…and this is a 
We've got another troll in the comments — she wouldn't necessarily be a troll, except for the dead giveaway of asking the same question a dozen times and running away from any answer any of the non-troll commenters might give. The question is, "Does evolution imply atheism?", and I'm going to have to disagree with most of the people who have already answered it by giving a conditional yes.
First, let's clear up the incoherence of the question. I understand it as, "Does understanding science [it's not just biologists who exhibit this phenomenon!] lead to an abandonment of religious beliefs?", and that's the question to which I think an affirmative is the correct answer. It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief. However, it is a messier answer than just a "yes" or "no" can properly address, because most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons, because people are obdurate animals who don't easily change preconceptions, and because people have different religious backgrounds that can shape their response to science. Here's why I think that a general yes is the best answer, though.
First, there is the easy case of individuals coming from a fundamentalist background that hysterically asserts a whole barrage of counterfactual claims: that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that there is an afterlife in which you will be afflicted with hellfire if you don't obey their particular and peculiar dogma, that there is a god who cares about your penis and who will take requests for miraculous intervention, etc. Science smashes that kind of faith. I know many people who have left such religions specifically because a little dose of scientific knowledge exposes the fact that their preachers have been lying to them for years. There is a good reason that St Augustine cautioned against the common, standard practice of the biblical literalists:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Augustine isn't concerned about the validity of science, of course — he's concerned that saying materially and obviously false things about the natural world will lead to souls being lost to Christianity. And he's right. All it takes is knocking out a few of the props holding up religious belief, and the whole house of cards can come tumbling down, with much attendant trauma. The people I know who have experienced the most anguish about evolution and leaving the church come from this kind of background, where the threats to apostates are the most dire and the claims about the world most absurd.
But what of more moderate religious belief? Is that also eroded by science? That's been my personal experience. I did not come out of a fundamentalist background at all — to the contrary, the church of my youth was relatively liberal about science, and never said a negative word about evolution (or any word, for that matter). Yet at the same time, they made a whole series of strange claims that they insisted were the very foundation of their special religious belief: the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation, original sin, etc. Thinking scientifically means that you question assumptions and that you ask epistemological questions and you try to rationally justify the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious thinking. If you apply scientific reasoning to even that moderate version of religion, it crumbles — there is simply no evidence for any of their claims.
Of course, some people avoid that problem by simply never thinking scientifically about their beliefs. That's an easy out, because most beliefs aren't the product of rational thought, anyway…but it's a cheat, and it doesn't negate the idea that science is in conflict with religion.
Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically, but also because what it really does is simply destroy the underpinnings of organized religion — the body of dogma that represents assailable claims of fact. That still leaves a few alternatives, with some refuge left untouched in agnosticism and a kind of mushy deism. Of course, to most people who object to godlessness anyway, those are functionally equivalent to atheism.
Comments
Posted by: debaser71 | October 27, 2008 10:41 AM
Sorry if I am just repeating or getting to far off base (I don't always read all the comments to every post!) but IMO reality implies atheism. Atheism is the default position. That theism is learned.
Posted by: Zeno | October 27, 2008 10:43 AM
Geez, why is this so complicated for people? When "creation" was inexplicable, people were obligate creationists, or at least that's how most folks viewed it. Evolution kicked the last big prop out from under the usefulness of God as an explanation. He was remaindered. Not necessary. Belief is now something apart from explanatory. It's a security blanket. Occam suggests that God should just go away (because he was never really there). Linus Van Pelt might, of course, disagree. But he has his blanket.
Posted by: Stanton | October 27, 2008 10:49 AM
To each their own, I suppose.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 10:51 AM
Well, I'd repeat that science gives no support for God, but something like cosmological ID is separate from evolution itself. Which means that if it supported ID, evolution's lack of support of the "designer" wouldn't matter to the god question.
But cosmological ID, biological ID, and real science fail to support religion. And intellectually, religion needs meaningful support. Thus science undercuts religion, by offering no support through any of the possible lines of evidence, from miracles to "God's signature" on the microwave background.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 10:57 AM
It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief.
Not so. Many in the religious community subscribe to an evolutionary take. Evolution, as a science, does not provide an answer to the question "does God exist?"
"Does evolution imply atheism?", [answer] conditional yes."
Agreed, as the most visible and vocal proponents of the negative answer, "No" to the question "does God exist?" are evolutionists.
Posted by: Ibid | October 27, 2008 11:03 AM
If I were a believer in a supernatural deity I'd take the position that the nights and days referred to in the Genesis creation myth were meant to represent the five major extinction periods and the evolutionary explosion between each disaster.
Cain and Abel would represent humans and neanderthals.
Posted by: JackC | October 27, 2008 11:03 AM
Odd. My 13 year old son asked me - basically - this very same question last night. My answer was "No". I did however give the qualification that Creationism isn't at all required, it just makes some folks happier.
JC
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 11:04 AM
I can only find myself thinking of the 'agnostics' I've found myself arguing against as of late; I use quotes because I am under the impression that they are anti-atheist theists who try to protect their magical thinking with a supposedly neutral position.
It is rather tiring though; people claim over and over that you can't DISPROVE their superstition and therefore it must be real/potentially possible. (Right now I'm just waiting for the current argument to turn toward 'the divine as the source of morality' -- that's the place where I find myself most angry and most willing to argue with passion)
Rounding back to the post -- Does scientific thinking imply atheism... no, I don't think so. It's the lack of evidence of theistic and superstitious claims that scientific thinking demands that implies atheism.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 11:04 AM
Salt... did you even read the rest of the entry or did you just rush to make this statement before getting through another word? The quote you used to derive this response wasn't even about evolution, per se. Yes, some in the religious community may subscribe to an evolutionary take, but only insofar as they can assign the magic sky fairy to its attributes. This is not scientific thinking, it's cognitive dissonance...
Posted by: Chad | October 27, 2008 11:15 AM
There simply is no logical way to go from a field of scientific study/research ( like biology ) and conclude 'atheism'. I feel that the implication that there is a connection is a crucial element of any intelligent design/creationist argument, practically required to first make that implication before attempting to justify their position.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 27, 2008 11:15 AM
I disagree with the comment above that theism is learned. We're not philosophically neutral beings at birth. A lot about religion is deeply connected to our social dynamics and is instinctive. Whether or not supernatura is all hooey, it doesn't mean that atheism is a "natural" position for human being and that religion is learned any more than we learn how to breed.
In fact I take it a step further than most and argue that religion is more appropriately defined as a social organizing principle related to group identity- and is thus shared by all people (including atheists). The supernatural elements are extraneous by-products of the thought processes we use, and are ultimately secondary to this dynamic.
Though I do admit that my definition is based on a few unconfirmed hypotheticals, but I genuinely would like to see those hypotheticals tested. Then there is the inevitable question of whether it's just a matter of semantics.
However, I'm not alone in this. Many anthropologists argue that religion is universal among all groups of people.
Posted by: TSC | October 27, 2008 11:16 AM
I guess Asa Gray didn't help this question much. But I'd say Yes/Always.
Posted by: Doug | October 27, 2008 11:19 AM
@#8
Agnosticism is often thought of as a neutral or middle ground between theism and atheism, but does it really excludes either position? I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist, but even before I let go of theism, I thought of myself as an agnostic. For me, which of the two I "am" depends a bit on how the questions is phrased. If you as me if God/gods exists, the most intellectually honest answer I can provide is "I don't know." If you ask me if I *believe* God/gods exist, my answer would be no.
Posted by: JStein | October 27, 2008 11:20 AM
Evolution doesn't imply atheism, though if you act Victor Stenger, he would certainly say that metaphysics implies atheism (and I find that his take on Hawking's theories is, at the very least, interesting, if not revolutionary).
It does, however, establish a worldview independent of god, and that's what important.
As P.Z. pointed out, people can (and do) suspend critical thinking in order to believe in god, but critical thinking does lead, in large degree, to atheism, as it requires people to search for evidence, and they quickly realize that there is none.
Posted by: Anon | October 27, 2008 11:20 AM
Evolution is atheistic in the same sense that gravity is; no religion is required. It only "attacks religion" to the extent that false proof, rather than faith, is the basis for those religious beliefs. The incredible success and power of science was, historically, expected to support religion (faith told that the beliefs were true--if science was a powerful way to explore reality, how could it help but verify those beliefs?), so interpretations of science and of religion which allowed the two to coexist were selected for. To the extent that religion came to depend on these misunderstandings of empirical evidence, a clearer understanding does come to undercut that aspect of religion.
Both religion and science grew out of our attempts to make sense of our environment; science has done so more successfully in less time. It is not that science attacks religion, but rather that it more capably serves that particular function, and that without the ability to make sense of the world, there is precious little reason for religion to exist. It cannot compete in the "bigger, stronger" categories, so resorts to the "sneakier, more devious" reproductive strategy. Sadly, as we know from comparative biology, that strategy can also be successful.
Posted by: Steve | October 27, 2008 11:21 AM
To me, the question seemed to be more about whether or not evolution, itself, is related to atheism. My answer to that would be no. They're completely different and separate things.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | October 27, 2008 11:22 AM
@#9. Absolutely. Cognitive dissonance. Amazing how otherwise intelligent people suffer from (or submit to) it. Like my parents. Not having visited Pharyngula since Saturday, I did not know of this post, but got into a long discussion with my parent about the exact same topic. They (both Hindus, by religion) feel - though they don't say it out loud - that my training in science has made me an atheist. They can't argue against my points, but they effectively stonewall me by saying, "Well... we don't know as much as you do now... That's why we have tried to give you a good education so that you can think for yourself... but we are too old..." AAAAAAAAARGHH! It frustrates me so much!
They seem to dissociate the so-called 'religion' from 'spirituality', and say that, to them, 'True Religion' ("the way it should be", whatever that means) essentially means discharging your duties well, honoring your responsibilities, and living with kindness and justice towards fellow beings. I despair of telling them that these are essential human qualities, and religion only serves to corrupt them, to wedge a divide between people, but I can't shake their belief in the 'True Religion'... I guess they are old, after all.
Posted by: huf | October 27, 2008 11:23 AM
The way i see it, science has nothing to say on the existence or nonexistence of god. It's simply not in its scope.
From a theist's POV, all that's happening now is that science is discovering HOW god created the world.
What i dont understand is why this is such a problem for so many theists.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:25 AM
I disagree. God is either observable or it isn't. If it is, then science can answer the questions as to its nature, including its existence. If it isn't, then no one, including those who claim they do, can know anything about it.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Guy Harrison, author of 50 Reasons Why People Give for Believing in God, traveled the world interviewing people on the street about why they are theists. He found that among all the various world religions people believe their deity or deities exist for the same reasons. The three most commonly cited reasons irrespective of one's religion are respectively: My parents reared me that way; the orderliness of the universe makes it obviously true; and believing in Allah/Jesus/etc. (my deity or deities) makes me happy.
I am currently co-authoring a book on religious belief concentrating on the third reason cited above. My coauthor and I are drawing on cognitive psychology, rational choice theory (Weberian, and others), history and archeology, biology, philosophy, sociology, etc. Religious practice is very important in many people's lives. Religious institutions often provide social benefits. There is a high correlation, worldwide, between degree of "religious belief" (which is really religious practice) and a lack of social benefits provided by secular institutions such as the State. In the end, social well-being (quality education, healthcare, positive socio-economic status) derived from non-religious sources is highly positively correlated with lower rates of religious practice.
Notice I am emphasing "practice". Italians, for example, highly self-identify as Catholic but have some of the lowest rates of religious practice. This can be explained by the fact that being Catholic is part of a cultural identity but religious practice is not contributing (positively at least) to their daily lives.
My research is finding that if one's goal is to reduce religious practice (and subsequently religious incursions into politics and science) then we ought to be promoting social well-being from secular sources.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 11:27 AM
@ The Chemist
While this might be a difficult position to prove, I won't argue the validity of your point. More to the point, however, is that theism in its modern, practiced forms, with its contradictions to scientific methodology, IS learned... or more appropriately stated: indoctrinated.
Posted by: Andrew | October 27, 2008 11:27 AM
Until we all agree on the definition of "atheism", the question can't be answered and to agree on that, we have to be clear about what it is that atheists reject. If the God I am supposed to be rejecting is any of the Gods in the Bible or Koran (jealous and sadisitic or merciful and loving), then I am an unbeliever, since either of these is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent as well. Logical contradictions abound. No dice.
Any God that answers prayer as in Matthew "when 2 or three are gathered...whatever they ask will be done..." does not exist.Every three seconds or so this God's existence is repudiated empirically. During winter here in the Great White North, appeals for "snow days" reduce the interval between divine petitions to picoseconds. Sorry Matt, you were wrong.
But an undetetcable, unconscious, impotent God? There, I'm agnostic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 11:28 AM
I was one of the active particpants in yesterdays kerfluffle with the troll. I gave the troll sufficient evidence to conclude that science is an atheistic endeavor. But the troll wanted me to state that, and I didn't take the bait, even though I would have said yes.
Actually, all science implies atheism. There is no need for god anywhere in science. Does science lead to atheism? Depends on the person. In my case, it was part of mix leading to disbelief in god.
Posted by: Kim | October 27, 2008 11:28 AM
The question: Does evolution imply atheism?
The answer: NO
Evolution is limited to explaining the diversity on earth by natural means. I agree that there is no need to invoke a higher power, and for that matter, in the origins of life as well.
However, flipping the question around is bad logic, as A implies B does not equate to therefore B implies A, which is the general error made by fundamentalist/evangelical atheists.
An other issue is that many creationist fighters conflate the absurd christian/islamic/.... ideas of the fundamentalists to believe in a higher power. Most people worldwide do NOT fall in that fundamentalist category, and their ideas about the natural and supernatural world are surprisingly diverse and nuanced, without invoking direct action of god on everything.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 11:28 AM
@Doug, #13
I would say then that you are not an agnostic. A willingness to be wrong isn't the same as wondering 'maybe' indefinitely.
I would assume that the intellectually honest atheists would all fall to the position: "There is no evidence god exists; until such a time that convincing evidence for this case arises, I will have to presume it false." A lot of people call this 'soft Atheism' but I don't think that's a good term for it, and I don't think it qualifies as agnosticism.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 11:29 AM
Clarification:
The goal of our book is not to "reduce religious practice". Ultimately our goal is to promote social well-being but in a manner that is truth bearing.
Posted by: Susan | October 27, 2008 11:30 AM
This was true for me, although it came via feminism, not science. As I sat there in my pew listening to the male emissary from God tell me about my place in the world, I knew he was wrong, and it was not too difficult to then take the next logical step, "If he's wrong about that, what else might he be wrong about?" And I was lost to them. St. Augustine was right to worry about this phenomenon, although I doubt he included women's experiences in his equation.Posted by: jackC | October 27, 2008 11:31 AM
Doug@13 - Nice to hear someone ELSE saying what I have for years. Generally, to a receptive audience, I will state "An honest person must state they are Agnostic, whether religious or not. This applies universally. To the extent Theism is claimed by my opponent, I claim Atheism."
I have had many good discussions (not "arguments") with theists who have openly admitted they "did not know".
I now identify myself publicly as Atheist - simply because the theistic side appears to me to be so much more prevalent than in my youth.
I still freely admit that I don't, and cannot, "know with certainty" - implying I have proof.
JC
Posted by: Matthew Townsend | October 27, 2008 11:32 AM
There's an article in the Journal of Religion and Society that discusses this very thing. Whether or not one necessarily implies the other, the fact of the matter is that they do. There's an inescapable correlation between secularism and belief in evolution.
The article was "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 11:32 AM
Huzzah!
You don't step up to the pulpit often PZ - but every time you do, your sermon is worth hearing.
This Bud's fer you.
Bravo! Bravo!
Posted by: Bodach | October 27, 2008 11:33 AM
mmm, mushy deism.
Posted by: Brad D | October 27, 2008 11:41 AM
I think scientific literacy, including understanding of evolution precludes all but a very vague, unexamined sort of theism, unless a person is tremendously good at compartmentalizing disparate views.
At least that's how the dominos fell for me, I couldn't stop from turning the stones over and seeing the bugs underneath.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:42 AM
If you are being truly "honest", then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence.
Shifting the burden. No proof is needed for the null hypothesis "god does not exist". The proof is needed for the hypothesis "god does exist."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 11:43 AM
@ The Chemist
Your earlier point got me thinking... I've always supposed that religion, in its simplest form, over the eons, has been the human response to explaining the unknown, which offers a level of comfort and empowers a person to not live in fear of unknowns... which has an evolutionary benefit. I know I'm simplifying, here... but you get my drift.
So... with that as a starting point, let's hypothesize that a group of people were born into this world in this day, and given all of the knowledge we have, scientifically, about the world around us. And they are given no introduction, in any way, to any religious doctrine, teaching, or other history. Do you still suppose that group would ultimately, in some fashion, embrace a religious component of their own design?
Posted by: Derik N | October 27, 2008 11:49 AM
Salt: they may subscribe to some kind of evolutionary take, but that how does that refute the point that scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief?
like he said, you can choose not to apply scientific thinking to your beliefs, but it's just cheating
Posted by: Anne | October 27, 2008 11:50 AM
Evolution did not imply atheism for me or anyone in my church. We all accepted evolution as the mechanism God used to create life on this planet. I think this is true in many liberal churches. Heck, even Catholics can now accept evolution.
Of course, like most people, we really had only a superficial understanding of evolution and our place in the universe. We really didn't investigate science or our religious beliefs deeply. Or at least, I assume that is so for everyone in my "group"...because when I finally DID, I became an atheist within a short time. Much as I wished to believe otherwise, I had to accept where the evidence led.
I am certain acceptance of evolution makes the journey to atheism shorter at least because of its reliance on science and reason rather than faith in an old set of books.
Posted by: T_U_T | October 27, 2008 11:50 AM
Evolution does not imply atheism at all. There is no way existence of a deity in general and evolution could be mutually exclusive.
But particular gods and particular religions that is completely another matter. Evolution rules out virtually all faiths older than a century or so. So it could be used inductively as ( rather weak ) argument along the lines "all traditional religions are wrong, so, why do you think your one is not".
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 11:54 AM
[A]ssign[ing] the magic sky fairy to its [science/evolution] attributes... is not scientific thinking, it's cognitive dissonance...
From a purely scientific point of view, I agree; belief in God is not scientific. As such, cognitive dissonance is inapplicable except from a solely scientific point of view (which is the only one atheists apparently subscribe to). The question would seem to be, is science (perhaps hard-science would be apropos) the only measure one should subscribe to or by? If so, why?
Yes, some in the religious community may subscribe to an evolutionary take, but only insofar as they can assign the magic sky fairy to its attributes.
Cognitive dissonance seems to be quite applicable to such as yourself when viewed from a God-faith point of view. Some people of God-faith have a much better grasp of you than you of them. Naturally you find that laughable, but that is to be expected from one who is myopic in their subscriptions.
Posted by: Kristin | October 27, 2008 11:57 AM
My gut tells me that truly understanding science does not necessarily lead to atheism, although it certainly can (as PZ has explained). I can't eloquently prove my gut feeling, though. However, I can give my own personal example. I am a scientist, and I am also an atheist, but I believe that I became an atheist not through studying science, but through studying human nature, anthropology, and the history of how Christianity spread through Europe (I took several courses relating to these topics in college, and these topics have always interested me). The more I learned about the religious beliefs of other cultures, and about how Christianity changed as it spread through Europe, the more I came to see all religions as artifacts of the human mind (i.e., completely made up). So I stopped believing in a god not because such beliefs are contradicted by science, but rather because god and religions in general are obviously made up by humans.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 11:57 AM
This question is consistent with Harrison's finding although it is harder to tease indoctrination out of the real-life situation. In other words, Harrison, as I stated, found that teleology is intuitive; it just seems obvious that even if evolution is true it required a jump start from an intelligent designer. So, evolution without an intelligent designer behind it is literally psychologically disturbing for some people, especially people with a poor science education. Hume put it this way, the intuitive appeal of teleology relies upon an underlying assumption--complicated things/processes require an explanation. Evolution disturbs our intuitions.
Evolution opens more questions: what is my place (existentially, morally, etc.) in the wold? Of course the intuitive appeal of teleology does not immediately answer these questions but a framework is created by which these questions can be answered. (Incidentally this is how my Jewish friends view the creation story. The function of the story is to provide a framework for the laws not to explain the origins of the universe.) Science needs to provide that framework as well. This is how I teach my Applied Ethics course and is part of the book I am coauthoring.
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 12:06 PM
Evolution doesn't imply atheism, but it certainly does rule out the empirical claims of many Christian faiths.
Science in general doesn't imply atheism, but it does rule out the empirical claims of any faith, leaving only a watered down Deism as impervious to its weapons. In other words, for all practical purposes, science does mean atheism.
Posted by: BobC | October 27, 2008 12:09 PM
I noticed the more people know about science, the less likely they have a childish belief in a magic fairy. Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in Mr. God, and I doubt any of them are very religious.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 27, 2008 12:09 PM
The Genesis 1 creation account has marijuana appearing before the Sun comes into existence. It's a pretty crappy allegory for, well, anything.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 12:10 PM
@ Salt
You never fail to amuse.
No... it's the only one applicable to THIS discussion / question. Trying to change the subject doesn't make your point any more valid.
Really? Which question is that? I don't remember anyone but you re-phrasing the original question in such a completely bastardized way.
I've re-read this paragraph 3 times. It's complete, incoherent babble. So, is it my cognitive dissonance that keeps me from riding the back of a unicorn? Is it my cognitive dissonance that has kept that damned leprechaun's pot of gold eluding me?
That you think, for an instant, that people of god-faith have a better understanding of me than I of them (especially considering the fact that I was indoctrinated as a "god-faither") tells me more about you than it does about anything else. Tell me, how long were you absent belief before you became a believer, from which you can attest this understanding?
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | October 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Acceptance of evolution wipes out a lot of gaps that theists used to hold sacred.
It proves many beliefs out there wrong, but it doesn't prove atheism right. It is impossible to prove atheism right (because you would need to disprove every type of God ever thought up).
Dr. Ken Miller is a Catholic yet he supports evolution 100%. Many God believers in fact, accept evolution.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 12:11 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:42 AM
If you are being truly "honest", then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence.
What is evidence to one jury to convict could well be lack of evidence to another to acquit.
Posted by: Michelle | October 27, 2008 12:11 PM
Science has just taught me one thing: the God I was shown to believe in (by society, not by my parents.) is non-existent. However, I can't just go ahead and say this proves there is no god. It just proves that the catholic god and every other god available to me as the "truth" are pure BS.
And I feel pretty safe in my lack of worship of the unknown and possibly existing god.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 27, 2008 12:15 PM
I would tend to express things (or the way I understand them) as follows:
Science doesn't destroy religious belief directly. It kicks its most time-honored supports from under it, such as the Argument from Design.
Then religion should tumble down. But it has a way of seemingly floating in the air by itself.
What I mean is that, if believers can't use the old "arguments" in favor of religion, they still can hold on to it for purely subjective reasons: "I believe because I believe, I have no argument to try and convince you, but that's how it is for me." They have even been known to argue that the fact there's no reason for them to believe makes their faith all the stronger ("credo quia absurdum").
Anyway, most people behave as atheists most of the time. When they cross the street, they look both sides. When their care breaks down, the have it repaired. They don't pray for it to work again, unlike the characters in a chapter of Philip K. Dick's novel "The Eye in the Sky".
Posted by: charley | October 27, 2008 12:17 PM
Does evolution imply (involve by logical necessity; entail) atheism (disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods)? Logically no, because it is possible, easy in fact, to define a god whose existence does not conflict with evolution. Does evolution often lead to atheism? Yes, for all the reasons others have given.
Posted by: Kitty | October 27, 2008 12:17 PM
Prof MTH
I will look for your book with interest.
My father believed the setting up of the Welfare State in Britain in 1948 would result in a reduction of religious practice. As a socialist and unionist (and atheist) he'd already witnessed the reduction of male church attendance in mining areas once the union began to take social responsibility for the miners' welfare.
The women went to church and most of the men went to the 'Institute' on Sunday. The former to pray and receive divine guidance, the latter to talk politics,educate themselves in its wonderful library and drink. It was an interesting time (I was born in 1948).
I have only anecdotal evidence to say that wholesale closure of chapels and churches occurred after the instigation of the 'cradle to the grave' care system in 1948, but in my small town (16,000) the number of Methodist chapels fell from 10 to 2 by 1965.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 12:18 PM
Meaning what, exactly?
Posted by: gazza | October 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Of course a scientific outlook implies atheism but I would say that the question is largely academic and not worth discussing!
