is a belief that was formed by a method that produces false beliefs or at least beliefs that you shouldn't hold or that you are not justified AT ALL in holding", even though it CAN be used to express what you sorta kinda maybe not consistently say that you're expressing here, which is that it was not produced by a process that strongly utilizes or relies on reason. As I said, my whole response was to a claim of the former. If the latter is all you were really after, then my definition is indeed irrelevant to it ... which makes your constant referrals to it either annoying or else an indication that you aren't just after the latter.

There are many cases where we would in fact say that rationality is all about process. Consider two people who both believe that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east. Person 1 says they arrived at that belief through past observation and an understanding of celestial mechanics. Person 2 says they have a coin with “E” on one side, “W” on the other, they flipped it this morning, and the “E” came up, so that’s why they believe. I think in this example, most people would say that 1’s belief is rational while 2’s is not…even though their processes result in the same belief. The only difference is method/process. So if one of those beliefs is rational and the other is not, it must because one criteria for assessing rational belief is whether the belief acquisition process is rational.

Especially since this in indeed a prime discussion of the FORMER way of parsing the sentence, and not the latter. Why do we say that flipping the coin is not a rational process? Not because it doesn't use or rely on reason, but because as a process for determining whether or not the Sun will rise in the East it seems to be utterly disconnected from the truth of that statement, and so not a way to form a belief that is at all likely to be true ... or, at least, a way to form a belief that you should trust as being true. But it isn't the process ITSELF that does this, because if you were trying to decide whether or not to believe that the next coin flip will be heads or tails flipping the coin is an absolutely perfect way to come to believe AND to come to know that. So, the "irrational" charge here is that that process will not form a trustworthy true belief about the proposition, not that the process doesn't use reason. So here, you are arguing for the former, not the latter.

So, if you want to pursue this, come up with an example of a process that does not rely on reason but is still at least potentially a way to form a trustworthy belief about the proposition in question. Since I've already granted you intuition as a potentially non-rational process and you haven't denied it, that seems like a good one to start with. If you can't, then either your definition of "rational belief" is not relevant to, well, most of your questions or the questions I was answering, or else that isn't what you're after at all.

Because otherwise the adjective means nothing, adds nothing to our understanding. There is only value in discussing what makes a belief rational if you think there is some difference between a rational belief and a [no adjective] belief.

The question is not whether there is a difference between a belief given the adjective "rational" and one that isn't. We agree on that. We do disagree on which difference we're specifically talking about, which is made even more confusing by what the point is in this section, which is that you are assuming that a belief that is more "rational" is somehow more likely to produce knowledge. Except that under the latter view, there's no reason to say that, because all you're saying if you're saying that is that it relies on reason, and not saying that that makes it necessarily more accurate in any given circumstance. If you want to say that relying on reason makes your beliefs more trustworthy, then you are slipping into talking about the former again, which means that I would not be miscommunicating at all but would, in fact, be addressing precisely what you're really saying.

Oh, and as a pre-emption, I DO think that processes that rely on reason DO produce more trustworthy beliefs than processes that don't. I just don't think that processes that are not rational in that strict sense are necessarily untrustworthy, which is what you sometimes seem to imply.

You early on claimed philosophical arguments can prove the existence of entities, including God. So I asked for a non-god example of that (which you never provided, btw). Now you seem to be saying that I would not have asked that question if I thought ‘rational belief’ was closer to knowledge.

Because you were challenging the PROCESS, not the specific. By your definition, as far as I can tell a belief formed by a process that relies on reason would be rational. The philosophical process referenced there relies on pure reason, and yet you demanded to be given evidence that it could in fact provide any truths about the world at all. The PROCESS, remember. So that is a major contradiction unless either I or you are getting your definition wrong.

Gordon clearly doesn’t think the evidence is compelling or that he’s been presented with observations that undermine ID. To call his belief irrational, you’re going to have to appeal to some external communty standard of evidence. But if you do that, then sectarian beliefs in God are going to fall by the wayside too.