Working in science and engineering I am continually amazed at how many people who apply the scientific method at work then go home and believe in 1001 meta-physical ones! The human brain does seem remarkably plastic in allowing rational thinking for practical issues and then allowing fantasy beliefs on non-life and death issues. And these co-exist in the same brain.
So science and evolution should imply atheism - but most people are two dumb to realise this and allow the two sides to co-exist!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Your point? People will believe what they want, but that doesn't make it true. Creationists are prime examples of this. You can pile up the evidence against a young earth but they'll still say 6000 years. You can demonstrate exactly how they are distorting the data yet.... 6000 years.
Just because people don't see it the same way does not give both sides equal weight.
Posted by: SocPsych11 | October 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Salt @#38
Cognitive dissonance is not dependent on one's point of view. It simply means that an individual is holding two conflicting cognitions (thoughts, beliefs) in their mind at the same time.
For example, the belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is dissonant with the knowledge of the fossil record, geology, etc. In order to avoid the stress induced by this dissonance an individual can choose to argue the validity of one or the other, depending on a variety of factors.
A more "apropos" (appropriate) example would be the dissonant cognitions of natural causation vs. supernatural causation.
Posted by: CrypticLife | October 27, 2008 12:21 PM
"I disagree with the comment above that theism is learned. We're not philosophically neutral beings at birth. "
I would have to disagree. Theism is learned. I think your confusion lies in that it does not necessarily need to be taught.
If one takes a child and a cookie jar, and secretly records them on video, and catches and stops them most of the time, but doesn't if they spin three times before opening the jar, the child will start to develop superstitions around this. In fact, children will often develop spontaneous superstitions around all sorts of things. This doesn't mean they're not learned.
Conversely, if you put a raccoon on a reinforcement task, but put his water dish far away from the food reinforcers, he'll take time (and possibly miss reinforcements) washing the food. This was noted in Skinner's article "Misbehavior of Organisms". This sort of thing is, as far as can be determined, not learned.
The difficulty in the original question is around what it really means by "implies". Does evolution serve as an explanatory force that would reduce the tendency for people to feel they need to resort to a deific explanation? Yes. Does the fact of evolution mean it's impossible for a deity to exist? No.
Personally, I don't need evolution to be an atheist, but many do.
PZ, I expect you'll have a lot of criticism for essentially changing the question -- to which you'll be right to point out that the original question is not particularly well-formed, but will make it harder to stick your point with those who are resistant.
It can be natural to come to a conclusion, based on our experiences, without that conclusion being rational or correct. I think theism falls into this category.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 27, 2008 12:23 PM
I disapprove of using "counterfactual" to mean "false". This is because I am a pedant. A counterfactual belief would be "If the Bible were true then evolution by natural selection would not have happened".
I would also like to designate "If you care about a cause don't say demonstrably false things in its name" as "Augustine's law". It really isn't a bad rule.
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 12:24 PM
My vote is "intellectual dishonesty".
Posted by: Tom Woolf | October 27, 2008 12:24 PM
I'm a devout atheist, but I cannot state that evolution implies atheism.
If my understanding of the Discovery and History channel shows on St. Augustine is correct, one of his greatest contributions to Western thought at the time was the idea that scientists were discovering how their god made things work, not disproving their god existed. Well, that and helping forestall said scientists getting burned at the stake for heresy....
For believers, what is to say that evolution isn't their god's way of creation? No - I don't mean ID, that spewage is pure BS. My mother, who grew up in a Protestant (not thumper) household, used to say "the 7 days of creation? How can man know what a day is to god? god's day might be a billion years..."
So, if a believer wishes to follow science and still believe that evolution is their god's way of doing things, they should have no problems with that.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | October 27, 2008 12:25 PM
In my opinion scientific thinking does not do well in explaining changed lives. There are many genuine accounts of people who made drastic changes in the direction of their lives and attribute it all to an encounter of some sort with the living god. People who are never the same again and whose outlook is forever altered. What has happened? Can scientific thinking lead one down a path to agnosticism and atheism, yes, but that is not the end of the story. One has to also explain away things that there are no good scientific explanations for that happen all around us. No one has all the answers. I am a believer, but I find science fascinating.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 12:29 PM
Yet you attribute this to something otherworldly when it could be as simple as "group therapy" via the church. I know people who's lives were changed after a good and a some after a bad drug experience. The human mind has ways of dealing with stress. Again, sometimes good sometimes bad. I don't see any reason to attribute that to some higher power.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 12:31 PM
Posted by: SocPsych11 | October 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Salt @#38
Cognitive dissonance is not dependent on one's point of view. It simply means that an individual is holding two conflicting cognitions (thoughts, beliefs) in their mind at the same time.
I understand that. Many, perhaps only some, believers find no conflicting cognitions in juxtaposing science with their faith in God.
My cognitive dissonance remark was a bit tongue in cheek, musing mirthfully that there are those who hold so adamantly to science, the be all end all of all that there is, despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
Naturally, one may define science in such a way at any given moment as to make my above incorrect, but you know what I mean.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 12:31 PM
Give an example and we will analyze it. Don't just claim outright that "there is no good scientific explanation". First, science is not complete as your dismissal seems to imply. Secondly, what were the "radical changes"? What may be responsible for them. Religious practice is a social support structure. Maybe having that social support structure is what is responsible for those changes.
Posted by: Obeah | October 27, 2008 12:32 PM
"One has to also explain away things that there are no good scientific explanations for that happen all around us."
No, one doesn't have to explain away things. One searches for answers, not fall back to the supernatural to explain things.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 12:33 PM
And some attribute great change and improvement to learning that god is a sham.
Lives change for many reasons. It isn't god when people take up religion, and it's not the devil when people abandon religion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: watercat | October 27, 2008 12:35 PM
Y = a cartoon character created by Abrahamic religions.
If Y = 'god', evolution implies atheism.
X = A force, or combination of forces, which caused the universe to come into being and sustains its existence.
If X = 'god', few people here are atheists.
You have to define god before you can talk about believing in it.
Posted by: Jim Roberts | October 27, 2008 12:36 PM
"Not at all. It just means that god is an impotent nothing from nowhere with even less power than the Secretary for Agriculture ..."
Posted by: Doug | October 27, 2008 12:41 PM
@Greg #25
"I would say then that you are not an agnostic. A willingness to be wrong isn't the same as wondering 'maybe' indefinitely."
I think functionally I am an atheist, but formally I will continue to self-identify as being both atheist and agnostic.
Posted by: PeteK | October 27, 2008 12:45 PM
It defines how one defines "god". If god was a creative agency that underpins reality, then god would be the Eisniteinian kind, above and beyond physical reality, therefore infinitely incomprehensible, and beyond science, and no scientific discoveries could negate him/her/it.
Science by definition only deals with the physical universe: it can in principle explain the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to now, but not why anything exists to be studied at all...
By that definition, science doesn't imply atheism. Science doesn't require gods, but it doesn't rule them out either.
But if you define god in the traditional naive, invisible man in he sky way, then of course science implies atheism.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 12:51 PM
Quite right, Tulse, as Salt has now demonstrated for us. I've heard this before, countless times. Vox Day prattles on about it frequently. For Salt and Vox, this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
Posted by: BobC | October 27, 2008 12:53 PM
It was defined a long time ago. Everyone knows god is a fairy who performs magic tricks. That's why only brainwashed children and extremely stupid adults believe in it.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 12:54 PM
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 12:33 PM
It isn't god when people take up religion, and it's not the devil when people abandon religion.
Interesting statement. It's an old saying that the greatest feat the Devil ever did was to convince people he does not exist. If he doesn't, neither too would God. Biblically, a case may be made that secularism is his playground, and atheism one of his greatest achievements.
[stirs pot... awaiting the flames]
Posted by: Interrobang | October 27, 2008 12:57 PM
The Chemist: You're confusing "theism" with "religion." Religion is the set of social practices you describe, and may well be a nearly-universal human trait. Theism is a belief in deities, and certainly is not a universal human trait, nor is theism a universal or required trait of religion, either. Since we're talking about theism specifically, your taking issue with the statement that "theism is learned" is decidedly off-base. Religion itself may arise out of natural human impulses, but theism is almost certainly entirely cultural.
For what it's worth, I don't think there is a universal human impulse toward religion. I think there's a set of universal human impulses (such as the need for group identity, narrative construction, and explanation-seeking about the world) that give rise to religion, and/or that religion exploits, depending on how you want to look at it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 12:57 PM
Salt, you keep talking about god, and now the devil. Please show some phyisical evidence for their existence. Otherwise, how do we separate between you being a bullshitter and truth teller. Phyical evidence, or its lack, will tell us which category to put you into.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 1:00 PM
This is just another way of saying the Devil's non-existence is indistinguishable from its existence.
In other words, it doesn't exist.
Posted by: BobC | October 27, 2008 1:01 PM
I have a problem with it. I don't much care for the idea that a magic fairy had anything to do with my favorite branch of science. If a person accepts the facts of evolution and invokes God for any part of it (inventing it, guiding it, using it as a way of doing things), then that person is a childish idiot.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
The more science you know, the more likely you're going to run into this corrosion problem. If all you've studied is evolution, then you can imagine your favourite deity "working through" evolution in some appropriately vague fashion, while all the real fingerprints of the divine are off in some other field, which you don't have time to study in detail because, hey, you're a busy biologist. But when you're tolerably familiar with cosmology and genetics and archaeology and neuroscience. . . .
Posted by: tomh | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Salt wrote:
despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
Posted by: Azdak | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
As far as the agnostic/atheist debate goes...
I can see how the term 'agnostic' would be compelling to anyone who wants to distance themselves from the "militant" connotation of atheism (if there's one thing the religious side has done well, it's that they've very effectively tarred us with the "shrill, militant" brush in the public consciousness), but in practical terms, it seems a pretty useless label. Given the nature of knowledge, and the inability to truly know anything with "absolute certainty" (outside of math or formal logic), it seems to me that a large portion of the theist population would also call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down.
As for theism and atheism, there's a pretty simple test: when asked "do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?", if you respond with anything other than "yes" then congratulations! You're an atheist.
That being said, I have friends and family who identify themselves as agnostic, and that's fine with me -- I wouldn't presume to tell them what labels they apply to themselves. I went with the agnostic label myself for many years. I think it was Asimov who convinced me to 'come out':
Posted by: Pedro Timóteo | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Ah, this time I was quicker in answering this question. :)
In short: I agree with everything PZ wrote, of course. To me, while evolution doesn't "disprove" religion, it does two very important things:
1) shows the holy books can't be literally true (as someone said, since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?), and
2) removes one of the major "needs" for a creator, showing how things could have happened naturally.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 1:03 PM
Where are you going with that one, Salt? Biblically you can make the case that atheism is the work of the Invisible Bad Guy? I'll take your word for it. Why should I, as an atheist, care? Are you segueing into Pascal's Wager? Don't be an atheist 'cause you need to hedge your bets against Satanic manipulation?
And as I recall, there's a biblical case that the entire natural world is the Invisible Bad Guy's playground. Which brings us back to the idea of science (as the study of the natural world) and religion in conflict.
Posted by: Sarcastro | October 27, 2008 1:05 PM
PeteK: hey now, none of that! Religion = moronic fundamentalist Christianity. Period. This goes for both sides of the argument in equal measure.
I mean... pantheism? Only a few billion people believe in that crazy shit.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 1:05 PM
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 12:51 PM
this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
Your scientific evidence is but part of the whole body of evidence, not singular as in the ONLY evidence. How myopic.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 1:06 PM
@Doug, #67
Certainly. I can't deny you your affiliations, even if I don't agree. :)
So long as inquiry is alive and people wonder and ask questions, ultimately, I think we're ok regardless of differences of opinion.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 1:07 PM
What other evidence then? Please enlighten us.
Posted by: s.k.graham | October 27, 2008 1:16 PM
PZ has given an excellent response. But he has failed to answer the underlying question. Let us suppose that this "troll" is not a troll, but a genuinely concerned person trying to make a point or even to actually learn something. I believe what is happening here is that our "troll" is engaged in "judging evolution by its fruits". This person considers atheism to be, de facto, evil. In her mind, if evolution leads to atheism, then evolution itself must be evil and false.
Understanding this, the correct answer clearly is "no", because it is entirely possible to believe in evolution and to accept science in general, and yet still rationalize some supernatural beliefs which do not contradict evidence and reason (after all, an omnipotent God could always manipulate things in such a way that there is never any conclusive evidence -- perhaps specifically as a "test of faith").
Aside from this direct response, we should also address the underlying assumption that atheism is an evil fruit (whether or not evolution leads to it). To this end, we might respond with questions of our own: "Why are you concerned? Do you believe that atheism is evil?" Then shift the discussion to the persons fears about the evil of atheism. This, for example, might ultimately lead to a their fear of hell and how non-belief will get them or their love ones a one-way ticket to eternal flame. Then challenge them on why they actually believe such a place and such a fate awaits them.
Discussion with such persons will generally be much more fruitful if you try to answer their questions in the way that they intend the question, and their underlying reasons for asking it, rather than answering the question at face-value as you would mean it if you had asked it.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted by: tomh | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Salt wrote:
despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
I assume that you really mean non-scientific evidence which one who views all evidence through the lens of science would accept. Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians. An oxymoron in search of cognitive dissonance.
.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | October 27, 2008 1:20 PM
I didn't read through the comments, but I don't understand how evolution would preclude a god.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Salt @ # 86
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 1:27 PM
It obviates the need for it, which calls into question where people got the idea for it in the first place.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Now don't be silly, Salt. You're playing with semantics and shell-gaming your terms. Whether we call it a kind of evidence, false evidence, pseudoscience or differing lenses, the evidence, lens or whatever you care to call it that you're neglecting to explain is rejected by the scientific community. You just don't want to look at why. Much easier to mutter "none so blind..."
I keep forgetting that I can't see the Emperor's clothes with my eyes...
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2008 1:27 PM
It's an old saying that the greatest feat the Devil ever did was to convince people he does not exist.
And it's a new saying that indefensible ideologies based on false and ludicrous premises often include such an anodyne against disconfirmation. When the paucity of evidence for something becomes the best evidence for it, you're in Kool-Aid Kountry.
Posted by: Tim | October 27, 2008 1:28 PM
A created, evolved world is not impossible, but very unlikely. I skimmed the posts, so I might've missed something, but it seems that the insistence of the noisier theists on a created, young earth is more about secular power on earth than anything spiritual. If they admit to origins that do not require divine intervention, their churches become social clubs with eccentric beliefs.
Posted by: Daniel R | October 27, 2008 1:28 PM
Does evolution implies atheism?
Not here, in France. Perhaps due to Catholicism, perhaps due to the fact that Frenches are different from Americans, I don't know. But a lot of believers, including practicing ones, admit all what science says, evolution included. And since they believe in Heaven, but no more in Hell, everything is "soft".
We are not a so religious country, but I am not sure that religion will be so easy to make disappear here. They put religion in "another universe", not submitted to the law of "this universe". What can you answer to that?
Posted by: DrCogSci | October 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Errr, I don't know if I'm a bit late, but in response to comment number 1. There's quite a cool article about Paul Bloom about children being "inherently dualist" Whilst dualism isn't itself a theistic belief (obviously) it remains to be seen that atheism is the so called "default position" despite it being, as well all know, the only correct one!
:) I hope you don't mind my little piece of bigotry at the end there.
Posted by: tomh | October 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Salt wrote:
I assume that you really mean ...
You could have simply said, I have no evidence.
Posted by: PeteK | October 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Sarcastro: hey now! I agree fundamentalist religion is guff. I was referring to eminently sensible philsophy. The difference between philsophy and religion is that philsophy encourages debate and challenge, unlike religion...
Posted by: druidbros | October 27, 2008 1:35 PM
Really? Emperical evidence of your God? Please share with us what that would be?
P.S. I (heart) Celtic_Evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM
What a load of bullshit. We have your number Salt. Another Liar for JebusTM. Time to go home and stay there.Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 12:57 PM
Salt, you keep talking about god, and now the devil. Please show some phyisical [sic] evidence for their existence. bullshitter [or] truth teller. Phyical [sic] evidence, or its lack, will tell us which category to put you into.
Sagan's book (I will use the the film though) Contact had a scene -
The not quite Rev. Jost - "Tell me something, did you love your father?"
Why do you think Sagan had that in there (within its context)?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 1:38 PM
If you have a point to make, make it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Salt, if you think a quote from a fiction novel is physical evidence, you are a very deluded man. Time to go home and take your meds.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Salt
Funny thing is, Salt... most of us "godless atheists" understand fully the reason for that line, by that character, in that context...
The question is, why do you think he had that in there? I'm pretty sure it's not the reason you think it is.
Posted by: druidbros | October 27, 2008 1:42 PM
Again, what other evidence do you have? Please be aware that non scientific evidence is an oxymoron. Much like the face you see in the mirror. Your arrogance is the telltale sign that you have no argument. Now thats a sign of a true believer.
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 1:48 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I can make music, play sports, practice politics, and pick apples without any need for a God-concept: do they imply atheism too? Come to think of it I can do science, music, politics, sports, and apple-picking without morality, so I guess those things lead to amorality too? Uh, no. Before you subscrbe to the idea that "I don't need x to do science" deductively leads to "science means x does not exist," think of all the possible X's out there.
OTOH the Pew survey and other surveys seem to support the emprical conclusion that higher education correlates with atheism. A causing B is one possible hypothesis (but so are B causing A, or unknown C causing both A and B, or...)
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM
What a load of bullshit. We have your number Salt. Another Liar for JebusTM. Time to go home and stay there.
SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE. This has been so much fun. You guys have been owned in less comments by me than ever before.
Whether we call it a kind of evidence, false evidence, pseudoscience or differing lenses, the evidence, lens or whatever you care to call it that you're neglecting to explain is rejected by the scientific community.
SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE.
As I said, myopia at its best here.
PWNED!
Posted by: Schmeer | October 27, 2008 1:49 PM
Salt,
Your
scientific evidenceGod is but part of the wholebody of evidencepantheon of gods, not singular as in the ONLYevidencegod. How myopic.There, fixed that for you.
May his noodly appendage touch you...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 1:50 PM
Great comment salt.
Now please enlighten me to the other ways of knowing that you consider evidence?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 27, 2008 1:52 PM
Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians.
No, the same kind of evidence you demand for everything in your life *except* your religious beliefs. Unless you're extremely gullible, that is.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 1:53 PM
You've dodged questions, refused to clarify your vague and empty comments, made nothing even resembling an argument, and are now declaring victory.
How typical.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Salt, still delusional. Go home and take your meds.
Eric, there is no need to posit god for anything but religion. Morality has nothing to do with god or religion either. The god of the bible is a very amoral construction. Why to people keep trying to make out like that amoral construction is something to emulate?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Damn; Salt is a marvel to behold. He never makes anything remotely like an argument or even a coherent statement, he merely throws out smug handfuls of semi-random non sequitirs interspersed with vague attempts at sneering. Sometimes paragraphs full of them. All those words, yet no actual content.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | October 27, 2008 1:56 PM
Most people are subjected to religious indoctrination long before they have a chance to become familiar with the principles of scientific methodology (if ever). Science demands the full use of our observational faculties as well as our ability to integrate our observations onto a coherent view of the world. Religion, OTOH, teaches us to negate these very human abilities and to simply believe what we are told. In this way, science and religion distinguish themselves very clearly from one another and should prompt any sensible person with knowledge of both to choose atheism.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 1:57 PM
Posted by: Schmeer | October 27, 2008 1:49 PM
Salt, Your scientific evidence God is but part of the whole body of evidence pantheon of gods, not singular as in the ONLY evidence god. How myopic.
There, fixed that for you.
May his noodly appendage touch you...
I happen to ~agree with what you saying, though I have no idea if God, or any other god, has a noodly appendage.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 1:58 PM
Oooh! I am so frightened! There's Salt and his imaginary friend, whuppin everyone again.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 1:59 PM
Wow... that's a new low even for you, Salt...
Have your very premise torn to shreds, be called out for changing the subject and re-formatting the question, refuse to address direct questions, and then ignorantly declare victory.
HEY! It appears you DO understand cognitive dissonance after all! Who said you can't teach an old fundament new tricks?
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 1:59 PM
Note, too, Salt's convenient truncation of my quote. Like I said...he doesn't want to confront why science rejects his approach. Much better to run away when challenged for his evidence and insist we Will Not See(tm).
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 27, 2008 1:59 PM
You guys have been owned in less comments by me than ever before.
*snickers* I love it when the 15-year-olds reveal themselves. get back to use once you've matured a bit and learned a lot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:01 PM
Salt,
What other ways of knowing do you consider evidence to be considered with the same weight as scientific evidence?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 27, 2008 2:01 PM
"Get back to us", even.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 2:02 PM
You've made no statement of any kind of discernible position -- in fact, you've deliberately avoided making one to the point of ignoring questions to clarify it -- don't get all huffy because no one knows what the hell you are talking about.
Make your point or shut the hell up.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 27, 2008 2:04 PM
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 1:48 PM [kill][hide comment]
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I can make music, play sports, practice politics, and pick apples without any need for a God-concept: do they imply atheism too? Come to think of it I can do science, music, politics, sports, and apple-picking without morality, so I guess those things lead to amorality too? Uh, no. Before you subscrbe to the idea that "I don't need x to do science" deductively leads to "science means x does not exist," think of all the possible X's out there.
Eric, you need to keep this point in mind, the theory of evolution presents ideas that stresses that no deity is needed. The example you brought up does not, in of themselves, challenge the necessity of a deity. Evolution does. That is why fundamentalists of all religions continuously attack evolution. That is part of the reason why Charles Darwin sat on his ideas for so long.
All religions attempts to answer why we are here and not can give proof for their assertions. The theory of evolution contradicts everyone of them. Plus it has the benefit of having evidence to back it up.
Evolution implies atheism for the simple reason that all religious beliefs become difficult to hold in the light of those facts. The same cannot be said about apple picking.
Posted by: JackC | October 27, 2008 2:05 PM
tsg@33 (how is it that all my responses today seem to be to poses ending in 3?)
I agree on all points. I do not, however, interface with Society that way. Well, usually.
If someone asks me "Does God exist?" I reply "No." unequivocally. When they say "Prove it." I say "Prove that your god DOES exist." Bottom line, neither of us can either way, or we all wouldn't be here chatting away. But yes, I agree - the Null Hypothesis requries no proof.
Society as I am familiar with it does not operate this way. We pick a side. I pick the side of no god. If my sparring partner picks the side of yes god, then we know where we stand and we proceed thus.
If my partner of religious bent is able (nearly impossible to find, btw) to say "I could be wrong.", then I freely admit that I may be as well - but our positions are each closest to the sense we have of how the Universe works - mine closest to Atheism, my partners closest to Theism. We are more able to gain a convert in that manner. We can then present our position and counter the other position and have a reasonably good discussion.
But yes - absolutely. The default position is Atheism. No, the Null Hypothesis requires no proof. It does, however, require substantiation for those who have fallen out of it to - hopefully - return.
JC
Posted by: Elliott Grasett | October 27, 2008 2:07 PM
Just received the November, 2008 edition of Scientific American. By an amusing coincidence, there is an article on Francisco J. Ayala, geneticist and ordained Dominican priest. He seems to agree that scientific knowledge is erosive of faith, but (naturally enough!) denies that it either ought to, or need to, be. As for evolution, Ayala treats it as the answer to the question "If God is all-loving and omnipotent why evil?" Ah well: your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 2:09 PM
Dammit Celtic Evolution, you've started me cackling so hard I may lay an egg!
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 2:10 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:01 PM
Salt,
What other ways of knowing do you consider evidence to be considered with the same weight as scientific evidence?
Now, that is a question worthy of answer. Well done. I'll take a stab at it.
I'd have to say 'that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion, or establish a presumptive fact, necessary where such opinion is not capable of being considered by scientific inquiry'.
Posted by: C.B. Warren | October 27, 2008 2:11 PM
As Eugenie Scott explains in Evolution Vs. Creationism, science is strictly methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism, and therefore science does not 'imply' any philosophy whatsoever. While there is considerable arguments that atheism, the state of non-belief, is not a philosophy at all, philosophical naturalism certainly is. I don't think evolution leads to atheism, I think methodological naturalism 'most of the time' leads to philosophical naturalism, and philosophical naturalism DOES imply atheism. So the question becomes whether a transition from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism is justified, and many will argue, that for a serious scientist, this transition CAN NOT be justified. This is the controversy as I see it, and I would be delighted to read the thoughts of some smart folks on this issue.
Posted by: Jackson | October 27, 2008 2:14 PM
Salt, did you just say that a way of knowing other than scientific evidence is a way of knowing without scientific evidence?
Posted by: Wolfhound | October 27, 2008 2:14 PM
I see that Salt has used the tried and true Chess Playing Pigeon gambit...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 27, 2008 2:16 PM
The problem with the "philosophical naturalism" business is the same as the problem with NOMA before it: the only religion it safeguards is one which has jack to do with the real world.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 2:18 PM
Non-scientific evidence is evidence that isn't scientific? How profound, Wizard!
Talk about worthy questions and unworthy answers...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:19 PM
sigh
Such as?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 2:19 PM
I'd have to say 'that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion, or establish a presumptive fact, necessary where such opinion is not capable of being considered by scientific inquiry'.
Unanswered question remainz unanswered.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 2:20 PM
I see Salt is stringing words together in a way that makes no sense except to those with cognative dissonance.
Salt, can't you point to Moses' burning bush somewhere in the Dead Sea? That would be good proof for your imaginary god. Oh, but you are too lazy to find it. Time to go home and take your meds.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 2:21 PM
So only 7% of the National Academy of Science members are theistic. What I am interested in knowing is what percentage of those were reared in a theistic household. My guess is that the number is high. Where I can find that statistic?
Posted by: twilight | October 27, 2008 2:26 PM
Science is probably not entirely incompatible with some weak form of Deism, sort of like what Jefferson was reputed to have held to. Then again, Deism itself is kinda pointless - except for fundies, who can use the "oh, you accept Deism?" opportunity to bootstrap in their God.
Cos, after all, if you think there could have been some sort of being who might have been behind the creation of the universe, then obviously the only possible candidate is the war-God of the ancient Hebrews.
Posted by: Larry Teabag | October 27, 2008 2:27 PM
I'd agree with the argument that scientific thinking, if consistently applied, does contradict religion. But that's moving quite a distance from the question that was asked: whether evolution specifically implies atheism, to which the correct answer is an unconditional "no".
It is perfectly possible to draw a line between physical and metaphysical reality, and say "yes, scientific thinking is good for physical reality, but we need something else for metaphysical". This is definitely not a scientific approach, and you may well consider it a cheat - I do too. But it is at least internally consistent.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 2:28 PM
I suppose it's worth noting that there is sound evidence aside from scientific evidence. There are eyewitness accounts, historical acounts, letters, financial records, objects on exhibit, etc.
Of course the problem is what we're talking about when we bring up "science." In some sense, we'd include everything sensible as at least being in the realm of science, and we consider "non-scientific evidence" to be sound only if it is treated "like scientific evidence." Furthermore, we do not consider financial records and eyewitness accounts to be much other than place holders for more fundamental scientific matters (and both can be analyzed scientifically).
So it's mostly a semantic issue to say that there is "non-scientific evidence." However the theists who come on and argue here are not above semantic games. Hence this attempt at clarification.
And of course we know about the "non-scientific evidence" that people like Salt want us to accept, which are "eyewitness accounts" by people completely unknown to us, which were passed down in a chain of receivership which cannot be verified, and which is absurd on the face of it. Not only is it not scientific evidence, it cannot be counted as historical evidence as such (except that it is evidence of what people historically believed).
Oh, there might be fragmentary evidence in, say, the first 12 chapters of Genesis, although we can only accept it as such if it correlates with other ancient sources. But as a whole, it is evidence for the belief of some Jews at various times, and little else.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 2:28 PM
Vague troll iz vague.
Posted by: druidbros | October 27, 2008 2:28 PM
Salt, since you have answered not one of our questions I think you have lost your flavor.
"that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion..." is not evidence. Its just an acceptance of the 'facsts' which support your opinion. Now thats myopic.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 2:32 PM
I see a lesson in in non-scientific evidence is necessary here. Here is an example. The King did not have Sir Thomas More's signature as physical evidence to his assent to the Kings demand(s). Though repeatable with same result, as More steadfastly refused to give physical evidence (testimony of some sort or a signature), such [scientific] inquiry could produce no tangible result.
More's silence, being not physical, was nevertheless evidence.
By law, silence is assent, therefore one must construe that More assented. This was More's defense, and rightly so under the law. Interestingly enough, it took perjured testimony (false evidence) to bring More down.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:33 PM
Exactly Glen. All of the above are not derived by scientific method but are verifiable by different fields' use of it.
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 2:38 PM
Hmm, I have no time to read all the comments, so I don't know what views have so far been expressed. All I can say is that I disagree with many of Dr. Myers' claims. Religion (rather, Christianity, as I am in no position and possess no desire to defend all religion) and science are not antithetical.
I will keep my testimony brief, as I doubt it will be much read or considered, and any one curious is welcome to communicate their inquiries to me. Growing up, I was taught very conservative Christian beliefs; we thought of Baptists as theologically liberal. (I would also add that, despite caricatures, we were not in the slightest bit politically active - it was not our place to impose our beliefs on the government.) I was also a most ardent and vociferous young earth creationist, as is my family. However, beginning late in high school and developing throughout my undergraduate studies in biology, I've become an evolutionist (i.e. a scientist.) However, my faith has not changed (though I have become more politically-active, with a definite leftward lean.) Evolution is simply a part of God's work in the world, and something that I will continue to study (not as a particular focus - I am anticipating entry into the dual PhD program in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Evolution at Michigan State).
Why do I believe in God? Why do I believe in these fairy tales? Because it makes sense of the whole of reality, not just the parts I can put in a test tube. The scientist says "Let us constrain are studies to only that which can be measured" and then mistakes this for an ontological proof.
Most of all, God explains "explainability." Why does science work? Why are the little sacs of protoplasm that comprise our brains able to even ask, much less explore, such grand questions as the development of life on earth, the size of the universe, and the fine subatomic structure of matter? Why is it all so beautiful?
I have not fully articulated my beliefs here - I have merely summarized them. Bear that in mind as you pan this post.
BTW, do not think for a moment that people are necessarily thinking scientifically when they think atheistically. I have not found this to be the case. It is quite often the very opposite.
Sorry for the length, and any issues of incoherence. I was quite distracted writing this.
Posted by: The Swiss | October 27, 2008 2:38 PM
Chad #10:[QUOTE]There simply is no logical way to go from a field of scientific study/research ( like biology ) and conclude 'atheism'.[/QUOTE]
huf #18:[QUOTE]The way i see it, science has nothing to say on the existence or nonexistence of god. It's simply not in its scope.[/QUOTE]
How so? This is a cheap one: "your methods can't say anything about this (because I say so)". The main (and convincingly argued) point in Dawkin's The God Delusion, and a secondary one in Dennett's Breaking the Spell, for instance, is that no, religious claims such as the existence of a supreme being are very factual --- if they can ever be pinned down to some precise statement. These claims have [I]implications[/I] that can be checked out against reality. Or if they don't have consequences for reality, then why in the world should they be entertained? Moreover, science deals with whatever it wants. To claim that some "domain of experience" lies beyond science is gratuitous: one should give very good reasons for believing that (not just some word-play ending with "... and so, by definition, God lies outside of the material universe"), given that scientific thinking has a very good score wherever it has been applied so far.
Sorry, but this pisses me off.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 2:39 PM
God's silence is evidence that he feels he is unnecessary.
Posted by: The Swiss | October 27, 2008 2:40 PM
... so much so, that I've lost my little html-skills :-)
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 2:41 PM
Y'know, speaking of worthy questions, it's interesting that Salt only now notices the Rev's worthy question. How many times was that some form of this challenge made in this thread?
#51, TSG: "What is evidence to one jury to convict could well be lack of evidence to another to acquit"
Meaning what, exactly?
#53, Rev. BDC: Your point? [...] Just because people don't see it the same way does not give both sides equal weight.
#69, me: For Salt and Vox, this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
#73, Nerd of Redhead: Otherwise, how do we separate between you being a bullshitter and truth teller.
#77, tomh: You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
#84, Rev. BDC: What other evidence then? Please enlighten us.
#90, me: [Your evidence...] is rejected by the scientific community. You just don't want to look at why. Much easier to mutter "none so blind..."
#95, tomh: You could have simply said, I have no evidence.
#97, druidbros: Really? Emperical evidence of your God? Please share with us what that would be?
#103, druidbros: Again, what other evidence do you have?
#107, Rev. BDC: Now please enlighten me to the other ways of knowing that you consider evidence?
#108, Naked Bunny: No, the same kind of evidence you demand for everything in your life *except* your religious beliefs.
#109, tsg: You've dodged questions, refused to clarify your vague and empty comments...
#111, Eric Saveau: Damn; Salt is a marvel to behold. He never makes anything remotely like an argument...
#115, Celtic_Evolution: Have your very premise torn to shreds, be called out for changing the subject and re-formatting the question, refuse to address direct questions...
#116, me: Like I said...he doesn't want to confront why science rejects his approach. Much better to run away when challenged for his evidence and insist we Will Not See(tm).
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 2:41 PM
I see you are not able to answer a simple question without engaging in condescension.
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 2:42 PM
In the other thread, I also gave a qualified 'yes' to the question of whether evolution implies atheism. I think it depends on how far you're going to follow the implications of evolution, and how you're going to classify God. If you approach the existence of God like you would approach any other hypothesis, then it fails for the same sorts of reasons that vitalism, dualism, and magic fail.
As theories, they all "feel" right. Life is a special invisible force which gets into inanimate matter in order to make it move. Minds are immaterial entities which exist in a realm which is higher than the physical, and they can move our body through the direct force of their wishes. Everything in the universe is connected by their underlying meanings, resemblances, and similarities. Children tend to naturally fall into this kind of egocentric thinking. It's how our brains evolved to make sense of things. They don't seem like hypotheses: they seem like ordinary observations. The entire universe is very mind-like and person-centered.
Scientific thinking is corrosive of religious belief because scientific thinking is bottom-up thinking, and religious belief is top-down thinking. In religion, you explain mind by claiming that it's always existed as a kind of consciousness power, and our minds come out of that. Life comes from a life source; reason comes from a reason force; morals come from a moral source; creativity is performed by Creative Power; emotions are reflections of Emotion. It's all irreducible and eternal and there's no need for any explanation above brute fact. Like comes from like. That's religious thinking in a nutshell.
In science, you try to build up to complicated things by breaking them down into less complicated things, in order to see how and why they work. Evolution (and chemistry and astronomy and all the sciences) demonstrate that new things come out of things that aren't like them at all. Creativity GROWS out of processes that have no intention. Life is built up of non-living components. And there is no special, significant, central place for humans or their consciousness.
The specific religious beliefs are learned, but "like comes from like" is intuitively reasonable. God is intuitively reasonable. A disciplined, bottom-up approach to understanding reality shows us, however, that our intuitions are wrong. God is not an experience; it's an inference from experience. And our inferences can be wrong.
So the way to protect the idea of God is to pretend that it's not a fact claim: it's more like a feeling. Or an attitude. Or a value. Or -- look out the window, isn't that sunset pretty! God. Religious belief makes us feel so good. And it works so well, for so many.
That little dialogue from Contact is a perfect example of the subtle switch.
"Did you love your father? Prove it!"
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
But that's a terrible analogy. Loving God is like loving your father -- or loving an invisible pretend person. Believing in God's existence is like believing in your father's existence. Apples are being compared to oranges, in that emotions are being compared to the thing you're emotional about.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 2:46 PM
Hey, B. Evan Carlson.
That's nice. But at least admit there's no evidence for your particular god.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 27, 2008 2:46 PM
I want to point out that there are numerous ways of of going after the "does evolution imply atheism"? I had to become an atheist and let the logical implications work through my head before I could get comfortable with evolution.
In my early teens, I was the strange mix of christian fundamentalism and liberal ideals. Needless to say, I felt very uncomfortable in social studies classes whentalking about prehistoric humanity and natural sciences when Darwin came up. By the time I was seventeen, I stopped believing in any sort of deity. (In essence, for me the idea of deities made no sense and was inherently unfair.)
But the attitudes I built up, I had to work through. For example, during my freshman year in college, I was in my militant stage of atheism. So much so that students I barely knew would confront me about my lack of belief. Yet at the same time, I had a difficult time reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene because of my left over belief that humans were meant for more then being just an other by product of life.
Now I feel comfort and wonderment in humanity's part of nature. But at that time I thought humans were apart from nature. And that was the lingering aftermath of the god belief I had. And it effected how easily I accepted the ideas of the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Clemens | October 27, 2008 2:47 PM
While science does not directly disprove god, it just makes it harder and harder to justify a believe in him.
In the early days, just about every stupid thing was attributed to god: Thunder, Lightning, Rainbows, Floods, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune.
When physics kicked in, the celestial bodies, thunder, lightning and rainbows were taken away from god. When evolution came up, the origin of species was taken away from him. And wherever he hides now, science will hunt him down.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:47 PM
Salt explain to me how legal evidence like you've posted above can be used to support a notion on the supernatural. Then once you are done explain to me how evidence like you've posted above can be used in science along side research that produces hard data and makes predictions.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | October 27, 2008 2:48 PM
I think we've been asking Salt the wrong questions. Here's one for you, Salt: Which came first, the salt or the potato chip, or did they arise simultaneously through divine ordination? Go ahead, ruminate on that one for a while.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 2:48 PM
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
Legalism is a favorite misdirection tactic of lying creotards. They know they're going apples-to-oranges with their use of the terms, they're just hoping they can skate by without being called on it. Obviously, that doesn't work here.
Posted by: abb3w | October 27, 2008 2:51 PM
Depends on the exact definitions for "evolution", "imply", and "atheism". Understanding the process of formal inference and accumulated evidence which leads the validation of evolution, also leads to weakening acceptance of the usual arguments affirming existence of arbitrary particular deities from present evidence.
More or less the same thing as PZ said, but with bigger words.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 2:53 PM
Or, we could just say that we need "sound empirical evidence," and avoid the issue of "scientific evidence" and how it can be used to equivocate.
We lack empirical evidence for god, whether it is meaningful eyewitness evidence, historical evidence, or scientific evidence. That's the issue. And we'd need empirical evidence if we were to accept God's existence.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 2:55 PM
Heavens, don't do that... the last thing we need is to get in to the whole "which came first, the slut or the egg" conversation...
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 27, 2008 2:56 PM
Personally, I think that the vast distances between stars, most of which are unsuitable for the existence of life (at least as far as we know), is far more compelling evidence for atheism. I see nothing in the vastness of the geologic time scale or the evolution of species from a common ancestor that would by itself suggest the non-existence of a creator-deity.
That's just my opinion of course. But, to be honest, if an evangelical Christian were going to succeed in bringing me to Jesus by disproving contemporary science, she would have better luck if she were to argue that the earth is really a flat disc under a solid dome than to argue that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 3:03 PM
@B Evan Carlson, #142
"God explains "explainability.""
That is one of the problems with theism in general. Once you come up against a question that is fundamentally difficult to answer, you'll rest it on THE answer. There is no question you can't answer with 'god'; because the supernatural is unobservable and unprovable, there is no way to question it as an answer (assuming belief, at least).
THIS is why we have such issues arguing against creationists and their ilk; they've decided that there is a question that CAN'T be answered, and so they've answered it with their ultimate answer, and find all manner of excuses to dismiss any other answer to the question.
You might believe that things are ordered because of your god, and that he allows an explanation for things outside your understanding, but that means that you'll never try to explore for better answers to the same problem. Most of the time when science answers a difficult question, it ends up creating several new questions. (Where did we come from? We evolved. From what? Some Common Ancestor. Where did it come from? Single celled Organisms. Where'd they come from? Abiogenesis (presumably). What created that? A chemical reaction on early Earth. What caused that? The big bang. What came before that? That's a very7 good question!)
At any step, we can stop and insert god, and the line of questions stops. We stop learning. And that's bad. While you may answer something with 'god' now, days, months, years, decades, centuries or longer from now, someone will answer it with science. Why be so sure of a bad answer now? Why not try and answer it better?
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 3:04 PM
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 2:42 PM
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
I like that. I really do.
But that's a terrible analogy. Loving God is like loving your father -- or loving an invisible pretend person. Believing in God's existence is like believing in your father's existence. Apples are being compared to oranges, in that emotions are being compared to the thing you're emotional about.
The bolded part is slight of hand as it conflates the spiritual with the physical, equating apples to oranges so to speak. 'Loving' both apples and oranges is absolutely possible without such false comparison. It's not the nature of either the apples or the oranges that is the issue, but the nature of love, and I quote -
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 3:08 PM
I believe there are evidences that make it more likely that the faith I have accepted is true and that others are not, and that these evidences are significant enough to compel me to commit myself to my faith. For instance, it would appear that a polytheistic universe of embattled gods is difficult to belief in a world of natural law, orderliness, and regularity. We would then have to go down a long rabbit hole and begin discussing historical evidences, but this is hardly the time or place, and though I can proffer some evidences, I am hardly one qualified to discuss historiography and archaeology.
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2008 3:10 PM
Most of all, God explains "explainability." Why does science work?
Hephaestus.
Why are the little sacs of protoplasm that comprise our brains able to even ask, much less explore, such grand questions as the development of life on earth, the size of the universe, and the fine subatomic structure of matter?
Athena.
Why is it all so beautiful?
Aphrodite.
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 27, 2008 3:12 PM
Bullshit. You can observe a person's behavior over time, see if they behave in a matter that is consistent with love. Do they act as if their father is important to them? Or do they consistently ignore him? Indeed, in principle, it may be possible one day to put electrodes in someone's skull and directly detect emotions, such as love.
More to the point, you can prove that their father exists. It is, however, possible to like, or love, an imaginary entity. Just because you "love God" doesn't make God real.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:14 PM
Salt babbles on...
Right... and this makes total sense as long as you conveniently forget to contextually define "love". Loving "apples and oranges" in not at all the same thing as "loving your father", or "loving your spouse"... umm... well, for those of us who aren't physically aroused by fruit anyhow...
"Loving" an apple is totally scientifically explainable. Therefor, your clever attempt at turning the "apples and oranges" statement into something it was never intended to convey is totally flawed, and utterly fails.
Posted by: Muffin | October 27, 2008 3:15 PM
"Evolution kicked the last big prop out from under the usefulness of God as an explanation. He was remaindered. Not necessary."
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This god is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GOD!!
(And yeah, I'm fully aware of the irony of the "meet 'is maker" bit here... ^^)
Posted by: druidbros | October 27, 2008 3:15 PM
Salt translation.....I have evidence and you dont. Na nanana na na.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 3:18 PM
Sorry but that's opinion not evidence.
Posted by: InTheImageOfDNA | October 27, 2008 3:21 PM
I'd have to agree PZ. When it came out that I was an atheist among my family and friends, a close friend of mine - whom I'd almost nearly convinced of evolution - switched in defense to Kent Hovind-ish YEC-ism. We talked about the issue at length one evening and I'll say the same thing now as I did then as I find it still to be true: evolution isn't the reason that I don't believe in a god.
And obviously many smart people agree. Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and William Phillips among them. One can understand evolution completely and still hold to theism. But what they don't do - and what you are right on about here PZ - is that they aren't thinking scientifically about the issue. They obfuscate the issue to death and call anyone who doesn't agree with them unsophisticated but they are doing exactly what Dawkins is talking about when he describes cordoning off areas of the mind.
When one rationally and scientifically considers all of religious belief and experience, one comes up with the common denominator of human psychology as any supernatural explanation is logically inconsistent. When one rationally thinks about and looks at the studies of prayer one realizes that it is confirmation bias and ad hoc attribution. And when one really gets down to the nitty gritty way that people think "god" acts in the world, one realizes that it is simply interpreting mindless natural occurrences as the acts of intentional agency - a product of our thinking that was shaped by evolution.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:23 PM
And the nature of belief, but not the nature of god.
No one's asking you to prove you believe in god.
The argument is whether or not god exists.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 3:24 PM
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 2:48 PM
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
The question was about non-scientific evidence.
Your's is an example of a fighting retreat back into the womb of science.
Posted by: JM | October 27, 2008 3:24 PM
I think that it is worth reminding people of this:
"[Thomas Henry] Huxley describes how he came to originate the term "agnostic" as follows:"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html - a definition I rather like: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
To me, that definition of agnosticism sounds much more like (weak) atheism than it does the wishy-washy fence-sitting definition of 'agnosticism' that is so often seen nowadays.
I'd say that the fact and theory of evolution certainly eliminates religions that insist on a creation myth, but that it doesn't invalidate deism (name your god!) at all. I regard myself as an agnostic (tendence Huxley) and a weak atheist, and spend no time worrying about whether a god or gods exist.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:28 PM
OK... and his response is wrong how?
Posted by: Eva | October 27, 2008 3:35 PM
For Christ's sake. There is altogether too much agnostic-bashing here. It makes me wonder why I come to hang out here at all.
33 wrote:
"If you are being truly 'honest', then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence."
YES!!! I am *perfectly* happy to be unsure about the Easter Bunny. I know every anti-agnostic loves to trot that out and say oh haha, you aren't even content to not believe in that?
There is nothing wrong with knowing that I can't know any truth to what exists. I am perfectly willing to refrain from judgement on the Easter Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all the rest of those thought experiments.
It's just fine to me. They don't impact my life in the end anyway, so why *shouldn't* I grant that it is possible they exist? It doesn't leave me strung up in the air indecisive. You know what *would* bother me and keep me up at nights? If I flat-out denied they could not exist. I would have a hard time living that way, because it would not be philosophically correct.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 27, 2008 3:38 PM
As we all know, the Great Dawkins himself only wrote that "Darwin made it possible [my emphasis] to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist". Even he did not claim that the theory of evolution compelled atheism - neither did Darwin, come to that.
Does knowledge of science erode religious belief? It can, although it depends on the nature of the belief. If a faith allows itself to be framed by the gaps in our scientific knowledge then it avoids an epistemological conflict that it is bound to lose. If a god is banished by definition to a supernatural realm beyond the reach of science then it is unassailable.
But, does science disprove the existence of any and all gods? No, it doesn't, nor does it make such a claim. What it says is that, thus far, it has been able to construct hypotheses and theories which successfully explain various aspects of the natural world without having to invoke the concept of a deity. It makes sense to carry on doing just that until there is a good reason to do otherwise.
On the old agnostic/atheist head-butting contest, obviously there is considerable overlap between what is usually meant by the two words. I am happy to concede that for all practical purposes I am atheist. I call myself agnostic for one simple reason: I want to emphasize doubt. To me, the real danger from either religious belief or political ideology stems from the conviction that we have access to some sort of Absolute Truth - an Absolute Truth which justifies anything done to further it. Agnosticism is a claim about such knowledge or the possibility thereof. It is a position of doubt, a recognition of the provisional nature of our knowledge. It's not an easy position to hold nor does it have much appeal. Most people want the security of certainty and are instinctively drawn to whatever or whoever promises it and therein lies the problem with the more assertive style of atheism. When confronting claims that a god certainly exists, it is all too easy to be drawn into making the counter-claim that 'no it most certainly does not' - to give way to the temptation to counter-balance one certainty with another. And while it may be what some people believe - that the chances of a particular god existing are so small that we can safely ignore them - it goes beyond what we can claim as being scientifically justified.
So, no, neither the theory of evolution nor any other in science implies atheism. There is nothing in them which precludes the possibility of a being which created the universe in which they operate, neither are they dependent in any way on assuming the existence of such a being. We simply don't know and, as far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly acceptable to say so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 3:40 PM
Why should I give time to the easter bunny when there is exactly zero evidence of it actually being real?
I have no problem saying there is no easter bunny. But I leave open the possibility that if someone can bring me evidence of said jovial basket carrying Sylvilagus that I would change my mind.
Until there. There is no such thing as the easter bunny.
Why should I think differently?
Posted by: druidbros | October 27, 2008 3:43 PM
OK I'll bite. Salt what legal evidence do you have for the existence of your 'God'?
Posted by: Eva | October 27, 2008 3:43 PM
And at 78:
"Given the nature of knowledge, and the inability to truly know anything with 'absolute certainty' (outside of math or formal logic), it seems to me that a large portion of the theist population would also call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down."
... I was going to quote this to say yes, exactly, but then I realized you wrote "theist" rather than "atheist". I would reckon that with that emphasis on what it is possible to know, a large portion of the "atheist" population would call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down.
I'm sick of atheists telling me I'm not agnostic, I'm atheist -- it would be just as right for me to tell atheists they're not atheist, they're agnostic.
Agnosticism is not something warm and fuzzy and quasi-religious to hide behind. Those are slurs that you can maybe apply elsewhere in the world but it's ridiculous to apply to agnostics who happen to hang out in atheist joints, as it were. It's not that the agnostics you like are atheist and the rest are theist, though. Some people are indeed well and truly agnostic, not atheist, and not religious fuzzy.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:23 PM
And the nature of belief, but not the nature of god.
No one's asking you to prove you believe in god.
The argument is whether or not god exists.