Knowledge is objective, and so has to be the same for everyone. Belief without knowledge varies from person to person. So there's no contradiction there, since I -- and, I hope, you -- claim that we can indeed know that evolution is correct. We can indeed judge Gordon objectively and externally when it comes to knowledge, and he would have to defend against our claims that the evidence really does amount to knowledge.

I hope this clears THAT mess up.

I’ve bolded this because I think its a very succinct description of our differing opinions of when a belief can be considered rational. Yes, your definition is about validity, and that’s why I think its a bad definition.

It's not about logical validity, but I can totally understand how you can grab one word out of a sentence and presume to know what I really mean. When I say valid, I mean one that someone can hold and not be considered to be holding a belief that they should not hold ... as outlined repeatedly in the previous comment.

I don't want to have to start quoting my own comments again ...

Way to turn the burden of proof around.

And the fact that I was using that as a way of showing that I WASN'T demanding certainty but merely knowledge somehow escaped you? If you don't even have, by your own admission, knowledge, then how can I be accused of demanding certainty when I point out that you don't have knowledge?

And we need to settle this epistemic quagmire that you've fallen into before we can start talking about whether God or multiverses are equally good to believe as solutions to the fine tuning problem. At the very least, we need to settle what you mean when you say "rational belief". I'm clear about what _I_ mean, but you ... not so much.

By Verbose Stoic (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Still don't see how anything in those papers help your case at all. If there were free oxygen before photosynthesis, where it come from? And even if there were, would photosynthesis increase its concentration? In any case, there was change over time.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon,

I’m going to ignore most of your last comments because I want to focus on the one point on which all your claims pivot: your God’s supposed goodness.

You justify all suffering because of the story of Adam and Eve and “free will”.
I have said that the story shows that your God set-up Adam and Eve; that they were entrapped. And that whoever is blameworthy, your God is.

You have tried in various threads to shift the blame onto Eve especially, and asserted that your God is exempt from all moral laws because you believe we mere humans cannot judge Him.

I have said that this is logically and morally unjustifiable, but you have insisted on it.

For the sake of argument only, let’s accept that your God is exempt from all moral commands. Does that mean that your God is good?

No. Even if this moral exemption were real, this exemption would merely permit your God to not comply with His own moral rules. But this exemption would not be a requirement. How could it be? Your God could decide to comply with His own moral commands. Failure to comply would be a choice; your God’s choice.

Choices reveal the character of the one choosing. After all: character is revealed by how you treat those who cannot help or hurt you. If your God chose to not comply with His own moral rules (rules which He imposes upon us) this choice reveals something dark and evil about your God: hypocrisy.

Even if everything you assert Gordon is true, your God still comes out behaving like a hypocritical thug.

You are likely to reply that we humans have no standing to judge your God, that since He created us, we have no right to judge our creator.

OK, but then we have no standing to say “God is good”, or “perfect”. Such words convey judgment. When you say that your God is good, you are judging him. If I can’t judge Him, neither can you. If you can; the rest of us can. Our honest judgments do not have to agree.

If your God COULD BE good, and especially if we are supposed to say that He is, then we DO have standing to judge Him. Any fair judgment, based on the totality of the facts, would mean that your God is decidedly Not Good.

Until we resolve this impasse, the rest of your comments are unimportant.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

VS:

Why do we say that flipping the coin is not a rational process? Not because it doesn’t use or rely on reason, but because as a process for determining whether or not the Sun will rise in the East it seems to be utterly disconnected from the truth of that statement,

Really? So, to be clear, you think if someone says "flipping a coin is not a rational belief-forming process", they are not referring to the fact that the resulting belief is not based on reason. Thats...novel.

In any event, let's go with what you say. Very well: I find that the belief-formation process of "I learned it from my parents" to be utterly disconnected from the truth of the statement "God exists." Please show me how they are connected. They must be, for such beliefs to be rational based on your objection to the coin throw above.

So, if you want to pursue this, come up with an example of a process that does not rely on reason but is still at least potentially a way to form a trustworthy belief about the proposition in question.

You again have me at a loss. I fail to see how this is related to my argument at all. You want me to come up with a nonrational method of forming a trustworthy belief because, if I don't, I'm somehow not really arguing that your definition of rationality is overbroad?

By your definition, as far as I can tell a belief formed by a process that relies on reason would be rational.

No, here is my statement again, from @218: "a belief based on valid reasoning from a set of well-accepted premises or observations." In philosophy parlance, a rational process is necessary but not sufficient.

there’s no contradiction there, since I — and, I hope, you — claim that we can indeed know that evolution is correct. We can indeed judge Gordon objectively and externally when it comes to knowledge

I didn't ask about knowledge, I asked whether Gordon's belief is rational by your definition. Gordon thinks he has been presented with no contradictory evidence, and thus his belief passes your #2 criteria. You and I think otherwise. How do we decide whether his belief has passed your #2 criteria? Do we go by G's assessment or our own? If his own, then doesn't your criteria for rationality allow just about everything in the door? OTOH if we go by our assessment, can I not apply the same "not his but our" standard to Gordon's belief in God? And your belief in God?

When I say valid, I mean one that someone can hold and not be considered to be holding a belief that they should not hold … as outlined repeatedly in the previous comment.

That seems to be a very confusing and self-referential statement of approximately the same principle as logical validity: a valid conclusion is one that derives from the premises and a set of reasoning rules (such as noncontradiction and modus ponens), an invalid conclusion is one that does not.

At the very least, we need to settle what you mean when you say “rational belief”. I’m clear about what _I_ mean, but you … not so much

A belief based on valid reasoning from a set of well-accepted premises or observations. Since @218.

Let’s start with your premise Gordon - God created living things. If this is so, then we can find out something about this God by studying the things it made. A great impetus for studying the natural world and probably drove many people to do so. So what happened when they did? They found that the analogy of God’s design with human design failed. If a God did create living things, its mind was not like the human mind at all. If you can’t see this, then you don’t know enough biology - even as much biology as Hume did 300 years ago.
This is just living things - not an entire universe. Any analogy to human design is a non-starter - comparing apples to oranges as they say. Once you get to this point, all we can say is that the origin and diversity of life on earth has nothing to do with the human mind or anything with a human-like mind. Now this makes the Bible creation story wrong from the start - it assumes God has a human-like mind. If you don’t believe this you might want to reread Genesis again. Keep reading until you understand. The creation story in Genesis constrains God’s mind to be like humans’ minds - something that could never create living things let alone a universe. Science may overthrow Genesis, but that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God or even a creator God - it only tells us that that story is wrong - if there is a God - it is putting a something that could create a universe into a box of the wrong size, shape, color, whatever. That was Hume’s point. The Bible is just as speculative as - actually much more so than - science is.

I will give you one more thing to read at your leisure - John Wilkin’s The Salem Region: Two Mindsets about Science. http://philpapers.org/rec/WILTSR
At least to me it explains your different mindset in this discussion.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

eric and VS;

Regarding #254 (!!) and comments that follow from it, I confess I find much of this conversation too convoluted to follow. IMHO, determining whether a belief is “rational” is all about the process and the premises leading to the conclusion upon which the belief is based. The sloppier the process or the less certain the premises, the less certain the conclusion.

To my mind, saying that “belief in X is not rational” MEANS “Your belief in X was not produced by a rational process.” I think “belief forming” is redundant here. Is there a rational process which is not “belief forming”?

VS, maybe I’m missing something but the difference you are trying to explain seems too much like hair-splitting. What is the difference between “STRICT rationality” and ... whatever the alternative is? It seems the difference between someone adding numbers up in their head and someone else showing their work.

Regarding, “Rational belief” should have more of the characteristics of “knowledge” than “mere belief does.

If you recall my earlier comment, the difference between belief and knowledge is that knowledge is belief justified by evidence or conclusive logic. To be clear, knowledge is a subset of beliefs.

As best I can parse this out, a “rational belief” would be one based on valid reasoning and uncertain premises. In a situation like that, a “rational belief” would be based on a conjectural or tentative conclusion.