I'm going to be snide here a sec and say "argument"? An argument would seemingly be improper within the context of scientific inquiry, excepting possibly math (if math is truly considered a science). Actually, "argument" is more readily applicable to law than scientific inquiry (gets a dig in on Eric Saveau).
Scientifically proving the spiritual; evidence of God. Is science, applied science of whatever bent, which deals (correct me if I'm wrong) solely within the realm of the physical universe, capable of such?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 3:44 PM
If I didn't know better, I would say Salt is Baba in godbot disguise. He has the same qualities. PZ, if you wander by, could you give us a laugh by disemvoweling Salt? It may even make his rants more coherent.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 3:45 PM
Wow. Militant Agnosticism is as bad as christian fundamentalism!
*wink*
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 3:45 PM
I was not asked to give evidence, I was only asked to admit that there was none. I stated that I do no concede that point. It did not behoove me to elaborate any more on the issue. If you would like to do that in such depth, the comments thread on a single post of a blog is not the site for constructive discussion.
Furthermore, I did give an example of an evidence that bears on the issue (the consistency of natural law), and my opinion of it. And it bears noting that the presentation of the difference between opinion and evidence suggests an outdated and simplistic view of science: the early inductivist philosophy of science made the same error, suggesting that theories (explanatory principles) arose naturally from the data. This is rejected today by (I believe) all philosophers of science - human minds interpret data and create theories. It doesn't mean they are untrue, but it creates a fuzzy distinction between the facts and the opinions we are to draw from them. This is why I state that it is my opinion (perhaps you would have preferred "interpretation" or "conclusion").
As I ponder this issue, it occurs to me that perhaps evidence only becomes evidence by how we think about. There are various facts about the world, and how we use these facts determines whether they are evidence. To me, someone stating the origin of species through variation, mutation and selection as an evidence against God is as logical as the statement that bluegrass mandolin music is evidence of fusion in the sun.
Posted by: Doug | October 27, 2008 3:46 PM
Again, I don't see the two belief systems (agnosticism and atheism) as mutually exclusive. I think one is about belief and the other is about knowledge. I don't know if god (or santa, or the easter bunny, of the FSM) exist or not, but I don't believe in him/her/it/them. I heard once that the reason why we we so frequently organize knowledge into mutually exclusive dichotomies has to do with the cultural roots of our philosophy, and that on other cultures 'fuzzy' philosophy is much more common. I don't know if that is true or not but it's an interesting idea and one that I would like to know more about. If anyone has a source for that line of thought, I would be appreciate enlightenment.
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2008 3:47 PM
There is nothing wrong with knowing that I can't know any truth to what exists.
Except that the very expression is logically contradictory.
it would not be philosophically correct.
I hate these fundamentalist agnostics. They're so... militant.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 3:48 PM
It's evidence that no creator is necessary. God is superfluous and pointless.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:49 PM
For the record, that is my comment, not Eric's.
The question was in response to your comment @#61:
and was:
What evidence (scientific or otherwise) is there that science is not the "end all of all that there is"?
Your response is an equivocation on the meaning of the word "evidence" and not an indictment of the scientific method. In other words, a dodge.
Posted by: Eva | October 27, 2008 3:50 PM
Re: "Why should I give time to the easter bunny when there is exactly zero evidence of it actually being real?"
But I don't give time to it (heck, whoever brought it into this discussion in the first place is the real culprit in us all ending up giving some time to it -- normally, I don't even post here because I think it's a big fat waste of time, in itself). I just don't deny it is possible it could exist.
Why should you think it not even possible for it to be real? It's just not a philosophically tenable conclusion. There's not exactly zero *chance* that it's real. Epsilon, but not zero, and this is a statement about possibilities.
Most atheists would like to label me atheist. Sorry, they should be labelled agnostic. It's not fuzzy. It's not that I fear a label of "militant" atheism. I just don't think atheism is exactly correct.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 3:54 PM
Well it seemed like you did..
Unless you miss typed. I do it frequently.
Yes of course human minds use data to create theories. But it's much more than an opinion on what that data means. Theories do more than just organize data in to a thought, they also explain how that data is relevant and also make predictions on what that data will mean in the future.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:54 PM
"philosophically correct."
Wow... now there's a whole NEW topic of conversation... what the hell does that even mean?
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 3:54 PM
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:28 PM
OK... and his response is wrong how?
Because "in a legal sense" is is not the point, as I did what was asked, even provided an example of non-scientific evidence. Lets get up to speed please.
Posted by: Eva | October 27, 2008 3:56 PM
I come to this website to read about what's going on in religious imperialism, and what happens? I get attacked even when most atheists don't disagree with my opinions. What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:58 PM
No Salt, you MADE it the point when you equivocated with a non-sequitur... You just don't like being called on it. YOU keep up, please...
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 3:58 PM
B. Evan Carlson:
Thanks for fully participating in the debate, and respecting the participation of others. I'm sure your comments will be given similar consideration.
Is the notion of "God" explicable? If not, how does it explain "explainability"?
Why are the little sacs of protoplasm moored on a infinitesimally small dot in a universe that is trillions of cubic light years of vacuum at a little above absolute zero?
If there is nothing else one can say for your god, it is that he is incredibly inefficient.
Posted by: Susan | October 27, 2008 4:01 PM
Salt's only "victory" is in managing to waste a whole lot of smart people's time. And that's it.
Posted by: windy | October 27, 2008 4:06 PM
Eva:
Atheism is not a claim of absolute certainty.
Who attacked you?
If you think we need to have absolute certainty before arguing for atheism or any other position, maybe you are not a very good ally.
And what exactly does it mean to "lose" you as an ally? You will become a theist if someone's mean to you on the internet? You will stop supporting science or some other goal that we have in common? What?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:06 PM
Attack of an idea is not an attack of a person. If you can't make that distinction than you probably shouldn't be hanging out here, especially if you think my comment you quoted is a personal attack.
All you are describing is "all knowledge is conditional" which is what most rationalists believe anyway. There's nothing anti-agnostic about it. Short of mathematics and logic, the only thing that can be proven with 100% certainty is that you exist, and you can only prove that to yourself. All other knowledge is conditional based on what we can observe, and is subject to modification as more information is presented.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible to make judgments on the likelihood of a claim based on the evidence. Do you think the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are likely to exist? I don't. I think they are extremely unlikely and thus, I say "they don't exist" with the implied understanding that I could be wrong even if I think it is extremely unlikely that I am. In other words, my position is that they don't exist and I will only be convinced that they do by sufficient evidence to the contrary. I hold the same position with god.
If, on the other hand, your position is that because we can't know one way or the other that either is just as likely to be true, then I disagree entirely.
And if your position is that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. are very unlikely to be true but god is 50/50, then I think you are being intellectually dishonest because you are making a special case for a claim even more extraordinary than any of the other examples given.
I can say that god doesn't exist with the same certainty I say that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, leprechauns and unicorns don't exist, and it is not intellectually dishonest in the least.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 4:07 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:49 PM
Your response is an equivocation on the meaning of the word "evidence" and not an indictment of the scientific method. In other words, a dodge.
I have not, nor do I, indict the scientific method. I have no rational basis to do so. So, what would I be dodging? The problem here seems to be that, again, the only evidence acceptable here is that generated by scientific inquiry.
You seem quite willing to make statements and/or inquiry ~i.e. concerning the existence of God/god(s) from a foundation, science, completely non-equipped to make such inquiry. I find this most amusing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 4:07 PM
BEC, you can believe in your god. I think most of us here will give you that. But we don't have to believe in your god, and that is where the problem usually starts. People of faith don't like non-believers, so they try impose their belief on us. We fight back, so we are the militant ones?
On science per se, since it ignores god in all things, it is atheistic (I would really prefer adeistic, which doesn't appear to be a word) in methodology. Individual scientists can be and are believers in god. Some of us find this strange, but it makes them happy, and if it doesn't affect their work we can live with it. You don't need to be defensive about your belief. Best though, if you quit trying to explain it.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 4:14 PM
Eva. We just like busting on agnostics. They're usually not so defensive. :D
It is weird that you claim to be agnostic about the easter bunny. Some agnostics seem to fly that agnostic banner as if it's some honor... that leaving open the possibility is somehow more logical than the atheistic "the likelyhood is so silly that it's impossible therefor nonexistent".
I mean really? Ohhhh, but we "don't know"!
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 4:15 PM
Eva - You haven't seen anything yet. Wait till the witching hour when the trollops, sluts, man-whores, strumpets, lesbians, gays, drunks, bikers, fornicator's and old goats come out.
Many of the Maenads and followers of Pan and Bacchus are still sleeping it off at this point.
Posted by: Newfie | October 27, 2008 4:15 PM
I look at a cloud and see the shape of an elephant. I know that it is not an elephant, but in fact, a visible grouping of ice crystals in the sky. But it still resembles the shape of an elephant. Religion is a way to see things, usually an ignorant way, but a way none the less. I can believe in the message of Jesus, even though I don't believe in the historical existence of Jesus. In that way only, I am a Christian.
Religion, I think, was a way to learn life lessons. An uneducated, illiterate farmer might not have all the answers to the questions that his child might ask, or that he may even pose to himself. A weekly gathering of people from the countryside to learn and discuss these life questions was important in advancing civilization. But, religion was a tool, a way to share a message. And like any tool, some found other uses for it. Religion became power, and authority, and generated great wealth for some. And with power, wealth and authority, corruption and greed soon take over.
And that is basically what we're left with now. The people preaching, know that the bible isn't literal. But their profession is based on the continuation of some of the literal myths. We've seen a rise in fundamental religions in the world in the last 60 to 70 years. People who will believe in the literal, in face of reason and evidence have become a huge voting bloc. Leaders pander to that bloc, and create policies to enable and perpetuate that voting bloc because it is in their interests.
Today, the messages and teachings of Jesus/Mohamed/Moses/FSM do not need the structure of a Church/Mosque/Temple/Italian Restaurant. The important messages and life lessons can be learned in a myriad of different ways. Religion was the message, not a deity or afterlife. Those were, and are, only scare tactics to put asses in the pews.
I do not believe in a supreme being, but I do believe in the teachings of Christ.
So sayeth the Newf... with a dash of Gandhi.
Posted by: debaser71 | October 27, 2008 4:16 PM
(A)gnosticism is about knowledge.
(A)theism is about belief.
Agnosticism isn't the midpoint on a scale where atheism and theism are on opposite ends.
One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. To just say that you are an agnostic doesn't tell me anything about what you believe..."ok so you don't know but what do you believe?"
Again, sorry if I am repeating what others have said.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 4:17 PM
"What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies."
I'll start by pointing out that I agree with you general position, but I think we have some key differences which are at this point irrelevant.
But to answer your point -- The key thing that causes my most major distaste for religion isn't its incorrectness, but rather its tendency to cause large groups of people to nod their heads and agree for no reason.
I don't think I would be comfortable in any group that didn't argue within the ranks. It gives you tough skin, and it sharpens your ideas. We may have common ideas and principals, but we're open to dissent -- the key thing is that dissenters need to defend their ideas if they want to challenge the accepted balance. You may be talking semantics here, but you're still upsetting what the majority of us think of as Atheism. You're welcome (and I'd even say encouraged!) to dissent, but it doesn't mean it's an easy trip.
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 4:18 PM
The "evidence" I offered wasn't intended to be presented rigorously for discussion and analysis, however; I was merely trying to give an example of the type of evidences that I've considered and not actually present my case. Apparently in my perception it a rather superficial statement, but I can see how others would read that as me stating evidence.
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that I am operating under a definition of opinion that I feel you introduced. I started a statement with "I believe ..." and you declared that to be opinion (implying, of course, MERE opinion.) I tried (I think, though I may have lost consistency, which is easy to do when distracted)to stick with that definition of opinion (=belief). Belief is relevant to discussion of theory. One must believe a theory (def. of believe = accept as true), one must believe that the data means one thing and not another, etc. Very intelligent men and women, within communities and between, often do not believe the same theories. There is a judgment call required - the evidence doesn't necessarily present a single indisputable theory. My statement then about what I believe is a statement of belief and of evidence - I accept one interpretation of the evidence, because my analysis indicates that it is better. I may be presented with evidence in the future that would cause me to reject my present analysis, but it has not been shown to me.
This is what I was thinking, they I most likely did not relate it well.
P.S. Enjoying the discussion, but will likely be unable to respond. As it so happens, I'm off to a seminar course on the relation between evolution and Christianity.
Posted by: Obeah | October 27, 2008 4:18 PM
Why is it that all trolls find logic amusing?
Why is it that what they FEEL to be the truth, makes them think they are superior?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:18 PM
My irony meter exploded.
Dodge, dodge, dodge, red herring, unmitigated bullshit. I'm not taking the bait.
Yes. If god is observable, then science can tell whether or not it exists. If it isn't, then nobody can know, including those who think they do. If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2008 4:21 PM
this is a statement about possibilities.
Okay. So, you believe there is a non-zero probability that you will be subjected to eternal torment after you die, but you have no qualms whatsoever about simply ignoring this possibility and going merrily about your sinning ways?
It's all fun and games when we're talking about trivial shit like the EB: who over the age of eight cares where their Cadbury Egg or whatever comes from, right? Gimme the goods! But, taken at face value, religious claims are serious, and horrific. That you don't care about them implies that you're not as agnostic about them as you'd like to claim; or you're not taking them at face value, implying that you're bringing a "philosophically incorrect" level of prior knowledge to the matter.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 27, 2008 4:22 PM
For what it is worth, I'm with you 100% on this issue, Dr Myers.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 4:23 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 4:07 PM
we don't have to believe in your god, and that is where the problem usually starts. People of faith don't like non-believers, so they try impose their belief on us. We fight back, so we are the militant ones?
Oh, there are some very militant believers. Anyway, the problem is the seemingly competing belief structures found within the public sphere.
Just my opinion here, but many, even most, believers do not have a problem with evolution being taught in schools. The science/evidence supports it enough to its inclusion. The problem arises when evolution intrudes into abiogenesis, which I interpret here as "first cause"; unanswerable (that the universe could be without God/god(s) as postulated by science is not the final word on "does He exist").
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:26 PM
It is your assertion that there are other ways of knowing besides the scientific method. You were asked to provide examples and did not. You are dodging.
What makes science non-equipped to make this judgment?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 4:29 PM
I come to this website to read about what's going on in religious imperialism, and what happens? I get attacked even when most atheists don't disagree with my opinions. What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies.
I sure hope you we're referring to me? If you were please explain how i was attacking you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 4:31 PM
bah. blockquote fail
I sure hope you we're referring to me? If you were please explain how i was attacking you.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 4:31 PM
Salt -
Which was done in this thread by whom, at what point?
Evolution has zero to say about abiogenesis... and most of us here repeat that quite often...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 4:32 PM
Don't worry Salt, science will eventually solve the abiogenesis problem, and your alleged god will have to retreat to an even finer gap. Just what you need, a god that has to duck and hide. Eventually he will get so small that he doesn't exist.
Posted by: Dennis N | October 27, 2008 4:33 PM
There is nothing wrong with science investigating abiogenesis. It's quite answerable. Look at Urey-Miller. It's scientific, it's possible, it's a hot topic of study.
Here's the thing, nothing Jesus said was all that new or revolutionary. It had all been said before. Much of what he said was either wrong or immoral. Keep the good stuff, acknowledge it didn't come from Jesus, and drop the guy.
Posted by: windy | October 27, 2008 4:34 PM
If Eva really is *unsure* about whether the Easter Bunny exists, like she claims, mysterious eggs could potentially settle the issue. (Unless hare eggs miraculously transsubstantiate to chocolate?)
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 4:34 PM
Come on Salt, do try to be a bit more entertaining.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 4:36 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:18 PM
If [God} isn't [observable], then nobody can know, including those who think they do.
Do we need to revisit the 'love' discussion we just had?
If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
Sounds like a non-scientific inquiry to me, suggesting seeking evidence outside of the realm of science. Be very careful, as your head might explode.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:40 PM
Do you really think it has anything to do with what we're discussing?
In what way?
Lose the self-righteousness, Salt. It's a sure sign you've got no argument.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 4:41 PM
Again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 4:43 PM
One last word ...
If this is a response to me, than you have failed to understand me.
Nothing that I feel makes me think I am superior. I am responding to the superiority complex of others by explicitly couching my statements in a fair amount of uncertainty. Two people discuss evidence, each comes do different conclusions (what they believe to be right), and either one or neither of them are correct. This is the framework I am working in here. Where is the problem?
Furthermore, do you FEEL that you are correct about some things? You may "know" them as well, but that necessarily means that your beliefs about them are that they are correct. How are we different? Where have I faltered?
Give me an intelligent response and I might renege on my promise to not post any more.
P.S. I wasn't aware that this was considered trolling. I don't frequent blogs much but have started reading Pharyngula. I thought I commented on the content of the initial posting and then dialogued about the topic with other interested readers. Where am I mistaken?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 4:44 PM
Jeez. just saw a typo that totally changes what i meant in #210 and #211
That should be "weren't referring about me"
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 4:47 PM
Well, you are the King of Typo's after all. ;o)
Posted by: Owen | October 27, 2008 4:47 PM
Salt, dear boy, it's really quite simple. If it's not scientific, it's not evidence. Analysis and correlation of evidence is what science does, you ass. You can define your so-called "non-scientific evidence" however you like, but in the end what you're waffling about is an empty set.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 4:48 PM
@Pillar of salt for brains
The question was about non-scientific evidence. Your's is an example of a fighting retreat back into the womb of science.
"The womb of science"? No such thing, and there is no "retreat" here, fighting or otherwise; there is merely the ongoing illustration that you are throwing unscientific ranting into a discussion about a scientific question.
I'm reminded of the old holiday classic "Miracle on 34th Street" where the existence of Santa Claus was "proven" in a court of by the existence of letters to Santa written by children. Of course, the film was fantasy; in the real world such fervent displays of faith have no bearing on whether there is an old man at the north pole whose elves make toys all year and then delivers them all around the world on one night in a flying sled pulled by eight flying reindeer. Yet that is precisely the kind of illogical argument you are making with your statement about non-scientific evidence in a court of law.
Also, the historical example you used at #140 is very revealing; More, cast in later centuries as a man of conscience, was an uncompromising idealogue who burned people at the stake for heresy. His trial was over issues that were not merely unscientific, but anti-scientific. The scientific tools used to gather and weigh courtroom evidence today not only didn't exist in More's time, they would have been violently rejected as ungodly.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 4:49 PM
@ B. Evan Carlson
The problem is that if you are arguing from the position of religion, then you enter the argument lacking evidence in the first place... and if you come to any conclusion that includes "god" based on a discussion of actual "evidence", then evaluating evidence is not your strong suit in the first place. I'm not trying to be snide, here, B. Evan. If you disagree with that premise, tell me how it is wrong.
Oh, and FWIW, I'm not sure the "Troll" comment was directed at you, necessarily... now Salt, on the other hand...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 4:56 PM
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 27, 2008 4:58 PM
Of necessity the position of religion lacks evidence, or I didn't bring evidence? If it is the first case, then you have ruled out religion a priori and there is nothing I can do to argue with you. If the second, than I clarify again that I am not trying to make my argument, just present my opinion.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 5:00 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:40 PM
Lose the self-righteousness, Salt. It's a sure sign you've got no argument.
Coming from one who said "If it isn't observable... If it can't be known..."
Now, that is scientific inquiry at its finest - inquiry into the self described unobservable / unknowable. If it's unobservable / unknowable, by definition, science cannot confirm its existence, only speculate. All one need do is read your comments here to see your dancing.
Oh, please! You want self-righteous? Go look in a mirror.
Posted by: Robert Morane | October 27, 2008 5:01 PM
"I assume that you really mean non-scientific evidence which one who views all evidence through the lens of science would accept. Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians. An oxymoron in search of cognitive dissonance"
Salt,
I would really like to prove to you that Hinduism is the one true faith, but that would require me to present you with some evidence. However, since you are a Christian, you would view this evidence through the prism of Christianity and reject it off hand. Therefore, I will not waste my time.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I hope you get the point.
By the way, if a particular type of evidence (for instance anecdotal evidence) is not good enough for you, don't expect it to be any better for someone else. A case in point: if you're a Christian, don't expect an Atheist to accept God exists because you felt his presence if you're not willing to accept the existence of the Great Godess because some pagan says she felt her presence.
There is such a thing as double standard.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:02 PM
Nice dodge. Answer the question.
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 27, 2008 5:02 PM
How is abiogenesis "first cause"? First cause would presumably be the Big Bang, or perhaps something that preceded it. Abiogenesis was a result of chemistry, of processes that existed even before the Earth formed. It was just one more event in the history of the universe, one which, in all likelihood, has been repeated countless times on other planets around other stars.
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 5:04 PM
Eva, perhaps the terminology used here would be clearer if we ran the arguments the other way: Are you, for example, agnostic about the existence of your mother? It is certainly possible that she is just a figment of your imagination, and that you are actually a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming she is a person, or a replicant given synthetic memories, any other such scenario. Sure, those possibilities are unlikely, but you can't rule them out, so do you consider yourself a "mother agnostic"?
I would argue that the likelihood that there is a god is much less than the likelihood that you don't actually have a mother (given that we can come up with purely non-supernatural explanations as to how that might be). I for one wouldn't describe myself as agnostic about the existence of my mother, nor would I describe myself as agnostic about the non-existence of god. I think that, if I am intellectually honest, I can't be one and not the other. What about you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 5:05 PM
Blockquote fail in post 226. *headdesk*
Celtic, I'm sure the troll reference is for sodium chloride. We should throw some water on him and watch him "melt" like the wicked witch.
BEC hasn't reached troll stage yet. He will if he continues his godbotting though. BEC, this means keeping your faith to yourself.
Posted by: Dan L. | October 27, 2008 5:05 PM
You are one pretentious little shit, aren't you? You clearly are making up your own meaning for the word "science"; you don't even seem to know what it means. Then you purport to understand atheists better than they understand you? Get over yourself.
Scientific evidence is any evidence that can be corroborated by independent observers making similar observations. If you have any evidence that doesn't meet that criterion, then it is not evidence at all. Why not? Because the only thing that fits the bill is personal experience, insight, intuition or any of that wishy-washy stuff. And all of that is notoriously prone to error. You can't even trust your own eyes -- optical illusions are quite common. Worse than that, most optical illusions are really cognitive illusions -- the illusion happens in your brain.
This would imply that everything that happens in your brain that can't be corroborated by an independent observer is suspect. Not patently false, but certainly not verifiably true.
But you don't really care. You just want to be a self-righteous asshole and tell us all that we're short-sighted for recognizing your useless claptrap for what it is. This is evidenced by the fact that even when people ask you to clarify your assertions as to our ignorance in a relatively snarkless manner, you refuse.
So one more time: what is this "non-scientific evidence" you're talking about? If you can't answer it, then I have to assume that a) you don't have an answer or b) you're a crapscreamer or c) both.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | October 27, 2008 5:10 PM
Well said PZ.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 5:10 PM
@ B. Evan Carlson
You are catching on... although I don't think you meant the statement the way I'm going to take it. :)
When discussing matters of evidence centering around this topic, yes... religion is ruled out a priori... there is no evidence, save for anecdotal experience. And as has been said here before, the plural of anecdote is not "data".
Again, if I am mistaken, and there is some concrete, clear evidence that I and the rest of us have somehow missed, I'm willing to listen. Don't confuse my refusal to hear arguments for religion with my ability to listen intently if actual, real evidence supporting it is presented.
Posted by: Obeah | October 27, 2008 5:11 PM
B,Evan,
I was referring to Salt. I don't see you as a troll.
Everything begins with feeling. A theist proceeds to search for reasons to verify his feeling. An scientist questions whether or not that feeling has merit. (generally speaking)
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 5:15 PM
Salt #160 wrote:
My point was that a fact claim is being compared to a claim that someone is feeling a particular emotion, and the distinction is being muddled. Nobody doubts whether people believe in God. Their belief validates the fact that they believe. It doesn't validate that God exists, however.
You believe that your father exists because there is good empirical evidence that he does (or did.) And, in the same way, you believe that God exists because you think there is good evidence that God exists. The feelings and emotions towards the idea of either are a different issue. To confuse the two can lead to a category error.
But what is God supposed to be? What is "spirit?" Is it an emotion?
If so, then it makes sense to say that "if you feel it, then you know." God is not a person, or a being, or an entity or kind of energy or force. It is a symbol or metaphor which stands for a certain way of feeling, an approach to how we see things -- an abstraction of concrete experiences. "God" is a word which stands for those things you value, or care about.
I think the technical term for this way of understanding God is "atheism."