The rest of this is too confusing for me to follow.

VS, I’ll answer your comment to me tomorrow (Jason permitting). I gotta go and it’s snowing now.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

It looks as if 2015 is going to be a very bad year for the US. Some things you just cannot do.

Sean S,

I am fine with focusing on the single question of God's goodness, which we have already covered in some detail.

First, I do indeed start from a position of not judging my Creator. Just like the passage from Isaiah that I quoted previously, I see myself as the lump of clay, and do not consider that I have standing to question the Potter.

So the conclusions I have reached have been reached from this as a starting point. In my case, my faith in the Potter has been justified by seeing his goodness in action in my own life.

But I have also searched beyond that, and asked why this goodness does not appear to extend to everyone. Is he busy punishing a bunch of people for the sheer fact that they were born in countries dominated by a non-Christian religion? I am aware that many Christians do use such simplistic notions to explain the bad things that happen in the world.

The conclusion from my years of searching this out is that people bring most of the negative consequences on themselves. Sometimes in a direct way, and other times more indirectly in a manner that is often described as Karma. "What goes around, comes around", and "You reap what you sow" are the same principle.

And then I find, lo and behold, that this is essentially the point of the Garden of Eden story. It says very plainly that God made everything GOOD in the beginning. And I have no reason to doubt this.

But what comes next appears to be where you and I differ. I see that God put a test in the Garden, and I believe it is really a deeper statement on the reality of giving us Free Will. God gave us the ability to choose Evil.

You see this as entrapment, and yet the story is again very clear. God told them the consequences, but in the end they did not believe him. They trusted their own judgement. They were deceived in some way.

I see all this as a necessary component of Free Will. The test was simple enough, and it was not difficult or unreasonable. I do not see any element of entrapment contained in the story. I simply see a wrong choice, and of course I keep pointing out that we continue to make the same wrong choice right down to the present day.

But you won't really come out and say whether you want Free Will or not, or whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. You avoid my answer in order to ask more questions. This seems to be why our discussion on this issue of God's goodness has not progressed further.

You start from a different set of presumptions, and come up with some questions that you find compelling. Yet you won't step back from your pet theory and look objectively at the issue of Free Will. Without that, I can't answer you. I cannot discuss God's goodness separate to the reality that he gave us the ability to choose what we would do, including stupid and bad things.

Free Will is a tricky thing. If I give my 16 year old a car, am I being a good father? There is not a simple answer. If my teenage child is also responsible, then they will use that car to get to school and to visit friends on the weekends, etc. But if they are irresponsible, they may just as easily go out and kill someone else or themselves by driving too fast or recklessly.

Do their actions, made out of their own Free Will, determine whether I am a good father or a bad father?

Now I already know your answer, because you guys cannot get away from this fantasy of yours. You want God to make a car that is impossible to kill people with, because he is omnipotent. As I said to Eric, you want stoves that cook food but that don't burn hands, etc. etc. etc. Eric has avoided this one. Will you?

I contend that you are demanding that God give you water that is not wet, and that you have completely butchered the meaning of omnipotence in order to make your argument. I would love to follow this through to its logical conclusion. We got sidetracked by other issues, but maybe we can stick to just this one until we are at least clear on where we each stand.

Verbose Stoic (re. #261)

Regarding, “In general, we act as if beliefs are true, but we also do act as if they are provisional; ... For anything that we know, even if knowledge is provisional in a technical sense, we generally act as if knowledge is not provisional.

This is true when we are honest with ourselves about whether something is a belief or knowledge. But I believe as threads like this demonstrate, many people are so determined to deny doubts that they proclaim their beliefs as knowledge.

And FWIW I think referring to religious beliefs as “opinions” might be helpful, I think most people understand the “provisional” nature of opinions.

Regarding, “I include beliefs about how to form valid beliefs, which is about what processes are valid.

I cannot share this opinion; it is no different than saying that differences of opinion about basic math are valid. No. Anyone is free to hold any opinion they like, but if they don’t realize that 1+1 is ALWAYS 2, their calculations should be rejected out of hand. And I don’t want them doing MY taxes.