This sort of "God is Love" approach is appealing in some ways, but muddled when it's analyzed. It's like insisting that Cupid is the poetic symbol for romantic love, but is real in a non-symbolic way, too. It only becomes a symbol when it's defended against a skeptic.
If you feel God, then you know there is a God? Is God then a person made out of emotion? Is emotion a substance? Is God a person which is sensed through the emotions? If you feel love for God, then you're feeling God. If you feel love for Allah instead, then Allah must be real instead. Your emotion makes it real. Just like when you fall in love, you feel Cupid's arrows. Except God isn't like that. Or is it?
The problem with non-scientific or non-rational approaches to understanding "truths" is that, unless you're talking about subjective matters of taste or value, there's no way to check yourself to see if you're wrong.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 5:16 PM
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 4:49 PM
Two people discuss evidence, each comes do different conclusions (what they believe to be right), and either one or neither of them are correct.
Yes, either one is correct or both are wrong.
and if you come to any conclusion that includes "god" based on a discussion of actual "evidence", then evaluating evidence is not your strong suit in the first place
There you go again. Tainting by implication your own bias as to what constitutes "actual evidence"; evidence by science inquiry. You couldn't have been more glaring had you put it in neon lights.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 5:20 PM
Again, again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:21 PM
You've been asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified and have yet to do so. I can only conclude that you can't.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 5:22 PM
I wrote a lengthy comment on this topic on the original thread so I won't bother going into that much detail again. But to sum up, I'll say that science can cast doubt on religion when religion makes claims that can be tested by scientific methods.
'There is a god who created the earth and all the animals on it, ex nihilio; it and they are the same now as they were then and evolution is a myth' is testable by science, and science has shown that to be untrue - unless, of course, the god involved is a lying sack of shit.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 5:23 PM
Whatever I said in the last thread still applies, no I don't think that evolution implies atheism but it does change the role of humanity from being the one species created in the image of God to just one of 6 million living species that are all related. This does take the need away for God because it answers one of the most fundamental questions: "where do we come from?"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 5:26 PM
Salt -
First, I know accuracy in quoting isn't your strong suit, but read the posts more carefully... I didn't make the first statement you attributed to me.
And second,
Unless and until you can come up with an answer to the question posed to you SEVERAL times that you have dodged as many times, namely (and I will quote the good Rev. BDC for conciseness), "Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?", please consider this a priori to all your future posts on the subject: shut the hell up.
Oh... and that quip I made about "evaluating evidence is probably not your strong suit"... well... to quote Adam Sandler from "Wedding Singer"... in a sweet, breathy voice... "I wrote that about you".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 5:29 PM
Rev, I don't think magnesium hydroxide wants to answer. After all, once we pin him down there goes his fun. But this constant shifting just makes him look stupid. An intelligent man would have stated his case by now, clearly and succinctly.
Posted by: Notkieran | October 27, 2008 5:30 PM
>So... with that as a starting point, let's hypothesize that a group of people were born into this world in this day, and given all of the knowledge we have, scientifically, about the world around us. And they are given no introduction, in any way, to any religious doctrine, teaching, or other history. Do you still suppose that group would ultimately, in some fashion, embrace a religious component of their own design?
That would be my brother and I.
The answer is no.
Posted by: SC | October 27, 2008 5:33 PM
Oh, hey, Salt!
I see you never returned to finish this other discussion concerning evidence back in August:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/we_dont_need_teleology_so_why.php#comment-1065463
How 'bout it?
Posted by: Deborah Hill | October 27, 2008 5:39 PM
Wow. An intelligently written blog entry quickly reduced to a reactive, angry pissing contest in the comments. How sad, yet so familiar...
Given that the theory of evolution is still a THEORY and cannot be proven without a doubt through the process of scientific method, I think it is amazing that Darwin's theory, for which he was commissioned to write, as so many scientists do in order to eat, is still being taught and accepted by so many as fact.
Given that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, has been rewritten so many times and so many ancient texts omitted by those in organized religion who prefer to keep things as irrational as possible, it is amazing to me that there are still so many people who completely ignore the brilliant words of Jesus Christ and how they apply to living in this world, and would rather be superstitious and ignorant.
The point is, blind belief in either extreme means you aren't thinking for yourself, and therefore not evolving as a human being.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:40 PM
Zero to FAIL in three sentences.
Posted by: Tom L | October 27, 2008 5:42 PM
I dislike Asimov's appeal to emotion for declaring himself an atheist, because it reduces the argument to two emotional factions, and eliminates the rational, objective arguments. Among other things, this bolsters the religious man's claim that atheism is merely an unproveable belief, of the same stripe as religion itself.
Does one need to appeal to some sense of emotional disbelief in the idea that "Hurk-Hurk the Cosmic Hairball" in order for dismissal of it as abject fiction to be intellectually respectible?
Is a Christian's gut-feeling rejection of Odin and Zeus more intellectually respectible than an atheist's logic-based rejection of YHVH? What about when a Christian says there is zero evidence for Odin?
Personally, I like tsg's argument above, which boils down to: You have zero observable evidence on your side, and admit as much; it therefore follows that anything that you affirmatively claim is something that you have made up out of your own imagination.
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 27, 2008 5:42 PM
We "believe in" evolution because it has tremendous evidence in its favor, not because we're mindless followers of Darwin.
And how is following Jesus' words "thinking for yourself"?
And of course the old "it's only a theory" bullshit. Yeah, so is the germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. etc. etc. Look up the meaning of "theory" in the scientific sense.
These trolls remind me of this webcomic:
http://cectic.com/069.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 5:42 PM
FAIL
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 5:44 PM
fact - the evidence hypothesis - an explanation that explains said evidence theory - an explanation that is very well supported by fact law - a mathematical representation of a theoryIt's not a scale, theory is the highest evolution can go. It won't change from being a theory, just like gravity.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 5:47 PM
HAHAHA. Wow. Deb. Truly moronic. Nice one.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 5:47 PM
@ Deborah Hill
Quick, Deborah... name me 4 other scientific theories... any 4... go on.
Next... name my 5 scientific principles that have been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".
OK... still with me? Good... now, show me how lack of "proof beyond the shadow of a doubt" = god did it.
Last one... please explain to me how accepting widely accepted scientific theory based on mountains of evidence, years of testing and observation, predictive powers and independent confirmation is in any way, shape or form comparative to blind religious indoctrination.
I humbly await a response as demeaning and authoritative as your last post.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 5:47 PM
We have religions because humans have always wanted explanations, answers to questions.
The sun and the moon were considered gods until our ancestors realised what they were. People thought the gods gave us rain, thunder and lightning until someone worked out how moisture collects in clouds and electricity discharges in the atmosphere.
'God' was once the answer to pretty much everything. Science can't 'prove' there's no god, but it can prove that every claim made about him - pertaining to the physical world - is false.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 5:49 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:21 PM
You've been asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified and have yet to do so. I can only conclude that you can't.
"asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified"? Repeatedly? As this is the first mention of this one can hardly say "repeatedly".
Next.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 5:50 PM
Salt -
please refer to post #244.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 5:51 PM
Again, again, again, again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:52 PM
Repeatedly. And you still haven't answered because you can't.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2008 5:54 PM
@Salt, #257
I'm not sure if you're blind, insane, or a truly lame troll. Virtually every comment that's been directed at you for the last 100 comments or so has been asking you for your methods of how you KNOW the UNKNOWABLE and what para-scientific method you use to know these things.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 5:56 PM
It's not a hard question Salt, in the absence of empiricism how do you verify your beliefs? How do you know that what you believe is true?
Posted by: Natalie | October 27, 2008 5:56 PM
The above paragraph does make complete sense if you read it as sarcasm...
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 6:00 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 5:29 PM
Rev, I don't think magnesium hydroxide wants to answer. After all, once we pin him down there goes his fun. But this constant shifting just makes him look stupid. An intelligent man would have stated his case by now, clearly and succinctly.
The case is not to be made utilizing only that evidence deemed admissible here at Pharyngula. Would be like casting pearls before swine.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 6:01 PM
For the record:
#73,77,97,107,118,152,218,219,240, and 244 just to name a few.
You have not answered because you can't.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 6:03 PM
Dodge.
You have not answered because you can't.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 6:03 PM
Blind belief? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descentPosted by: SC | October 27, 2008 6:05 PM
As well as several in the August thread I linked to @ #247, and I'm sure others before that. Salt's a useless troll.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 6:06 PM
Total dodge.
Posted by: Salt | October 27, 2008 6:07 PM
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 6:01 PM
Repeatedly? As this is the first mention of this one can hardly say "repeatedly".
For the record:
#73,77,97,107,118,152,218,219,240, and 244 just to name a few.
You have not answered because you can't.
LMAO! Each # you mention coupled with corresponding answers proves my point.
You guys are really fun, really. You remind me of listening to the talking heads on CNN.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 6:08 PM
Even more. You just need to tell us how you come to this evidence and how you check yourself on this evidence.
I'm not even asking for the evidence.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 6:08 PM
Goodbye, troll.
Posted by: faux mulder | October 27, 2008 6:08 PM
personally, gave up on gawd less than a year after shedding santa belief. had no idea what evolution was at the time. science has merely reinforced logic.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 6:10 PM
Dance, Salt, dance!
Whee-hee!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 6:11 PM
Salt, I'm sure you think you're showing your wit but you have yet to answer these question further proving that you can't.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 6:11 PM
Come on salt, stop avoiding. How do you know something is true without using empiricism? What do you use to support it?
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 27, 2008 6:20 PM
"The point is, blind belief in either extreme means you aren't thinking for yourself"
Sometimes one of the "extremes" is right. Really. You calling it "blind" belief is just projection on your part.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Deb claimed:
1. Can you see your own logical contradictions? I doubt it.
2. You cannot "prove" either with or by any other means A. that the Biblical Jesus is a real person; B. That "his words" are really his words. The OT and NT are so cribbed from other religions--Jesus' birth story is nearly identical to Horus's birth story.
3. No one knows anything with the certainty you demand. That includes your belief that you are sitting in front of a computer as there will always be some proposition that if not a logical contradiction will undermine that certainty; for example, that we are all in pods connected to a massive computer running Unix (or maybe Windows given all the evil in the world).
If this is an attempt at an exercise in POE's Law it is not a very good one.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 27, 2008 6:20 PM
I think you guys are being a little hard on poor Salt.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 6:21 PM
Ladies and gentleman, your attention! For his next trick, Salt will become completely invisible. You won't see him at all. Now, if you just turn your backs, he'll get straight to it.
What's that? Oh, he can't do it if you're watching.
You want your money back? Why? He can become invisible. I promise. It's just he can't do it while anyone's watching. Don't you understand? Just turn your backs. It all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 6:22 PM
All we are doing is asking for intellectual honesty...Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 27, 2008 6:28 PM
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: The Chemist | October 27, 2008 6:29 PM
I would have replied sooner to the replies, but I've been in a line at City Hall for hours to vote early- Totally worth it.
I'm not really going to argue with anyone since as I stated earlier, I have no proof for my assertions (yet).
However I think that it's important to have a definition of religion that focuses on it's most significant common aspects cross-culturally, and in my opinion, belief in the supernatural is more of a parlor trick and a side effect, and that everything else that comes with religion: The devotion, the fear, the loathing, millenarianism, love, conceptions of morality- that all of that is a more significant effect of religion. My postulate (and if by now you get it, I apologize for restating it) is belief in weird things is subservient to social and other psychological needs.
After all, picking on Bill Maher as a convenient example, he's a complete loon by so many standards regarding vaccines and "toxins" and abortion, etc. However it's enough for some people to accept him into a broader community of critical thinkers just because he's a vocal Atheist. Why? If he espoused critical thinking on every issue except for 9/11 conspiracies then the broader community of critical thinkers would want nothing to do with him.
I'm not saying that people have to be perfect on every single frakkin' thing, but I am pointing out that failures of critical thought exist independently enough from religion that it should effectively bear only a secondary impact on how we think of religion as a social dynamic. In other words, correlation does not indicate causation, and out thinking should reflect that.
That's going to be my last word on this because the whole thing is very difficult to discuss without chasing our tails semantically and to be completely frank, it's still a germinal idea in my head that I wanted to put out there to see what other people might think.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 6:32 PM
And with "pearls before swine," Salt mockingly acknowledges that he never intended to put up in the first place. What a nice person.
Posted by: ac patriot | October 27, 2008 6:33 PM
Interesting topic, too bad I'm a few hours late. I may as well put in my two cents anyway. I call myself agnostic, but functionally I'm an atheist. Here's why:
The question of the existence of an all-powerful supreme being is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. These questions we can leave to the philosophers, along with other time wasters such as "what if the world popped into existence, exactly as it is, two seconds ago?" The scientific method cannot be applied to such a question because no experiment can be designed that will support one side over the other.
The same is true for God - no experiment can be designed to test for the existence of a being that can manipulate reality. In fact, here we come to the "failure" of scientific reasoning. Science is based on empiricism, which is itself based on inductive logic. We all know that science cannot be used to "prove" an argument, only to support it, since there is always a finite probability that the results will be completely different the next time an experiment is run.
I find these sorts of unscientific questions to be interesting, but ultimately unproductive, and it's foolish to even attempt to take one side or the other based on science. (However, science vs. religion is a different matter entirely.) Better to limit oneself to scientific questions. Hence, I call myself an agnostic, although functionally I behave as if I dont' believe there is a God.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 6:36 PM
Meh, methinks Salt's gone for now.
Anyway, one of the other conflicts I see between religion and science is that religion has always involved setting limits on the questions you can and can't ask, particularly when it's started looking like science was going to point out that something 'inerrant' was, in fact, far from it. And that's inherently anti-science.
Fortunately for humanity, science hasn't - for the most part - let that stop it. Unfortunately, the religulous are still managing to use their fantasies to try and hinder science; stem-cell research being the best example.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 6:56 PM
Poor old Salt. He bravely turned and ran away.
But he always comes back.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | October 27, 2008 6:57 PM
First, the question actually posed in the OP:
Yes, an understanding of evolution leads, though not inexorably, toward atheism. No, however, it isn't inevitable. I imagine, though, the deeper a person gets into evolution, as a researcher, the more likely that person is to turn to atheism.
Second, regarding the fairly rampant discussion on how we define ourselves: I'm an agnostic. Here's why. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. I don't define myself by what I believe, but by what I know. Therefore, I consider myself agnostic.
Third: A two panel comic:
1) An agnostic chimes in ...
Atheist: "There is no god."
Theist: "Yes there is."
Agnostic: "I don't have the evidence to support either side."
2) A militant agnostic adds his $0.02 ...
Atheist: "There is no god."
Theist: "Yes there is."
Agnostic: "I don't have the evidence to support either side, and neither do either of you."
John B. Sandlin
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 7:10 PM
Sometimes I wish PZ wasn't so patient with trolls like potassium hydroxide (he who shall not be named, but alluded to). I would love to see the slimy troll disemvoweled until he agrees to clean up his act.Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 7:20 PM
He'd probably wet his pants if PZ threw him in the gulag for six months.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 7:24 PM
I don't know about that - for those of us (relatively) new to this whole blog-based debate thing it's handy to have an example of the different kinds of sophistry the religulous will use in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Yeah, it's boring for those who've seen it a thousand times before, but some of us are a little further back on the learning curve and can appreciate the chance to gain a few XP - for want of a better term.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 7:24 PM
If he does come back, I've got a dollar it's for a drama queen exit.
I'll give three to two he says something like "dogmatic devotion to scientism" as the reason he's abandoning the conversation.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 7:27 PM
John B., to help answer the first of your questions, there is a well known inverse correlation between education/intelligence and religious belief. So by the time you get to practicing scientists, most of whom have a PhD, and are out there intelligence wise on the IQ bell curve, the odds of them being a believer in god/religion is greatly diminished. Those that do believe tend to be religious lite. Then if you take the cream of the working scientists, you obtain the NAS figure of only, IIRC, of 7% believing in god. Essentially natural selection for atheism at work.
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 7:52 PM
Taner Edis wrote that the encroachment of modern science has turned God into a "cosmic Santa Claus." It sounds a bit as if he's saying that people use God to ask for things, but his point is more subtle than that.
When we no longer believe in a literal Santa Claus, we often say we still believe in Santa Claus, but in a different sense. Santa doesn't give presents: the "spirit" of Santa is what inspires parents to buy the presents and give them to their kids. We believe in what Santa is: charity, benevolence, and fun. Those things are real, and that is how we know Santa. He works through people, in the ideas, as they become real. You can't understand Santa unless you understand the whole cultural baggage and benefits of Christmas. When you see the smile of a child when they get their heart's desire, you believe.
And so forth.
You can dance around the issue of Santa's existence in interesting ways. Ditto with God.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 7:55 PM
You've got to wonder about how these trolls see themselves. They come on here, dump whatever they can on empiricism, but when asked for what alternative they use, they shut up shop. There's no putting their beliefs under the same scrutiny as they do to others, there's no discussion about the pros and cons of their belief system. Time and time again these hacks come here just to shit on a system which from their words is something they don't understand beyond a theoretical level. They are cowards, intellectually dishonest timewasters who do not know how to converse. They have no interesting in discussion, they just want to preach and are under the delusion that people will see their intelligence and see them in awe.
It's frustrating because a few of them actually have some half-decent ideas that are well worth discussion. It's just impossible to do so.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 27, 2008 7:56 PM
The Chemist @ 11,
And what specifically were your philosophical leanings at the time of your birth?
For the record I don't believe I had any.
Aren't social dynamics learned behavior?
Religion is instinctive? You're kidding right?
If what you say is true, why do you supposed that most newborns grow up to profess the faith of their own parents and tend to follow the social norms of the culture in which they grow up and not some arbitrarily contrived religious beliefs of their own.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 27, 2008 8:02 PM
Belief in Santa Claus is more rational, in a sense, than belief in God. At least the existence of Santa Clause is testable. We can potentially track him on radar as he flies around the world and try to watch him with our satellites.
Personally, I would rather meet Krampus.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 8:02 PM
Surely the case could be made that some of the thought processes that lead to religious thinking are encoded in our genes and arise when the brain develops. These thought processes would have non-religious use as well, but it's those same processes that give rise to religious thought: gossip as a means of transfer of information, active imaginations, the ability to make causal links, etc. All of which have practical uses are the same building blocks of religious thought.i.e. we are born to think in the way the religion meme propagates because the meme has to survive by transmission on what was there beforehand. So we aren't born with religious knowledge, but we are all capable of being victims of the religious chain of thought.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 27, 2008 8:05 PM
You might want to rethink that. Pointing out that children speak the language of their parents does not argue against the thesis that language is instinctive.
The point is, humans are mimics. Linguistically, and socially. And social mimicry leads to the propagation of religion.
Also, there's this:
Being human: Religion
Atheism will always be a harder sell than religion, Pascal Boyer explains, because a slew of cognitive traits predispose us to faith.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/full/4551038a.html
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 27, 2008 8:13 PM
Hm. I think I was a bit too terse.
Children (and adults) are also magical thinkers (where "magical thinking" is a less negative way of saying "superstitious").
So instinctive magical thinking and instinctive social mimicry leads to propagation of religion.
Oh, and children creating "some arbitrarily contrived religious beliefs of their own" does happen as well, now I think of it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 27, 2008 8:18 PM
One could argue that religion (in its organized forms, at the very least) is more broadly harmful than 9/11 conspiracy theories, and therefore on some utilitarian basis Maher does more good than harm. I think this point of view would have some merit; however, by my personal reckoning, Maher's loonball attitudes are odious enough to make me steer clear of him. (Like Alan Sokal, I suspect that "credulity in minor matters prepares the mind for credulity in matters of greater import".) Were he the keynote speaker at a conference, let's say, I'd probably not go.
I mean, I'm just an angry guy with a website, so it doesn't really matter what I do, but that's what I'd do, anyway.
Posted by: Lee Picton | October 27, 2008 8:24 PM
Deborah said,
That sentence is a FAIL on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin; however most of your ridiculousness has already been refuted so I will address the only one which hasn't. Darwin was a country gentleman with a nice estate and married a cousin, who was also rich in her own right. He was not obliged to write for a living and actually sat on his discoveries for 20 years, knowing full well what a shitstorm they were going to cause.
Seriously, you need to get a proper education and stop regurgitating the crap being fed to you by goebots.
Posted by: Kagato | October 27, 2008 8:29 PM
There's a simple answer as to what constitutes "non-scientific evidence".
The scientific method is an approach to understanding things that tries to avoid our preconceptions and prejudices, so among other things, scientific evidence is evidence that can be independently verified. Therefore, non-scientific evidence would be evidence that cannot be verified.
The best example of such would be "revealed knowledge". It doesn't matter how someone claims they received it -- visions, dreams, apparitions, visitations -- only the recipient knows their knowledge is "true". They might claim this as evidence of something greater, but for everyone else, their "knowledge" is utterly indistinguishable from delusion.
Posted by: Jen | October 27, 2008 8:51 PM
When I was about 7, I asked my dad about why the Bible said the earth was created in 7 days, when NOVA and Carl Sagan clearly showed that it took a *lot* longer than 7 days.
My dad had a really interesting answer: If you were God, how long would one of your days be? A simple rotation of the planet you hadn't even created yet (because you started with light?)
I'm not a deist now that I'm an adult, but it seems that fundamentalism and creationism suffer from the same affliction - a lack of mental elasticity.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 8:53 PM
Exactly. That to me is why they won't dare to put it forward here, it's something they hold as absolutely true because it feels right - and how could it not be true if it feels so true? If the facts don't match the feeling, then the facts must be wrong because those feelings are more truthful than the facts are... of course this means of thinking doesn't get us anywhere, and it really doesn't do much more than highlight the flaws in human cognition.So it all gets rationalised away by attacking the methods that are very good at understanding fact in order to facilitate their own mental shortcomings. In short, they won't answer because they know they'll be mocked for doing so.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Owlmirror @299,
While I agree that all normal children have the innate ability to learn a language I don't think there are too many cases of children learning a language that they have not been exposed to. They still have to learn it.
Maybe I'm having a bit of a problem with the meaning of the word "instinct".
For example an infant placed in the water is able to swim by instinct. No teaching necessary.
I'm not quite sure if Magical thinking and innate linguistic ability fall into the same category.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 9:15 PM
I think it's quite telling that, whenever it is attempted to reconcile religion with science, it's always religion that has to give way, and never the other way around.
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 27, 2008 9:21 PM
Salt for the chronic, epic fail.
Deb for the silver medal.
(shakes head)
Where do they find them and why do they send them here?
As for the original topic...I think some d'orcs need to read some Hume and stop trying to derive 'ought' conclusions from 'is' statements. Acceptance of MET does not imply atheism any more than studying electrical engineering implies Zeus, Thor, or Raiden.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: j | October 27, 2008 9:23 PM
There are two ways to think about this.
1) In a strictly logical sense, evolution does not imply atheism. The existence of god cannot be disproven. If you say, "Ha! There's no way god could have orchestrated this worldly phenomenon", I say, "He's god, he can do whatever he wants."
2) On the other hand, if you accept the scientific method (which you probably do if you accept evolution), then you would probably agree that god is a pretty useless answer to any scientific question. The basic premise of most gods is that they are unknowable (except to the extent they choose to explain themselves), and therefore they can't be dealt with using the scientific method. God is the most boring answer to any question about how the world works or how it got the way it is today.
So if you accept the scientific method as the best way to understand how the world works, I think you have to either (a) reject belief in a supernatural deity or (b) compartmentalize it tightly, along the lines of "I wish this were true and it comforts me to imagine it but I'm never going to use it to make any decisions or explain anything in real life". The latter seems a bit difficult to me.
Posted by: j | October 27, 2008 9:27 PM
Um, whoops, my scroll bar is acting weird and I jumped past all the comments after about #10. So what I said has probably been said umpteen times over. *blush*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 9:28 PM
Gods are a null statement. Until they can be proven to exist, they don't. And why your god, and not the thousand or so others invented by humans over the years. You J, are an atheist. You disbelieve all those thousand gods except your on god. We just remove the final step to obtain true rationality.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 9:36 PM
Kel, That is an interesting subject, I too wonder many times just what the trolls find so motivating to come here and get their cyber fannies kicked around. Perhaps there's some pastoral newsletter sending them to to crusade.
I wonder what happens to them over on Dawkins site? His regulars don't see to be as feisty as PZ's barracudas.
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 27, 2008 9:45 PM
Here's one possible answer for you, Patricia:
They're earning brownie points with their magic man by taking a few hits for the team. In fact, the harder we wallop them, the more brownie points they earn for suffering the slings and arrows of us wicked atheist scientific satan-worshiping types. So not only do they have no incentive to learn, they have a strong selective prejudice toward embracing what ought to be a negative experience.
In brief, it's masochism.
Since that implies Teh Kinky, of course, they can't admit this and instead insist that they're only ministering and witnessing the truth.
Since IANAPsychologist, I could very well be off the table and into someone's pint of lager, but I think that covers the bases well enough.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 9:48 PM
Some think they have the ultimate argument against evolution, mostly because they've never heard it challenged. Some can't see how badly they're being beaten, because it would mean thinking about their position.
And then we have Salt who, in two successive posts, claimed we only asked the question once and that he answered it every time it was asked. "I didn't borrow your plate, it was broken when you gave it to me, and it wasn't broken when I gave it back." I can't begin to speculate what goes through his mind.
Posted by: Demonic Gophers | October 27, 2008 9:53 PM
Salt, you have claimed that there is some evidence regarding God that we are overlooking, and called us myopic because of this. And yet, when questioned about it repeatedly, you consistently refuse to explain what any of this evidence actually is. You say we will simply reject it, but how can we reject or accept something, when you won't tell us what it is?
Why do you insist on hiding 'the Truth' from us??!?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 9:54 PM
While I was at the store and making enchiladas chile verde I notice that salt slithered off with out ever answering the question that he so proudly spawned. He just can't answer what other way of knowing he uses to confirm his supernatural beliefs.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 9:58 PM
There are many reasons, of course, but I think a lot of them have problems dealing with intellectual matters and with people, so intend to sabotage threads and to cause disruptions. That many naive people simply believe what their pastors tell them I don't doubt at all. I just don't think many of these relatively harmless folk would be willing to subject themselves to such dens of "wicked atheism."
What we get are the JADs, Charlie Wagners, and FTKs, fairly incompetent folk (JAD once had talent, but clearly had problems that landed him in exile) who only feel competent when they're taking over a thread with their gibberish. They even know that what they're stating is pretty lame stuff, they just want the egoistic satisfaction of trolling that are the only triumphs of the troll-sort.
They're not really serving "the Lord" or the cause, even if they try to think that they are. Clearly they're not going to convince anybody by blithering on without answering anything, so your more intelligent religionists would not favor their trolling. It's just the way that they can feel important, no matter how dull and unconvincing they really are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 10:02 PM
I like slithered off. I don't think poor lithium iodide has any idea on the way to confirm supernatural beliefs. He just gets fun out of pretending he does and getting us all riled up. His performance today reminded me of Baba, who PZ didn't put up with for long. We'll see if he suffers the same fate.
I see your pathetic, and raise you an unhinged.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 10:02 PM
It was pathetic Rev., his answer was that he wouldn't answer because we weren't worthy of seeing his pearls of wisdom. What a stunning revelation. *snort*
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:06 PM
I really want to hear him try and give an answer to that. Seriously.
It should be good.
And By good I mean hilarious.
Next time he shows up in another thread, and you know he will, he needs to be hammered until he answers.
he's the one that made the claim, so he has to support it.
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 27, 2008 10:09 PM
"...bravely, bravely ran away...when knowledge reared it's awesome head, he bravely turned his tail and fled...valiantly he turned about and gallantly he chickened out...bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat..."
(with all due apologies to Sir Robin's Minstrels)
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Doug | October 27, 2008 10:09 PM
"Given that the theory of evolution is still a THEORY and cannot be proven without a doubt through the process of scientific method, I think it is amazing that Darwin's theory, for which he was commissioned to write, as so many scientists do in order to eat, is still being taught and accepted by so many as fact."
I'm sure lots of folks have commented on this one, but I still can't stop myself. Your statement is not just wrong, it's spherically wrong, which means it's wrong no matter how you look at it. In science, 'theory' means "a coordinated framework of explanation for a range of phenomena', it does NOT mean "an unproven conjecture." A theory is considerably higher on the scientific pecking order than a mere 'fact', which is "something generally believed to be true." Facts change all the time. Theories also change, but usually only after the accumulation of a lot of observation evidence. This has been explained time and again by patient, gentle people like Eugenie SCott, and not-so-patient, curmudgeonly people like Richard Dawkins. Why, or why do you persist in not getting it?
On your second point, Darwin did not write his works on commission. Darwin was the independently wealthy son of a very prominent family. Darwin self-financed his entire career, including paying his own way on the Beagle. As for modern scientists, there would be no better way to make a permanent mark on science than to overturn natural selection as a theory of evolution, so you bet people have tried/are trying to do just that. Problem is, the pesky 'theory' just keeps working!
Posted by: Paddy | October 27, 2008 10:11 PM
I have been reset back to the factory default settings - atheism.
Reality looks so much better this way. The deluded still worry me though. Scientific thought rules!
Cheers
Posted by: Q | October 27, 2008 10:17 PM
j (309): "1) In a strictly logical sense, evolution does not imply atheism. The existence of god cannot be disproven. "
I think understand the point you are attempting, j, but an implication need not depend upon proof. Your point 1) is either logically or semantically incorrect, because an implication can be arrived at from mere evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god need not be believed in to get equally useful explanations.
In other words, although the existance of a god cannot be disproven, claims about the god can be discredited sufficently well with evidence, and the evidence for evolution does imply the absence of a god.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 10:18 PM
You probably have that right Glen, ego can make people do lots of stuff.
Some of them look like a college prank, to see how many posts it takes to get kicked off the blog, or many times they can get called a fucktard. That's probably ego based too.
Imagine what a funny book PZ could write about some of the fights he has archived.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:21 PM
Um, who doesn't accept the scientific method?
Posted by: Doug | October 27, 2008 10:24 PM
@Greg, all the way back at #83
"Certainly. I can't deny you your affiliations, even if I don't agree. :)
So long as inquiry is alive and people wonder and ask questions, ultimately, I think we're ok regardless of differences of opinion."
Agreed -- and well-said.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 10:25 PM
I think they come here out of a combination of ignorance and hubris.
Ignorance because they have no idea about atheism or what might lead a person to be an atheist; they can't comprehend that anyone here might be a deconvert and/or possess far more knowledge and understanding of philosophy, religious texts and apologetics than anyone they've ever met.
A Xian I know firmly believes that there's no such thing as atheism because it's 'so obvious' that god exists and we must all be in denial. I think i was actually at a loss for words when I heard that - and that doesn't happen often.
Hubris because they think they have an argument that no-one here's ever heard and it's going to blow us out of the water, or they're a regular visitor to Vox Day's or Ray Comfort's site, or can cut/paste whichever
sophistapologist is popular on the web that week.Why they stay is probably a little more complicated. Since I consider almost anyone religious to be a Pascal's Wagerer at heart - in that I can't imagine too many of them actually 'believe the hype' they're spouting - I suspect they're trying to convince themselves that we aren't right far more than they are trying to convince us.
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 27, 2008 10:28 PM
That's an old rationalization, but it doesn't work. For one thing, the order is all wrong. For another, the Bible explicitly says "there was evening and there was morning, the first [second, third, etc.] day", which makes it pretty clear that a literal day was intended by the original authors. If you take the story as pure fiction, as I do, there's no problem. Within the story, 7 ordinary days passed. If you're a literalist, again there's no problem. The problem only comes when you try to reconcile the text with the facts.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:30 PM
Trolls like salt think they are demonstrating some superior intellect when they pull the stunts like he did. Unfortunately for him it only comes off like grade school taunting and "I know you are but what am I" styled games. He didn't put forth a single coherent point that followed the discussion. His little law gambit was such utter translucent bullshit that it was pathetic.
Really very lame.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 27, 2008 10:38 PM
It's standard philosophical debate behaviour - don't ever agree on definitions and you can't be shown to be wrong. He kept on making claims that he had 'ways of knowing the truth' without science, but, since we believe science is the only way of knowing, we couldn't possibly understand what he meant - and he therefore avoided having to present anything resembling an explanation or theory.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 27, 2008 10:42 PM
Paging Julie Westhues, Julie Westhues to the courtesy phone please...
Is there some sort of law to explain (or at least posit pithily) why trolls who provoke Prof. Myers enough to have a post specifically dedicated to their assertions rarely - if ever - participate in same?
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 10:51 PM
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but most of the folks who come in to argue with us have never struck me as in need of evaluation, explanation, or serious help. They and their motivations seem pretty normal: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. Red alert.
Perhaps it's because I used to hang out in debate forums -- chatrooms and listservs set up for the express purpose of arguing over religion. Everyone was kicking against the wall -- trying out different tactics, different approaches, different points and plans and apologetics. Or the same ones, over and over, world without end, amen. Some of the same adversaries would go on together for years, and end up like old married couples. The skill level, and intelligence level, pretty much ran the gamut. But we all respected the other person's willingness to engage - even if we thought their tactics were evasive.
From time to time outsiders would come in and play the "what's wrong with you guys why are you doing this" card and be kicked out. We never played it ourselves. It would have been like going to a Star Trek convention and saying it's a TV show get over it. And what then are you doing here?
I will note that the people doing the most bitching also seem to be having the most fun. Call me skeptical. ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 10:53 PM
JW popped by while our dainty ladies were off doing something else. JW thinks she can handle us boys, but Patricia and/or BoS scare her off.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 10:53 PM
Never having had teenage boys, or being around many, except in school, I have a hard time judging the ages of the bravado spouters.
What continues to surprise me is the utter lack of bible knowledge these people have.
Posted by: Tom | October 27, 2008 10:57 PM
Religion was invented to explain stuff that couldn't be explained otherwise. Or maybe it was invented so that some people could control other people.
Is there a god? Who knows. Maybe there is 100 of them. Or maybe the number of gods is equal to the square root of -1.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:59 PM
Yeah I think you pretty much nailed it.
It was a combination of "Grug no understand why moon go bye bye" and "Grug says moon go bye bye because you no give sacrifice".
Posted by: Mike | October 27, 2008 11:00 PM
Lots of people. Most IDers, all creationists, flat earthers, people who start with a conclusion and search for evidence to support that conclusion.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 27, 2008 11:01 PM
Too many comments to read so I may be redundant in pointing out an article at MSBC that may be germane: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27406062/
It is worth a look. For instance:
"Religion and its promotion of empathy get undue credit for our unselfish acts. Instead, it's our less-than-virtuous psychological perception that a moral authority is watching us that promotes altruism, a new review essay suggests."
snip
"To the extent that religion does promote altruism, it might actually be effective because adherents think that some authority figure is watching them to make sure they "do the right thing," or because they want to maintain their reputations as righteous followers of religious teachings. Also, studies that do show a link between altruism and religion are often based on self-reports -- subjects saying they did something unselfish, rather than direct observation of them doing so. This type of data is notoriously unreliable.
"We found little or no evidence that empathy plays any role in religious prosociality," said lead author Ara Norenzayan, a UBC social psychologist, adding that jury is still out. Religious types might engage in unselfish generosity coming from a place of empathy or compassion, but there is currently no data to support this, he said."
During my time in the church I observed people giving of themselves in the most heartwarming ways. I also saw them undermine and lie to each other. Same as in real life.
Now I gotta go back and find out what the hell salt has done. [Que sound of Heavy Breathing]
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 11:05 PM
"Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically, but also because what it really does is simply destroy the underpinnings of organized religion -- the body of dogma that represents assailable claims of fact."
The answer -- no -- is right, but for the wrong reason.
The reason science doesn't lead inevitably to atheism can be found in any logic 101 textbook: you can't get something into your conclusion if it isn't already in your premises. Now, there's not a single scientific conclusion that says anything whatsoever about god: that's simply a fact. If it's true that science, qua science, says nothing whatsoever about god, it follows that scientific premises *cannot* logically lead to any conclusion concerning god. It's really that simple, and it has nothing to do with arm-chair psychoanalysis.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:06 PM
exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxactly
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 11:07 PM
I can only assume that those who come on here think that the evidence is on their side and they are smart enough to argue their case. Of course it's the same schitck over and over, recycled arguments with a different face put on them. Most of them don't even have teh rudimentary knowledge to understand the context of what they are saying, it's like Ken Ham talking about how the fossil record is proof of Noah's flood.Unfortunately for us, to get into that mindset of invincibility means that they are seldom ever receptive to any contrary statements and thus don't come away with anything other than thoughts of the evil atheist conspiracy. It's so hard to talk to these people, they are unwilling to learn, unwilling to compromise and unwilling to have a real dialogue.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 11:14 PM
What!?
Which thread is the sinner on?
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:15 PM
The fact that science has never *needed* god to explain anything says quite a lot, however.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 11:18 PM
It may not say anything about the existence of God (nor does it say anything about the existence of the FSM), but it does have plenty to say on the way the universe works. God no longer is the cause of volcanos and earthquakes, that's plate tectonics. God is no longer the designer of humanity, the evolutionary process is. God is no longer the maker of the earth, that's gravity's job. So what does science do? It makes the concept of God redundant.There's no longer that necessity to have God in there to explain the unknown; praying to God will have no effect whatsoever on droughts and floods. So what does God do anymore? Morality, consciousness, intelligence - all are evolved traits. Our behavioural patterns are wholly explainable by natural causes, as is the gift of life.
God is like the old guy at the mill who has been working there for 50 years. No-one wants to let him go because he's such a nice guy, but there's really no reason to keep him on anymore. It's time to put God in a retirement home and watch as his family visit him less and less. Eventually he'll die alone and will be nothing more than a footnote in history - alongside every other mythological deity that came before him.
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 11:19 PM
"The fact that science has never *needed* god to explain anything says quite a lot, however."
Well, science works just as well on any number of mutually exclusive metaphysical assumptions, so I'm not sure how far that point gets you.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:20 PM
I'm going to take issue with one of your examples: IDers. They know full well the value of the scientific method or they wouldn't be trying so hard to dress their religious views up as science. If they were honest, they'd be trying to discredit science, not mimic it to support their claims.
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 11:21 PM
eric #340 wrote:
Science may technically say nothing about "God" as such, but it picks apart the components which made it plausible in the first place. It can say something about dualism, magic, apparent design, and so forth. The people who believe in God do say a lot about God, and they usually believe that a universe with a God would look very different than a universe without one would look. They set up specific claims which are supposed to persuade others.
I suppose the implied premise needed to have science address the existence of God is that God ought to be derivable from evidence. Not made "consistent" with the evidence by being added on afterwards in vague and untestable ways by Premise Keepers, but indicated by it.
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 11:30 PM
"Science may technically say nothing about "God" as such, but it picks apart the components which made it plausible in the first place."
"It may not say anything about the existence of God (nor does it say anything about the existence of the FSM), but it does have plenty to say on the way the universe works...It makes the concept of God redundant."
It only makes the concept of god redundant or implausible, logically, if you presuppose that all questions are scientific questions -- an extremely dubious assumption at best.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 11:34 PM
Only questions about reality are scientific ones, science can't comment on the make believe.But I'll bite, what role does God play? And why can't science see this if we as material beings can?
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 11:37 PM
Dammit, come on Nerd! I can't find her.
Do you think it's cheap flying this broom in a hovering pattern, with 500 flying monkeys howling for fresh troll?
Posted by: Simon | October 27, 2008 11:37 PM
Good science would never include god, but that does not mean it precludes god. The facts behind most biological and geological concepts disprove most creation myths.
Similarly we can slowly move from many gods to no god, but it'll be hard to leave no trace of religion. Look at how long Europe upheld the Roman/Greek culture, even as they scoff'd at the silly people with their pantheon.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:37 PM
This has been said many times before so I don't claim this to be any major revelation ...
If science deals with the natural physical world then if god can interact with the natural physical world, science should be able to deal with the questions.
If god does not interact with the natural physical world then... well... what good is she?
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 11:39 PM
"Only questions about reality are scientific ones, science can't comment on the make believe."
You have to look at the converse of this proposition, though, to see the problem: It may be true that only questions about reality are scientific ones, but it's not the case that only scientific questions are about reality; that was the point I was making.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 27, 2008 11:40 PM
Does evolution imply atheism?
I dunno, but if you mother tells you while you are young that there are big guys "up there" and if you father and his pals stage events that are said to address big guys "up there" then there you go.
As the twig is bent . . .
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 11:42 PM
eric #349 wrote:
All questions are science questions? No, not all questions are scientific questions.
It may, however, require presupposing that "God" is an entity.
I've noticed that the subject often gets shifted when the topic is the existence of God. It goes from whether or not God exists, to whether or not belief provides comfort, churches form communities, religious narratives give meaningful structures for understanding, commitments change lives, values and aesthetics are necessary to human flourishing, matters of taste are subjective, and so forth.
Posted by: Kel | October 27, 2008 11:45 PM
It seems you missed the point I was making, how can we know beyond our reality and know with such conviction on elements that can't be distinguished from making shit up. More to the point, when God is as theists believe an interactive force in the universe, then surely testing for those interactions is well within the bounds of science.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 11:49 PM
Patricia, Pierce tried calling her, but she won't show up even for a thread in her honor. Not much of a troll at the end of the day. You can land an breath easy. We'll have to find something to feed the monkeys in the meanwhile. I have a lot of left over halloween candy (T&T was Sunday in our area) leftover. I'll send some along as soon as I figure a way to get it through the intertoobs.
Time for bed. 'Night all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:54 PM
Exactly. If god can interact with our universe then it should be fall into the realm of testability.
Posted by: Patricia | October 27, 2008 11:55 PM
Awww. Dang.
I just asked Janine to take to the air too.
Waaah! (still can't find her though.)
Posted by: CHB | October 28, 2008 12:54 AM
Evolution does not imply atheism, it simply demolishes the validity (was there actually any to begin with?) of religions that talk about a god(s) as a creator.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 12:57 AM
Which wasn't my argument. Although, consider that kids (and adults) do also indulge in linguistic innovation and alteration.
Well, me too, and also others as well. I could always be wrong.
But consider instinct perhaps as meaning "evolved behavioral package", which in this case refers to learning itself, for several values of "learning". Or "bootstrapping", perhaps.
Yet both language and religion, in practice, arise from social consensus. Words have no inherent meaning; they are agreed-upon sounds. Religion has no inherent meaning; the various creeds are agreed-upon code phrases and gestures.
And, it occurred to me as I typed the above, while language and religion may not have any inherent meaning, certain words or phrases or gestures may have a larger-than-usual personal meaning for some individual or family group due to additional psychological causes, such as synaesthesia and/or OCD, etc. These may then feed back into the religion at large.
Obviously, this still needs careful thought, and perhaps some actual rigorous experiments. But I don't think it's particularly unlikely, given how prevalent religion is.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 1:00 AM
Oh, and speaking of psychology and religion:
Towards a neuropsychology of religion:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/10/towards_a_neuropsych.html
Posted by: Colby | October 28, 2008 1:12 AM
@Salt#217
[quote]If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
Sounds like a non-scientific inquiry to me, suggesting seeking evidence outside of the realm of science. Be very careful, as your head might explode.[/quote]
You seem to be dancing around what you mean by "non-scientific evidence" in this statement. I think what you mean is evidence that you can feel but can't prove. If I have this wrong then try to be more clear than in all your previous confusing posts.
Where did they get the idea? Um, they made it up; someone said it and they naively just believe what they're told; they has a bad dream; a drug induced vision? There are any number of answers to this that don't involve believing in god. That's understandable in an example like kids that are told by their parents the easter bunny is real, but not okay for adults that should have learned about what entails evidence and critical thinking. Kids get over the bunny fantasy, but some people never get over the sky fairy story.
Just because you, or even millions of people, want to believe in a made-up story, that doesn't make it true. And just because you have a feeling that something is true (which you call non-scientific evidence), doesn't make it true, or "real evidence".
Posted by: Ed Darrell | October 28, 2008 1:27 AM
Evolution implies atheism? That's the least of a creationist's worries, or should be. First they should worry: Does creationism imply idiocy, imbecility, lobotomy, or the need for lobotomy?
It's a silly question. It deserves an appropriately silly answer.
Does existence imply atheism? Does ability to read imply atheism? Does failure to drool uncontrollably imply atheism?
Posted by: Colby | October 28, 2008 1:31 AM
On the original question: Does evolution imply atheism?
Short answer: no. But it doesn't provide any evidence for a god either; nor does any other serious evidence-based field of study. It's the extremely successful scientific method and the total lack of evidence for the existence of god, that (strongly) implies atheism. Without evidence, any critical-thinking person must conclude that god is as likely as fairies, unicorns, easter bunnies, and orbiting teapots.
Posted by: druidbros | October 28, 2008 3:11 AM
"Just because you, or even millions of people, want to believe in a made-up story, that doesn't make it true."
Reminds me of the George Carlin joke...'I have as much authority as the Pope, but not as many people believe it.'
As for the trolls who cruise by from time to time, I think its mostly their arrogance. They think they can convince us or cause us to get all teary eyed or slit our wrists.
Posted by: Dave | October 28, 2008 3:53 AM
@Doug #13: I too would say that my answers to questions like this vary with context. For example, to me "Intelligent Design" is impossible because evolution is the process by which intelligence comes to exist in the Universe. OTOH, I see "God" as a process of becoming that depends on the intellectual AND moral progress of intelligent beings like us (which helps explain where religions come from). Thus I have no problem with phrases like "In God We Trust" or "God bless America." They help us keep our eyes on the ball.
Posted by: Luger Otter Robinson | October 28, 2008 6:19 AM
What were the 5 major extinction events? (Ibid comment #6). I sort of understand that there is a sort of major extinction event every 20 to 30 million years, because that is about the length of time it takes the non-specialised critters to evolve into the specialised species that are so prone to fail to adapt to changing conditions and die out leaving the generalists around. The Neanderthals going extinct to me does not sound like a major extinction event.
Personally, I became an atheist as a child when a Sunday school teacher told me that "the rainbow was God's promise to Noah that He wouldn't cause to rain again for at least 7 days" and I though "Yeah right..." (I think she didn't know about St Augustine's advice)>
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 28, 2008 6:56 AM
Owlmirror,
If you still come back to read this.
I'll accept your definition of "Instinct" and agree with your caveat.
Posted by: Rich | October 28, 2008 7:40 AM
"Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically..."
Thinking scientifically means asking questions and making statements which can be proved. Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith. We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. This article presents a scientist's opinion; it does not make his views science. In my opinion, the author is wrong. Indeed, there are many esteemed scientists who represent negations of the hypothesis.
Posted by: Notkieran | October 28, 2008 7:48 AM
RE #369.
If we're talking about major extinction events, I can think of Permian and Cretaceous off the top of my head.
A quick check reveals that the Holocene event is a fancy way of saying "we're killing things right now", there was a Triassic event in between the two that I mentioned, and before that, in order of increasing age, the Devonian, a twin pair of Ordivician-Silurian events, and a chain of Cambrian-Ordivician events.
Courtesy of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events
of course.
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2008 7:57 AM
Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith. We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. This article presents a scientist's opinion; it does not make his views science. In my opinion, the author is wrong.
I completely agree. Science is concerned with the rules governing the material world, not with the possible existence of supernatural beings outside it. Someone who relied solely on established scientific fact in formulating his beliefs could not be anything other than an agnostic. Faith is perfectly compatible with science; it lies outside the realm of science and in the realm of speculation. (Albeit that, of course, certain claims of certain religions can be comprehensively debunked by science. We can be pretty damn sure that the Earth was not created in 4004 BC - unless, of course, one relies on the Omphalos argument, in which case it could have been created last week for all we know, and the question becomes meaningless.)
Of course, as I've said on another thread, in evaluating the claims of particular religions, the most useful thing to do is to apply normal historical methodology and source criticism. Most religions make a specific historical claim; mainstream Christianity, for instance, claims that a specific individual (Jesus of Nazareth), living in a defined time period in a specific Roman province under a named magistrate (Pontius Pilate, of whose existence we have some evidence from other sources) performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead. These are claims of fact, and they can be evaluated just like we would any other historical claim, based on the source materials available. Likewise, the Latter-Day Saint faith claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates given to him by the Angel Moroni, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim. Again, this is a specific historical claim, the plausibility of which can be evaluated by historians.
Most religions claim the intervention of the supernatural, at a specific time in history, in the material world. By definition, a miracle or other supernatural event is impossible according to the normal laws of physics. Thus, in determining whether it occurred or not, the laws of physics are useless. However, it is true that to claim that a miracle occurred is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and no religion can advance any such incontrovertible evidence that supernatural intervention has ever occurred.
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2008 7:59 AM
So, in fact, although the scientific method can't be applied to the question of the existence of God - because such views are not falsifiable - it perhaps can be applied to the question of, for instance, whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This is a claim of material fact and is, therefore, hypothetically falsifiable; one could conceivably prove that it did not happen. As I've said, it is not helpful to say "it is impossible according to the laws of physics", because of course it is, by definition. But one can apply normal historical and scientific evaluative methods to determining whether or not it did happen.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 9:08 AM
This assumes the supernatural, in fact, exists. If it is detectable, science can understand it and it becomes "natural". If it isn't, then nobody can know anything about it. "Supernatural" is a lie.