The rules of logic are as clear and firm as mathematics. They may be disputed, but not rationally. And they are not prescriptive, they are descriptive.

Regarding, “ Oh, dear, you hit one of my big annoyances [grin].

This was about the impossibility of proving a negative.
And now it is my turn to grin.

Scenario 1: Theory: the earth is spherical. Predictions: only people near the top of the sphere will be able to stand straight up. As they travel farther from the top, they will need to lean in to avoid falling off. And of course, all the oceans will immediately drain off the side of the sphere. Conclusion: none of these things are observed, therefore the theory is disproved.

Scenario 2: Theory: The earth rotates about its polar axis and orbits the sun. Predictions: people and objects will be flung off the earth as it spins, and severe winds will scour the earth. Likewise terrestrial objects will be flung off as the earth races around the Sun. Conclusion: none of these things are observed, therefore the theory is disproved

Scenario 3: I cannot source this yet, but I’ve read that in response to Zeno’s Paradox, an ancient Greek devised a system of physic eerily like quantum physics It included a fundamental distance such that no object could move meaningfully over a shorter distance. Other Greeks at the time proved that this theory predicted things that were never seen and thus disproved this ancient Quantum Physics.

Obviously I picked these examples for rhetorical effect. Anyone smarter than a box of rocks knows these three conclusions are wrong, but in combination, they illustrate why it is impossible to prove a negative.

If theory X “predicts” Y, and we fail to find Y, is theory X disproved? No, for three reasons:

1) Do we actually know how to observe Y? That is not always clear; and sometimes we need other theories with other predictions to explain why we can (or cannot) look for Y. All those questions (and their sub-theories!) need to be answered BEFORE we can even try to look for Y.

2) Was Y a valid prediction from X? Creationists do this all the time, making invalid “predictions” about what evolution should product and which of course it does not.

3) Are there variant of X (X’, X’’, etc.) which make different predictions than Y? If there are, they might be unaffected by a failure to observe Y.

Good examples of point three include multiverse and string theories. These two are not theories, they are categories of theories, often making very different predictions. No one observation disproves the whole lot.

Another example of point three are “God explanations”. This is another category if explanations; no set of observations could ever disprove the lot.

So, what you ask eric to do; to prove a negative is impossible. Science NEVER disproves explanations except in very narrow situations. Virtually every time, all science can do is say “there’s no evidence that X is true” or “the evidence does not support X”. This is why the burden falls to the proponent of the theory to prove it, or explain how it could still be true in spite of the lack of supporting evidence.

In a previous comment, you wrote that, “In the context of the fine tuning argument, you can definitely demonstrate that their values are not set by an intelligent being ...

I asked how is that done.

You replied: “Demonstrate that it was set by an unintelligent, natural process, which is what physics is TRYING to do.

So, how do I prove the process was NOT intelligent? NOT intentional? Physics is NOT trying to prove these natural values are set by Unintelligent processes. Since such deistic agency is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, physics is just trying to find a natural process to explain them; Any putative intelligence or intentionality in this process is implicated, but disproving them is not the goal.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 21 Feb 2015 #permalink

Gordon,

Regarding, “the Garden of Eden story ... says very plainly that God made everything GOOD in the beginning.

Where did the serpent come from? The story you rely on says the serpent deceived Eve. How did the serpent come to deceive Eve? How was the serpent even able to deceive Eve?

Was the serpent created evil?
If ‘yes” then not everything was created good. Evil was put into the world by your God.
If ‘no’ then the question stands: how did the serpent come to deceive if the serpent was created ‘good’? Only your God could have set that up.

Regarding, “God gave us the ability to choose Evil.

If there was no evil in the world, how could we have the ability to choose it?

If there was no evil in the world, how could the serpent have deceived Eve?

And Again I point out: the ability to choose evil still does not explain the propensity for such choices. I’ve been asking about that since forever and you have yet to answer it.

Regarding, “God told them [Adam and Eve] the consequences, ...”