You couldn't be more wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. Until they can prove god, I remain unconvinced. I believe in no god. I am atheist and it is an entirely scientific viewpoint.
Provided that faith never makes a testable claim, yes.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 9:35 AM
Oh I agree with you and Nerd of Redhead there. Where I disagree is Nerd's contention that "is not needed" logically leads to "does not exist." There's no logical connection. The former leads to "may as well not exist for all intents and purposes of science" but I don't see how you can logically make any stronger statement than that.
All? That's quite a statement. I think its obviously wrong. Each religion is a collection of claims. Some of these claims are about the physical world. They'll be impacted by science. Other claims are not about the physical world. They won't be impacted by science. To say that "all religious belief" becomes more difficult to hold is to assume that either all religious belief is composed of physical world claims or that all religions must, by definition, include some required physical world claim contradicted by evolution. Neither of those things is true.
IMO you're falling into the same trap Gould fell in to with his NOMA concept, only you're reversing it - Gould wanted to exclude physical claims from being religious by definition, while you appear to exclude from "religion" any collection of (only) non-physical claims.
Posted by: Tulse | October 28, 2008 10:22 AM
Eric:
The concept of "fairies" is not needed to explain plant pollenation. The concept of "elves" is not needed to explain how shoes or cookies get made. The concept of "Thor" is not needed to explain thunder. Are you suggesting that there is as much evidence for the Christian god as there is for these other entities? If so, then I think we're in agreement, and really just quibbling about terminology.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 11:06 AM
Let's see. I made two posts about science/atheism and spent most of the rest of the thread tussling with sodium chloride. I'm hardly the poster boy for the science is atheist linkage. I haven't studied philosophy, so I'm not hampered by its finer points.
My whole argument is this. Since science works so well without needing gods, it tends to imply (not prove) that gods don't exist. The implication may be weak philosophically to some or not significant at all to others. Their choice. But if I have to answer the question yes or no, I slightly favor yes due to the above implication. It's just my opinion, and I'm not going to keep trying to persuade anyone to agree with me. Now everybody else can keep arguing this as I've said my two cents.
Posted by: Rich | October 28, 2008 11:11 AM
"You couldn't be more wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. Until they can prove god, I remain unconvinced. I believe in no god. I am atheist and it is an entirely scientific viewpoint."
Being an atheist (definition: belief in the non-existence of a God) is not a scientifically supportable position. Indeed, belief has nothing to do with science at all. Science is concerned with facts and there simply is no evidence (in generality) that a God either exists or does not exist. Both events are possible and therefore the previous poster was correct in that the only honest scientific answer (in generality) is that we do not know. And to anticipate the metronomic response, I am not stating that a God exists and therefore have nothing to prove. What I am saying is that until proven otherwise, believing in general terms in the existence of a God, to the extent that does not contravene known facts, is entirely rational and not at all unscientific. And of course, the fact that something has not been detected does not mean it does not exist. Indeed, the history of science is littered with new detections. Atheism, theism and science are perfectly happy bed fellows; the former are concerned with beliefs while the latter is concerned with facts. No contradiction here.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 11:34 AM
It is a lack of belief, in my case due to the non-existence of any evidence for god. It is entirely scientific. "God does not exist" is the null hypothesis which is true by default until shown otherwise.
Belief based on faith has nothing to do with science. Belief based on evidence has everything to do with science.
But not equally probable. In fact, based on the evidence, it's much, much more likely that god doesn't exist.
That isn't the point. The point is that anyone claiming there is a god has the burden of proof. There is no proof necessary to believe the claim is false when there is no evidence for it.
The existence of a god at all contravenes known facts.
But the fact that it has been looked for and never found is evidence against it.
Posted by: WRMartin | October 28, 2008 11:35 AM
Pierce @332 -
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Seagull Troll" or "Seagull Commenter" (got the idea from "Seagull Manager")
They fly in, annoy people, squawk a bit, crap on everything, then fly away.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 11:40 AM
Yes same with the Cosmic Muffin.
Do you give weight to the possibility of the existence of the cosmic muffin absent of any evidence whatsoever of there being one?
Posted by: Rich | October 28, 2008 11:52 AM
"[Atheism] is a lack of belief"
-Is my definition of atheism wrong? In any case, a lack of belief is not scientific. A statement can either be proved or it cannot. Belief, or lack of it, is not relevant to science.
"'God does not exist' is the null hypothesis which is true"
-This null hypothesis is not testable. Indeed, it is not even measurable. It is a completely meaningless statement.
"But not equally probable. In fact, based on the evidence, it's much, much more likely that god doesn't exist."
-In order to make this statement you must have calculated a probability or at least a bound. How did you do that? Or perhaps you have a direct proof.
"The point is that anyone claiming there is a god has the burden of proof."
-But I am not claiming there is a God.
"The existence of a god at all contravenes known facts."
-Really? How does an undefined object contravene known facts?
"But the fact that it has been looked for and never found is evidence against it."
-Perhaps, but it is unequivocally not proof. It is an opinion.
Posted by: Rich | October 28, 2008 11:59 AM
"Do you give weight to the possibility of the existence of the cosmic muffin absent of any evidence whatsoever of there being one?"
I cannot say a cosmic muffin does not exist. I do not know what the probability that it might exists is and, as a scientist, I do not have the right to assume, in generality, that it does not. But there are at least two important differences.
1. In principle the existence of a cosmic muffin is a measurable event.
2. But more importantly, I, and I suspect the rest of mankind could not care less about its existence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 12:01 PM
Do you give much weight to things you have no evidence for? Which do you consider strong. Lack of evidence for something existing or lack of evidence against something existing?
Do you automatically think that because there isn't evidence against something that just means we aren't looking hard enough of don't have the ability to yet? Or is it just about the god question?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 12:04 PM
Is it? Is god?
So the importance of something weighs on whether it exists or not despite a total absence of evidence for?
Posted by: Rich | October 28, 2008 12:11 PM
"Is it? Is god?"
Yes, in the sense that a muffin is a well defined 3-dimensional object and we have well defined methods to detect it. The same, sadly, cannot be said of a God.
"So the importance of something weighs on whether it exists or not despite a total absence of evidence for?"
No, the importance of an object does not mean that is more likely to exist. But it does mean that we are likely to spend more time thinking about it. I do not deny there is a lack of evidence, I just state the fact that the lack of evidence does not mean that it does not exist.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 12:17 PM
"Do you give much weight to things you have no evidence for?"
On the contrary, I only give weight to things for which I have evidence. Hence, as a scientist, I cannot honestly say that a God exists or does not exist. I (try and) restrict myself to making statements that I can prove and humbly accept those which I cannot.
"Or is it just about the god question?"
No, there are enumerable unanswerable questions. The existence of God is just one of them. Again, on the contrary, I do not make an exception for the God question.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 12:18 PM
Why can it not be said of god. Do you believe that god can and does interact with the physical world? Did god create the universe?
Yes I got that. The lack of evidence doesn't mean that the Great Gazoo doesn't exist either. My questions is do you give every possible non existing thing, as far as the lack of evidence points, the same weight?
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 12:19 PM
If the belief, or lack thereof, is based on evidence, or lack thereof, it is scientific. That's what science is: confirming or refuting hypotheses (beliefs) with experimentation (evidence).
It doesn't have to be. It doesn't even come into existence until the hypothesis ("god exists") is made. It is the hypothesis which requires proof.
There is no evidence that a god is even necessary. The idea of a god contradicts everything we know. It is incredibly unlikely on the face of it.
I didn't say you were. The point is it is not up to me to prove there isn't. My position requires no support.
How does it not?
Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table. Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. It's an informed opinion based on evidence. That's all we can get about anything.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 12:22 PM
"Why can it not be said of god. Do you believe that god can and does interact with the physical world? Did god create the universe?"
I did not reveal my beliefs. I do not know if a God created the universe. If you know a way of testing this hypothesis or providing a direct proof, I would be glad to alleviate the uncertainty.
"My questions is do you give every possible non existing thing, as far as the lack of evidence points, the same weight?"
As a scientist, I do give non-existent objects any weight. But equally, I cannot assume that they do not exist. I am sorry, I did not make the rules.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 12:27 PM
Sorry there was a bit of me asking a question before you got a chance to answer it.
Ok let me rephrase that. If god exists and if god interacts with the physical world would we not be able to test for that? If god created the universe wouldn't there be a way to test for it?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 12:35 PM
"That's what science is: confirming or refuting hypotheses (beliefs) with experimentation (evidence)."
So what is the experiment that you have conducted to verify your belief as a fact?
"It doesn't have to be. It doesn't even come into existence until the hypothesis ("god exists") is made. It is the hypothesis which requires proof."
Sadly this is not true. Of course it does not have to be testable, but it is meaningless if it is not. And, I am not suggesting the hypothesis. I am simply stating that it is rational to believe that a God exists until proven otherwise.
"The idea of a god contradicts everything we know. It is incredibly unlikely on the face of it."
Why? What God? How did you calculate the likelihood?
"I didn't say you were. The point is it is not up to me to prove there isn't."
I didn't ask you to. You are within your rights to believe in the non-existence of a deity. It's just not scientifically supportable.
"How does it not?"
I don't know. It was your statement. You tell me how an undefined object contravenes known facts.
"Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table." - Measurable event.
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
"Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter." - Measurable event.
Prove a God does not exist - er, stuck.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 12:41 PM
"Ok let me rephrase that. If god exists and if god interacts with the physical world would we not be able to test for that? If god created the universe wouldn't there be a way to test for it?"
I do not know. If you know a way to test whether the universe was created, mankind is all ears. Until we know, any view taken is a matter of faith. Once again, I am sorry if you do not like it, but rules is rules.
Posted by: Moses | October 28, 2008 12:42 PM
I read your blog. I have it bookmarked. I enjoy it tremendously. But that's a fallacy as it presupposes atheism needs to disprove every grain of sand that is a possible faith when we can see there is no beach.
Atheism does not need to be proved. It is the first state of all creatures and is, well, the fundamental neutral state of human existence prior to any indoctrination by the members of our family/culture.
Unfortunately, as humans are pretty much bat-shit-crazy and indoctrinate themselves into the woo of theism because they can't stand not knowing how the universe works and/or being afraid of/incapable of accepting non-existence of of our unique consciousness we kind of forget that, naturally, we're atheists. And that we have accepted the "reality" of "God(s)," spirits, ghosts, etc. from our cultural indoctrination as if it was factual, proven and/or required to be disproved.
What must be proven is theism. Theism makes the positive claim -- there are supernatural events/entities that have done whatever it is they are supposed to have done.
Fortunately, some of us escape and revert back to our natural state. Often times this is with the help of science (anthropology, biology, physics, etc.) which has provided counter-indoctrinal arguments to the claims of religion (typically obliquely, but sometimes directly).
Posted by: Tulse | October 28, 2008 12:43 PM
You don't have evidence for literally an infinite number of entities. Not just the usual list of fairies, unicorns, orbiting unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, but literally an infinite number of entities: twelve-legged dogs, invisible corn, hexagonal galaxies, etc. etc. etc. All of these things are possible. So does this mean that you have a similar attitude toward them as you do toward God?
And how is that a scientific criterion? You refuse to be pragmatic about your scientific criteria for things without evidence, except that social considerations should be given weight?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 12:53 PM
"All of these things are possible. So does this mean that you have a similar attitude toward them as you do toward God?"
- I have a similar attitude in the sense I cannot honestly say they do not exist. Although I repeat, most of the examples that you refer to are measurable events. The difference is that, unfortunately, I care more about some than others.
"And how is that a scientific criterion?"
- It isn't, and wasn't intended to be, a scientific criterion.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 12:54 PM
Your logic is truly dizzying, Rich...
but, you fail here:
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
Why can't I make the same statement here:
Prove a god does not exist: I am god.
Point is, as has been pointed out to you before several times, you can't make your value statement that "god" carries more weight where burden of proof is concerned than "unicorn", "elf", or "flying spaghetti monster"... why do you believe simply saying "god" gives it added credibility than any of the other infinite invented suppositions?
By the way... your reflexive capitalization of "god" everywhere you write it is a dead giveaway to your thoughts on this subject... I think we're being baited...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 1:05 PM
Rich is an atheist. He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one. Time for Rich to give up the last imaginary god and become rational.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 1:05 PM
Yes... I agree... but the rules aren't what you think they are, I'm afraid. More accurately, until we find a way to determine the nature of the universe and it's coming into being, ALL possibilities are equally valid, but equally unfounded. Science has not yet tried to make a valid truth-claim on the nature of genesis of the universe... religion has, but "the rules" don't give it any more weight in fact than ANY other supposition.
In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it".
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:07 PM
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
I apologize, I was being fecicious. Of course, I cannot prove that Santa does not exist.
"you can't make your value statement that "god" carries more weight"
I did not say it did.
"By the way... your reflexive capitalization of "god" everywhere you write it is a dead giveaway to your thoughts on this subject... I think we're being baited..."
I am not baiting anyone. I am merely stating facts. To be honest, I do not know what I believe. I capitalize the word "God" out of respect to those for whom it matters.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 1:08 PM
I should amend that to say "beyond the 'big bang', in other words, what came before that".
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 28, 2008 1:09 PM
So, Rich, is it unscientific, or irrational, to believe in leprachauns? If not, then it is hard to see how any belief can be assigned that status, since I can always believe that the leprachauns have hidden the evidence for any particular belief I care to hold - and no-one can prove otherwise. If belief in leprachauns is unscientific and irrational, in what relevant respect does it differ from belief in God?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:12 PM
"In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it"."
- I didn't say it did. I simply said that believing that a God "did it" is not irrational or unscientific unless it can be proven otherwise. That's all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 1:13 PM
It doesn't matter to anybody here. Maybe in your world, but not ours.Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:14 PM
"He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one."
Paraphrasing Dawkins without citation eh? Of course if I believed in just one God, I could not be an atheist now could I?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:16 PM
"It doesn't matter to anybody here. Maybe in your world, but not ours. "
- In my world, respect for others is a universal concept.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 1:21 PM
Rich, Rich, you have such a problem. What is your attitude toward Odin? Does he exist in your mind as a god equal to the christian one? That would make you a polythesist. Or just a myth? If just a myth, you are an atheist toward Odin.
And if you don't believe in any god, why the argument to be able to include one?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 28, 2008 1:21 PM
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008
"In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it"."
- I didn't say it did. I simply said that believing that a God "did it" is not irrational or unscientific unless it can be proven otherwise. That's all.
So before Pasture, it was rational for people to blame communicable diseases on god's will?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:23 PM
"So, Rich, is it unscientific, or irrational, to believe in leprachauns?"
To believe in them, no, but to state that they existed without evidence, yes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 1:25 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 28, 2008 1:27 PM
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:14 PM [
"He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one."
Paraphrasing Dawkins without citation eh? Of course if I believed in just one God, I could not be an atheist now could I?
That idea was hardly new with Dawkins. Robert Ingersoll and various british freethinkers said the same thing in the nineteenth century.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:28 PM
"So before Pasture, it was rational for people to blame communicable diseases on god's will?"
I assume that you mean Pasteur. And again, believing it to be the case would have been quite rational. Knowing would have required evidence. But there are enumerable comments like this. Was mankind irrational for believing that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth etc....They prove nothing (sadly).
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 1:31 PM
Not my claim, not my burden to disprove it.
Sorry, wrong. Believing a preposterous claim for which there is no evidence is not rational. It's pretty much the definition of the word.
Not my claim. You tell me which god you're talking about and I'll tell you how likely it is. I'm not claiming god is impossible, just non-existent.
You tell me which god we're talking about and I'll answer the question. I'm not going to be sucked into a game of theological whack-a-mole.
How is that?
How is that?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 28, 2008 1:32 PM
So you can believe in leprachauns without being irrational, but you mustn't admit it?
And you didn't answer my follow-up question. If it's not irrational to believe in them, it's not irrational to believe that the mischievous little chaps are distorting the evidence in every scientific study undertaken, so it's not irrational to refuse to accept any type or amount of evidence for or against anything. Right?
Rich, I think you need to do a bit of thinking about what "irrational" means.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 1:38 PM
I assume you mean innumerable.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:40 PM
"If just a myth, you are an atheist toward Odin."
I cannot be an atheist towards one God by definition. I do not state that a God exists and I am uncertain of my own beliefs. I am honest enough to admit that science does not yet provide the answer.
"And if you don't believe in any god, why the argument to be able to include one?"
I am in support of the right of those who choose to believe. Just as I support the right of those who choose not to. Both are equally valid position to take. Science does not, and cannot (yet) validate either. The assertion that science can is my problem (as a scientist).
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Wow! Your attitude is the death of curiosity. Why bother, it is rational to pass it off as god's will.
By the way, mankind did not think that the earth was flat. There were some people that did, but not mankind. Besides at the time of Columbus, most educated people and sailors knew it was round. And let us talk about the use of force to try to keep the idea of an earth centered universe the "rational" believe.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:43 PM
"I assume you mean innumerable."
- No I meant enumerable, as in countable.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Sorry, you've just lost any credibility you may have had.
Believing in them is precisely the same as saying they exist.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Bertrand Russell was a self-professed agnostic. Yet he's the guy who came up with the teapot around Mars allegory, because he knew that his "agnosticism" was practically the same as saying that there is no god.
Philosophically some suppose that you can't rule out god, leprechauns, etc., because empirical falsification isn't really an option for these.
But a lot of continental philosophy sees it more the other way, that god isn't an issue unless and until you have some reason to begin to infer such a being. That's why I don't really like the term "atheist" for myself, because it makes no sense to deny (which is how "atheist" is generally understood, contrary to the etymology) that which has had no observations to suggest that it does, or ever did, exist.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, had no qualms about denying what is clearly a mistake--theism. The history of philosophy does give us something to deny (one reason I don't reject the "atheist" term when it's just easier to go along), which are the mistakes that gave us the "god" concept in the first place, so in that sense one rejects the "god hypothesis." It goes back to the idea that there is no entity within view to deny or reject, but there is a bunch of tripe to be denied and rejected.
To be agnostic, in my view, is really to paper over the problems that all "god concepts" have.
The foregoing is about philosophy. Scientifically it's different, at least in practice (not that scientists don't philosophize, often becoming pedantic in the process), in which you consider as non-existent whatever concept has been brought up but for which the evidence is missing. Nothing is absolutely rejected, including the teapot around Mars, but to say that something "doesn't exist" usually is understood as a contingent statement in science, and even in more intelligent adult conversation.
So of course god doesn't exist, in normal parlance. In philosophy, it matters that we can't say that abolutely, yet for most of us, that's implicit in all statements regarding "nonexistence".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 1:45 PM
Then the statement makes no sense in context. What was the point?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 1:45 PM
Rich, if Odin is a myth, your are atheistic toward Odin. My dictionary (Webster's collegiate) does not specify gods, just god. You just wish it all or nothing. Yes, the word has the common conception of being the christian god, but it can apply to any god.
You can believe if you wish. But why do we have to?
Posted by: ric | October 28, 2008 1:45 PM
"Believing in them is precisely the same as saying they exist."
No it isn't. I can believe that the Black Cats will win the league. But I do not know they will.
Posted by: spurge | October 28, 2008 1:48 PM
Apples and oranges ric.
Belief in an entity is not the same thing as belief in one outcome of an event.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 28, 2008 1:48 PM
Now you are just playing with semantics.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Equivocation.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:50 PM
"You can believe if you wish. But why do we have to?"
I didn't say you do. It's up to you. And, I stand corrected on the definition of atheism. My understanding was a belief that no Gods exists, but I confess that I am no expert in that regard.
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2008 1:52 PM
Like I said, the generalised concept of "god" (as opposed to specific claims about the material activities of a particular God or gods) cannot be proven or disproven by science alone; I think we're all in agreement there. And it is fair to say that, since there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God or gods, the claim need not be accepted. Since one cannot prove a negative, clearly the existence of a god can never be disproven either. Thus, prima facie, the most rational position is agnosticism, or perhaps "pragmatic atheism". In the absence of evidence for a strong claim, the ordinary presumption would be that the claim is false.
So, from a strictly rational perspective, all the atheists and agnostics here are entirely correct.
However, this does not eliminate the possibility of faith. Let's look specifically at the central claim of Christianity - the claim that Christ was a divine being who was physically resurrected from the grave.
Clearly, none of us were there to witness the resurrection of Christ (if it occurred), so none of us have the benefit of incontrovertible visual evidence. And as we discussed earlier, there is no concrete historical evidence either to support the claim - just a number of source documents, all of which are dated to some decades after the events which they purport to describe, and none of which have any guarantee of accuracy or external corroboration.
So, in other words, from a strictly rational perspective there is no reason for us today to believe in the divinity or resurrection of Christ, any more than there is to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
But, strangely enough, the Gospel account itself faces this particular issue head on. The character of Thomas, in John chapter 20, refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ until he was shown incontrovertible evidence - just like everyone here refuses to believe it without incontrovertible evidence. But according to the story, Jesus appeared to Thomas, resurrected from the grave. Thomas then, just as any rational person would when faced with direct physical evidence of the claim, accepted the truth of the resurrection. And Jesus said to him: "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
In other words, Christianity rests on these premises:
(1) It is claimed that a particular purported historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, was a divine being who died and was physically resurrected before ascending into heaven.
(2) There is no incontrovertible, or indeed hugely persuasive, evidence to support this claim.
(3) But, despite this, you are expected to believe it anyway; and we are, according to the Gospel writer, fortunate that we don't have any direct evidence, because this gives the people of today the opportunity to show their faith by believing in something despite the lack of evidence.
(I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to argue here... it'll become clear eventually, I hope.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 1:56 PM
Walton, if you don't know what you are arguing, don't post.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:57 PM
"Equivocation."
I accept the ambiguity of semantics which is why I chose mathematics as a profession. But my logic is clear, unless something can be proven to be false; it is perfectly rational to believe that it might be true. If it is known to be false, it is not.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:59 PM
"Then the statement makes no sense in context. What was the point?"
A countable number of 'comments', possibly countably infinite.
I am sorry, I have to go. If I havn't responded I'll try later.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 2:00 PM
Rich, Occams Razor says if something might be true or not true,the simplest explanation is not true.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 2:06 PM
A countable number of 'comments', possibly countably infinite.
All of the markings of intellectual dishonesty on display.
But my logic is clear,
Your logic is nonexistent.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 28, 2008 2:11 PM
I try to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 2:13 PM
@ Walton
I believe you meant, "this does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of god.
And to that, I would say, our point is, you can make this statement and replace "god" with just about any invented supposition. The point is, none of those suppositions should be given any amount of credulity unless some observable evidence for them is proffered, and equally, not one of those infinite number of suppositions deserves any more weight than any other.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 2:13 PM
You are deliberately engaging in semantic ambiguity to try to prove your point.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 28, 2008 2:17 PM
Or to put the atheist/agnostic debate into another perspective, most of today's "atheists" consider god to be non-existent on epistemological grounds, not on ontological grounds.
Ontology is pretty much BS anyhow.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 2:19 PM
ummm... credibility even...
(headdesk)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 2:31 PM
If I had a guess, Rich is just another Liar for JebusTM, who got in over his head. The amount of dodging and weaving was almost up to our old friend NaCl.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 2:35 PM
Aw, come on, Nerd... comparing rich to our little troll is just pouring... ummm... something... in the wound...
what is the word I'm looking for...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 2:36 PM
I'm not sure I'd go that far. I see the point he was trying to make, I just find it utterly ridiculous.
I see no need to give space to the possible existence of something despite the complete absence of evidence.
Therefor I do not believe in gods the same way I don't believe in the Great Gazoo. But I am willing to be proven wrong should some evidence make it self apparent. I'm going to bet that that fits into what Rich was trying to say.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 2:42 PM
Celtic, your are right. Rich has be a lot more persistant to be compared the other one.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 2:47 PM
I agree.
It's possible his background in mathematics has him arguing from a mathematical view of "proof". I don't disagree god *might* exist. I just find it incredibly unlikely and, until shown otherwise, I'm going to continue on the assumption that it just ain't so. No, I'm not 100% certain, but you can't be 100% certain about anything outside math and logic. I am 99.9999999999999997% certain, though.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 2:51 PM
And just so there's no confusion, that 0.0000000000000003% is not a crack for the religious to try to wedge open. It's going to take considerably more than your specious arguments to get me to even consider the possibility.
Posted by: melior | October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
Chad said:
If you are "going from" somewhere trying to end up at atheism, you've already run off the road into the ditch.
Atheism is simply not-belief in the supernatural. It's the only logical place to start from, unless you've already decided to begin with belief in something on the basis of faith or indoctrination.