No, he didn’t.

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’

And then:

Gen 3:4 ‘You will not certainly die,’ the snake said to the woman. 5 ‘For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

I don’t see where your God told them of any consequences beyond death. And then he allowed the serpent to deceive them into believing that consequence was rescinded.

It was only AFTER THE FACT that your God said:

Gen 3: 16 To the woman he [God] said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

And even here your God did not inform them that their punishment would be visited on every generation of humans ad infinitum.

No, your God did not warn them of the consequences. What warning he gave was incomplete, and then rescinded by the serpent.

You wrote, “They were deceived in some way.

Indeed they were, and that exonerates them. But then you wrote:

I do not see any element of entrapment contained in the story. I simply see a wrong choice, ...

Just above you wrote they were deceived; deception is an element of entrapment.

Regarding, “... you won’t really come out and say whether you want Free Will or not, or whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, first: I don’t recall you asking. Second: whether free will is good or bad is irrelevant to the subject of your God’s goodness.

And as you describe it, free will is nothing to treasure. You are telling us that INFORMATION DESTROYS FREEDOM and that FREEDOM IS MAXIMISED WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN DECIEVED. We don’t agree on free will because your notions of freedom are warped to the point of being unrecognizable. Why would I want that? Why would anyone?

To sum up your position: KNOWLEDGE IS OPPRESSION. Why would I buy-into that?

Actual free will would be a good thing, but that’s not what you are talking about.

Free will is not as tricky as you suggest. You might think it is because you have constructed a contorted view of free will. You must because without your distortions your pet theories collapse. Your God’s goodness evaporates under the glare of a true examination. You are telling us that being lied to, having crucial information hidden from us increases both freedom and accountability.

You have said elsewhere that your God is so utterly different from us that we cannot judge Him. If that is true, comparing your behavior as a parent to your God’s behavior is foolish. You and your God are categorically different.

There are many things your God could do to protect us from suffering and evil; things He could do without minimizing our free will; things that humans parents cannot do. And things that your God appears to have not done.

Even by human standards, Your God would be a Bad Parent.

sean s.

By sean samis (not verified) on 21 Feb 2015 #permalink

Sean S,

First, your invalid point:

You say that God did not warn them, but your point is really just that the warning was incomplete. Argue that if you want. It is a non-starter. If someone tells me, "Don't eat that, it will kill you", I cannot blame them for failing to tell me that I would experience excruciating pain while dying of the poison in the thing they told me not to eat.

Next, your valid point:

"Where did the serpent come from? ...
Was the serpent created evil?"

I will come back to that one, because it demands an answer. On the surface it does appear to contradict the notion that everything that God made was Good.

But what we must do first is gain some clarity on the issue of Free Will. You really muddy the waters here, so I will not even respond to what you have said. Rather, let's try to agree on a definition from an objective source, and go from there.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The question of free will, ... , ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. ... The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem."

So Free Will is not some side issue we can casually dismiss. It is central to all of our beliefs.

From Webster's Dictionary:

1: voluntary choice or decision
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

The second definition nicely summarizes what I mean when I use the term Free Will. And it points to the two main issues that have characterized our debate on the subject.

You and Eric have repeatedly demanded the following:

1) A world without cause and effect. You want stoves that cook food but don't burn fingers, for example. Or,

2) A world where God intervenes to prevent anything bad from happening.

Put another way, you claim that a truly Benevolent God should either create the world such that it is impossible for bad things to happen, or he should intervene as necessary to spare us from any negative consequences of cause and effect.

I contend, once again, that such a world lacks the element of Free Will. It is completely deterministic. I don't think you can claim otherwise, and indeed you have avoided this issue like the plague.

But the real issue then is whether a deterministic world is the only possible Good world, or whether there is a Higher Good that become possible once man is given Free Will. The key word being "possible", because indeed it is not guaranteed, nor can it be guaranteed together with Free Will.

I will wait for your response to the above before attempting to progress this further.

By Gordon (not verified) on 21 Feb 2015 #permalink

In reply to by sean samis (not verified)