Posted by: Platypus | October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
Late to the party I know, but I actually think the answer to the question should be much more generalized, namely that Science itself implies Atheism, not just evolutionary biology.
It is easy to see how Evolutionary Biology leads you to reject religion (since it cuts closer to home) but I would argue that so does the rest of Biology (which has Evolution as the skeleton on which everything else hangs), as well as Physics, Cosmology, Geology, and Chemistry if you follow their discoveries to their logical conclusions.
And as far as all the comments about "Science can never prove anything, so you can't rule out some sort of god" are concerned... remember, while that statement is true, the flip side of it is that Science is really, really good at demonstrating that other claims are impossible and therefore must be rejected as false. You can, in fact, turn an ampulla of water into wine -- but the only way to do it requires the intervention of grapes and yeast along with lots of other materials. Going directly from one to the other violates the laws of the atomic theory and thermodynamics, just for starters, and therefore the fable recounted in the bible cannot be true.
If you're going to argue that you believe in god because he hasn't been proven to not exist, then you also need to stay open to the possibility that we don't really exist and we're all living inside a perfectly-accurate computer simulation of a world instead. Because we can't rule it out. However, since there's no evidence for that either, I'm going to continue to assume that this is the real world, and it was created solely by the unfolding of entirely material natural forces.
(If Lawrence Fishburne comes up and offers me the choice of Dayquil or Nyquil, I'll reconsider.)
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 28, 2008 3:42 PM
@ Walton #429:
The "Doubting Thomas" argument carries no weight with me. If Jeebus or YHWH the Wind God or the Sta-Puft Muffin Man appear before me and tell me I'm going to Hell unless I bow down before them and acknowledge them as my Lord and Master, which is more likely: that it's actually happening, or that I've gone crazy?
There are a lot of crazy people in the world, isn't the fact that I've just become one of them MUCH more likely than that these fantasy figures actually exist? I'd check into the hospital for a CAT scan, not a church to pray for forgiveness.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2008 3:49 PM
Sorry, no time to read 434 comments, I've only read to 135. Just in case it hasn't been answered -- it needs to be --, here's number 6:
Doesn't work. Birds being created at the same time as "fish" and before all land animals simply isn't compatible with reality.
We don't really know anything about interactions between our ancestors and the Neandertalers. There's no evidence of conflict. I once read a review paper in Nature or Science that said both died out due to the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum, and then Europe was resettled by Homo sapiens sapiens from elsewhere, but I can't find that paper anymore... More importantly, the whole background of the Cain & Abel story looks like a 3rd-millennium-BCE conflict between farmers and shepherds.
Comment 38:
How else could you ever find out if you're wrong?
Comment 126:
Guess what, as far as I can tell, I don't have any such opinions -- and I think neither should you.
Remember: If you were wrong, how would you know?
...and because I happened to come across comment 180 while scrolling:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition to be deployed by the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!eleventyone!!!
Posted by: B. Evan Carlson | October 28, 2008 3:56 PM
I know I said I was abandoning this thread, and I will after I just state my closing point in response to a couple comments.
Religion, of necessity, cannot be ruled out a priori on the basis of it lacking evidence. If this is an argument from experience (i.e. never before seeing evidences), then I do not believe this is justified - our experiences often lead us astray. One may say there are probably no evidences but to say that there can't be evidences on these grounds is clearly bunk. If one is saying that religion inherently doesn't possess any relation to evidence, then I have to disagreee. First of all, we can't confuse evidence with either the terms "proof" or "physical evidence." Evidence is, the way I am using it(which may legitimately vary from others), facts which support a conclusion. They don't necessarily prove it indisputably. Just as there is no instant proof of evolution in the rigorous philosophical sense, so is there no proof of God in that sense either. Instead there are evidences for and against. Evidence for God - such things as the sudden existence of the universe. Doesn't prove God; there are other possibilities, but it is very conducive to a theistic view. Evidence against God - the existence of evil. Likewise, it is entirely possible for God to exist along with evil, but it becomes less likely. Evidences that weigh on these issues include scientific evidences (though not as much as many would think), historical evidences, personal experiential evidences, and philosophical evidences. This is neither the time nor the place to debate these in detail.
How is God inefficient? There is no limit to supplies, nothing for Him to be efficient or inefficient with. Why would He do it then? It appears that it is to put us in a position of awe and humility. Also, it allows us to view the history of the universe by looking at the light from progressively further away regions of the universe.
That's a rather self-serving caricature. Would you accept it if a Christian apologist said "A theist responds honestly to the evidence for God. An atheist fears the truth and wants to be his own god, so he makes up excuses for the evidence." What you said is not universally true. Scientists are not purely objective - I don't know how anyone can hold such a view. And many theists are very analytical; additionally, many have come from atheist backgrounds. Furthermore, I am constantly analyzing my ideas; I have been near atheism at points but have been persuaded towards Christianity. One need only view my podcast library - the majority are atheist and freethinker discussions and lectures. If what I believe is true, I should be willing to test it against other ideas.
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Just a pointer on efficiency when reading a brutally long thread such as this one; and prompted by B. Evan Carlsons's comment above:
There is no such word in English as "evidences." It exists only in Christian apologetics. If any one thought they had EVIDENCE they would say so. So when you encounter the word "evidences" you can with good conscience quit reading. You know at that point that you are being subjected to a Christian screed.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 4:17 PM
Oh, stop bloody posturing. If you want to discuss it, discuss it. If you don't, don't. Stop telling us it's "my last one, I promise this time."
Yes, it can, precisely because there is no evidence. Without evidence, there is no reason to think you didn't just make it up.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 4:24 PM
B. Evan Carlson
Wow... lot's of problems with that statement, but the biggest and most obvious is your complete lack of understanding for how an atheist would approach things.
So, as for a theist responding honestly to evidence for god... just point me to that evidence and show me how it's testable... there's the failure point in that argument. And strip the "honestly" from that statement, frankly.
As an atheist... why would I hold "truth" in any sort of fear? That's a sentiment that is exclusively in the domain of the theist... fear of your belief system being exposed as falsehood is the root of this position, and as the atheist holds no belief system (from a deity standpoint), what is there to fear? Unless you're going to push Pascal's wager on me. And I assure you, no atheist is really worried about that.
And your last sentence "he makes up excuses for the evidence" simply ignores the very point that there is no evidence.
Very good... so go ahead and put what you believe to the scientific test...
Oh... wait...
You were persuaded? Read that again, closely, and see if you can find the problem with that statement... and frankly, using the entire basis of your argument, why weren't you pushed towards Buddhism? Or any other religion? If the core of your argument is that "religion can not be ruled out simply because there is no evidence for it", why settle on Christianity? Find the honest answer to that question, then ask yourself a few other tough questions... and you might find yourself coming to the same conclusions that I and many, many other of us "former theists" have come to. And it is freeing, I assure you.
Posted by: Tulse | October 28, 2008 4:37 PM
WTF? Honestly, how is this not just post hoc justification?
Really? Why not? These kind of statements really sound like weaselling to me -- "I have a list of truly remarkable evidences which this thread is too small to contain". I think the term the kids use these days is "put up or shut up".
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 4:49 PM
The problem is, the only logical conclusion that we can draw from such lack of experience, and from human fallibility in general, is that religion must be false.
Note that this does not automatically mean atheism, but it does mean that the religious characterization of a powerful, knowing, loving God cannot possibly be true. This, for the simple reason that such a God would be aware of the epistemological problems that humans have, and would not insist on faith, but would rather provide empirical demonstrations of its existence.
I've had that above argument called a version of the problem of evil, but note that it has a much weaker requirement -- God demonstrating his existence; God speaking for himself -- than removing all evil from the world. Because the requirements that God has to fulfill are weaker, it is in fact more obvious that any God that exists is in violation of the usual traits claimed for it (or him, if you insist).
I am indeed agnostic about any putative weak Gods, or nonbenevolent Gods, or ignorant Gods. But that said, I don't consider them particularly likely, and worship is almost certainly useless.
Especially given that science does provide better explanations of the universe, and better methods of finding out better explanations than any putative actions of any putative entity that might or might not be out there.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 4:58 PM
A variant of He-who-shall-not-be-named's "perls before swine" comment.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 5:00 PM
s/perls/pearls
I'll give you three guesses what I was doing all day.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:00 PM
Rich, you should read up on the null hypothesis. Just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so in that sense no-one can ever have evidence that something does exist. This is where the burden of proof comes into it. Positive claims require positive evidence. If I were to say "there's a dragon in my garage", it would be on me to prove there is one. Of course the dragon can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelt, and the only way I know of his presence is that he has revealed himself in my mind.
This is the God problem, you can't prove the dragon isn't there, but you have nothing other than my revealed word that the dragon is. Surely scepticism dictates that the concept of the intangible indivisible dragon requires more than my personal belief for credulity. But that's what people essentially do with God.
So we can't have evidence against God's existence because there's no falsifiable evidence out there. Since there is no evidence for God, there's no reason to believe in God. Hence being atheist. Do I believe in God? No. The question of knowledge however...
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:10 PM
It cannot be ruled out, there's just no reason to rule it in. How is the concept of God any more credulous than the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 5:33 PM
It seems to me that there is one glaringly false assumption under-girding the whole 'science leads to atheism' claim, i.e. the assumption that mechanism precludes agency, or that mechanism and agency are mutually exclusive. Now, one can perhaps dismiss the *need* for agency on pragmatic or Ockhamian grounds, but there are two problems with this: First, it's not a scientifically grounded dismissal, and so it cannot be claimed that 'science' supports it; and second, pragmatic or Ockhamian considerations don't provide any support for the sort of ontological conclusions atheism would entail.
Now, it may be the case that science can rule out natural claims about specific gods, or the 'how' questions of theism, it cannot rule out theism itself, i.e. the 'that' claims of theism. Again, we're lead logically to the conclusion that science doesn't logically lead to atheism.
So, while it may be the case that a scientific *worldview* leads to atheism, science, qua science, decidedly does not -- at least not *logically*. However, this conclusion does open us up to one way in which science can lead to atheism, viz. psychologically. In this sense, the question was ambiguous, and the answer is both yes and no: no, science doesn't in any way logically entail atheism; but yes, it often does, insofar as it influences one's worldview, lead one psychologically to atheism.
Of course, we can always look at the data if we want to understand the question trivially, i.e. as 'does science, in the real world (as opposed to logically), lead to atheism?' Most doctors are religious, and close to half of all scientists in the U.S. believe in a personal god (if you include deists, the number is much higher). Some of our most distinguished scientists are religious, though there is an inverse relationship between religious belief and scientific distinction. Therefore, even if we understand the question trivially, the answer is still no, science doesn't lead to atheism.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:35 PM
You're missing the point again.Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2008 5:42 PM
I think my point has been much misunderstood. I'll state it as clearly and coherently as I can, step-by-step:
(1) It seems to be agreed here that the generic concept of a God or gods, being by its nature empirically untestable and unfalsifiable and outside the observed material world, is outside the scope of science.
(2) From a strictly rational perspective, this means the most logical position is agnosticism, since there's no reason to believe in any particular God or gods.
(3) Specific religions do, however, make historical claims (e.g. the Christian claim of the death and resurrection of Jesus) which relate to material reality. These claims are in theory testable and falsifiable, and can be evaluated through normal historical methods.
(4) No religion is, however, able at present to submit incontrovertible or compelling evidence in support of any of its historical claims. For instance, there is no strong evidence that the Gospels' account of Jesus' resurrection is accurate.
(5) Therefore, from a strictly rational and logical perspective, the most logical position must be unbelief, unless and until any evidence is adduced in favour of a particular religious belief.
(6) However... religion rests on faith, not on reason. In the case of Christianity, the Gospel account itself addresses this question in John 20:21 (cited supra). Hence why it is possible to subscribe to religious beliefs.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:46 PM
Actually, it's both agnosticism and atheism. If there's no way of knowing, then there's no reason to believe. Which makes religion a fruitless endeavour and there's no point in believing other than for belief's sake.Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 5:53 PM
"You're missing the point again."
No, it is you who have been consistently missing the point by your apparent inability to grasp the meaning of the term 'atheism.' The question, 'Does science lead to atheism?' *can't* be identified with the question, 'Does science rule out a god who interacts with the world?' *Even if* it could rule out such a god (which it decidedly cannot; if you don't see why, then you didn't understand my point about mechanism and agency on the one hand, and my point about scientific reasons versus pragmatic or Ockhamian reasons on the other), it cannot rule out *any* possible god, which is precisely what atheism, *by definition,* entails.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 28, 2008 5:59 PM
What is it about you people that you can't even bother to find out anything before you splatter your ignorance around? It took me a few seconds to find this:
Your lack of concern for rectifying your ignorance is noted.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:59 PM
Would you actually go back and read what people have wrote Eric, no-one is claiming unequivocally that evolution implies atheism, rather that science is replacing many a role that religion played. This is why PZ said a "conditional yes". Of course atheism can't rule out God, but that's not the point. It's like you've just read the thread title, then rallying against that regardless of what was actually discussed. No evolution doesn't necessarily stop religious belief, but it does eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation for our origins and replaces the need for God. That, in effect can lead to atheism.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 6:02 PM
Atheism doesn't rule out God, atheism is just simply not believing in any God. It's a question of belief, not knowledge. I see no reason to believe in God so I'm an atheist - end of story.Posted by: windy | October 28, 2008 6:10 PM
Eric, you are confused. The question was what science implies, not what it logically entails. Rational conclusions based on science are generally not done by logical deduction from a priori premises. Does smoking logically entail lung cancer?
Atheism does not "entail" that we definitely need to rule out any possibility of gods. Science hasn't "disproved" or "ruled out" Bigfoot, either. Science doesn't logically entail that there's no Bigfoot. Science implies (or suggests even more strongly) that there's no Bigfoot and that it's reasonable to be a Bigfoot atheist.
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 6:17 PM
OK. Here we go. Please excuse the grammar - there was quite a lot to deal with.
"Rich, Occams Razor says if something might be true or not true,the simplest explanation is not true"
Yes, but in order to apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation must be agreed. It is my casual observation that the disagreement is about precisely that. .
"I try to believe six impossible things before breakfast."
But that is illogical. It would be irrational to believe in something that is impossible.
"You are deliberately engaging in semantic ambiguity to try to prove your point."
On the contrary, I abhor ambiguity. Consider the following; It is my understanding that the commonly accepted interpretation of the term 'to believe' is not the same as the term 'to know'. I can believe without evidence but I cannot know without evidence. And it is clearly illogical to believe in or to 'have faith' about a fact. However, one is entitled to believe that something might be true so long as it is not only possible to be false. For example, I can rationally believe that my football team will avoid relegation until it is mathematically impossible for them to do so. I could not rationally believe that relegation could be avoided if it were no longer possible. I would then know relegation was inevitable; a fact. Substitute the event = {relegation} for the event = {a God exists}.
"I am 99.9999999999999997% certain, though."
Sadly, plucking a number out of a hat does not represent a proof and certainly does not afford you the right to assume that it is. And I do not deny you the right to believe that a God does not exist.
"Rich, you should read up on the null hypothesis"
I am perfectly well versed in the Null Hypothesis. Well enough to know that a useful application requires a well defined measure space. Indeed we can measure whether a dragon exists in your garage. We cannot however measure whether an undefined object is in your garage. Unsatisfactory I know, but a fact nevertheless. On the contrary sir, it is your knowledge of measure theory which needs to be scrubbed up!
"who got in over his head. The amount of dodging and weaving was almost up to our old friend NaCl."
My head is where it has always been and I am perfectly in control of it. If you call stating facts dodging and weaving I plead guilty.
"Your logic is nonexistent."
In that case you will have little trouble in refuting it. In fact I would be grateful to you would do so. As I have said, I would welcome the removal of uncertainty.
"All of the markings of intellectual dishonesty on display."
That comment is offensive, uncalled for and without foundation. I am fastidiously honest.
"Not my claim, not my burden to disprove it."
Excellent! The neither of us are making claims. We neither have anything to prove and we are both entitled to believe what we want to believe. But of course, we must accept that the other might be right. I do, do you?
"Sorry, wrong. Believing a preposterous claim for which there is no evidence is not rational. It's pretty much the definition of the word."
No, you are wrong. That the claim is preposterous is your opinion. It is not a fact. And I do not need evidence to 'believe'. I need evidence to know. I do not claim to know.
"I'm not claiming god is impossible, just non-existent."
That statement however requires proof. And non-detection is not sufficient.
"You tell me which god we're talking about and I'll answer the question. I'm not going to be sucked into a game of theological whack-a-mole."
No, you claimed that the existence of a God contradicts known facts, not me. I am merely asking you to substantiate this claim. Are you retracting your claim?
"Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table." - Measurable event.
How is that? - By direct observation of course.
"Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter." - Measurable event.
How is that? I am no NASA scientist but a teapot is a 3d object in a measurable space, so what is the problem?
"Your attitude is the death of curiosity. Why bother, it is rational to pass it off as god's will."
Why? I did not say it was Gods will and I am a scientist and naturally curious. I am just honest about what I know and what I do not. In the context of your example, it was not known that it was not God's will.
"By the way, mankind did not think that the earth was flat. There were some people that did, but not mankind. Besides at the time of Columbus, most educated people and sailors knew it was round. And let us talk about the use of force to try to keep the idea of an earth centered universe the "rational" believe."
Whatever. The specific example was not the point being made, of course.
"you can believe in leprachauns without being irrational, but you mustn't admit it?"
I didn't say that.
"And you didn't answer my follow-up question. If it's not irrational to believe in them, it's not irrational to believe that the mischievous little chaps are distorting the evidence in every scientific study undertaken, so it's not irrational to refuse to accept any type or amount of evidence for or against anything. Right?"
Wrong. We accept facts in the context in which they have been proved. We just don't use them for anything else!
I think that is all.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 6:18 PM
You mean, John 20:29.
But addressing the question does not resolve the problem.
What are people supposed to have faith in, according to that verse? In a story utterly counter to all experience and sanity related without empirical evidence by humans of known problematic reliability.
And that sort of behavior is sufficiently similar to that of a confidence man or other fraud as makes no difference.
Of course it's possible. But so what?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 28, 2008 6:25 PM
And it is clearly illogical to believe in or to 'have faith' about a fact. - Rich
Utter nonsense, so far as belief is concerned. I believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I believe 5 is a prime number. I believe London is the capital of the UK. You cannot know anything without at the same time believing it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 6:25 PM
Rich, I didn't read your last post since I have a rule of not reading any post much longer than my screen. If you want us to read your posts, break it down into at most screen size pieces. You don't need to respond to everybody at once.
Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2008 6:32 PM
I'll give you three guesses what I was doing all day.
Casting Perl scripts before swine?
Bummer. In my expeience, the pigs, they just don't appreciate elegant code.
Posted by: faux mulder | October 28, 2008 6:54 PM
ah...the atheist / agnostic debate.
okay, right, i can't actually disprove gawd, yet call myself an atheist...how can this be?
yes, there may be a gawd, however, a chicken may someday win the kentucky derby, but not only am i not putting money on either one, i find it rather silly to bother mentioning such improbabilities in the first place.
Posted by: PurpleTurtle | October 28, 2008 7:05 PM
1) You have already argued that nothing should be discounted as impossible ("As a scientist, I do give non-existent objects any weight. But equally, I cannot assume that they do not exist. I am sorry, I did not make the rules."). Please try to be consistent at least.
2) Religion posits claims that would otherwise be considered 'impossible' - resurrection, reincarnation, miracles, etc. Are you now doing a 180 to agree that religious belief that rests on the hypotheses of impossible events are both irrational and illogical? Or is it possible that you hold religious views to a different standard than any other claim?
/delurk
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 28, 2008 7:07 PM
Probably because there is no SQL to it...
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 7:08 PM
Exactly, I find it odd that people define "atheist" in the most explicit narrow sense of the word. Though it's no surprise then when they come to misundertand the question at hand.Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 7:26 PM
How can we measure the dragon if it's an intangible object? You've missed the point of the argument, the dragon can't be measured, I only know it's there because it revealed itself to me in my mind. This is where the burden of proof comes in. You can't say the dragon doesn't exist, but you have no reason to believe it does other than taking my word for it.Posted by: Mu | October 28, 2008 7:32 PM
Claiming Evolution => atheism is a plot to deny any non-atheist (not only the full blown Xians, but even those who are simply not discounting the possibility) a claim to be serious intellectuals/scientists/educated people. I can "know" my science, from the big bang on, and still be a traditionalist who takes his kids to church (not religiously, pun intended)for the moral value. I find it much easier to believe in God given morals than some abstract philosophy that introduces morality as a natural development. That doesn't cloud my trust in evolution, it just supplements it with a certain other book for how to conduct my affairs.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 7:43 PM
Just curious, how can you believe that morality is God-given when everything else about us has evolved? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of evolution if there's a necessity for God to intervene?Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 8:04 PM
In order for me to refute it, I would have to have evidence that it exists.
You most certainly are not. "But there are enumerable comments like this. Was mankind irrational for believing that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth etc...." The only word that makes sense here - particularly give the (redundant) etc./ellipsis combo - is "innumerable." "Enumerable" would serve no function in this context, or in the context of your # 388 for that matter. Either you recognize this, and are being intellectually dishonest, or you are a very confused thinker. I believe it is the former. There are no other options.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 28, 2008 8:13 PM
I don't recall seeing it in this thread, but it comes up from time to time: the claim that god won't prove his existence, because we wants humans to have faith, and they won't have faith in something that's proven.
Can someone tell me where that comes from? I've always felt it's an extremely slippery piece of evasion to try and cover the lack of evidence for god's existence. Plus the bible is full of god's interaction with humans; why are we suddenly to believe that god was fine with proof back then but changed his mind on the idea somewhere along the way?
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 8:16 PM
So God killing the vast proportion of life on the planet is "moral"?
God lying to his created offspring and condemning them and all their descendants is "moral"?
God forgiving a man who murdered his brother out of jealousy is "moral"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 8:49 PM
Glen: "Your lack of concern for rectifying your ignorance is noted."
Please, Glen. If the claim is that science leads to atheism, and that it's corrosive of religious beliefs, and that it *ought* to be so, then it's clear to anyone with a properly functioning brain that we'e not talking about the mere 'absence or lack of belief in god(s)' of weak atheism. Hence, your utter inability to grasp *and to apply properly* subtle conceptual distinctions is noted.
Windy: "Eric, you are confused. The question was what science implies, not what it logically entails."
Windy, the *original* question is what evolution implies, but as PZ reformulated it, it's *clearly* much stronger than that:
"First, let's clear up the incoherence of the question [i.e. the question, 'Does evolution imply atheism?']. I understand it as, "Does understanding science [it's not just biologists who exhibit this phenomenon!] lead to an abandonment of religious beliefs?", and that's the question to which I think an affirmative is the correct answer. It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief. However, it is a messier answer than just a "yes" or "no" can properly address, because most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons..."
Note the shift from 'evolution' to 'science'; note the shift from 'implies' to 'leads to'; note the shift from 'a conditional yes' to 'it ought to'; note the unambiguous, vigorous declarative sentence, "Scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief"; and, finally, note that it's "messier than just a yes or no" *not* because we're talking about implication instead of entailment, but because "most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons."
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Except that virtually everyone arguing atheism is arguing exactly that, lying fucktard.
Not only are you a stupid liar, and eager to reveal that fact, you are incapable of understanding the plain meaning of the commenters here. Believe me, moron, I can grasp subtle distinctions, while you can't even understand the blatant expository statements of the posters here.
Now go screw yourself, mindless babbler, and don't expect me to respond to (or most likely, even to read) any more of your tawdry, retarded lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 9:08 PM
Almost everyone here is and is arguing for weak atheism. We are not talking about the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that we don't need her anymore. Without a need for God, there is no reason to belive in God, and hence it implies atheism.Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 9:08 PM
Glen D, in fact, if you actually tried thinking critically about the definitions you use rather than simply cutting and pasting them, you'd see that they're incoherent:
"Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, *without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities*. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is *the belief that no deities exist*, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity."
Note that these definitions don't effectively distinguish weak from strong atheism, since one could be a strong atheist by 'believing that no deities exist' and still claim to be 'without a commitment to the *necessary* non-existence of deities.' The 'lack of belief' requirement is obviously entailed by not believing, so even though the two are conceptually distinct in themselves, the definitions don't allow you to make any use of the distinction (given the 'without a commitment to the necessary non-existence' criterion)! Way to go: you just posted a completely incoherent set of definitions in an attempt to illustrate your intellectual fastidiousness and to demonstrate my ignorance!
"What is it about you people that you can't even bother to find out anything before you splatter your ignorance around? It took me a few seconds to find this."
Next time, try *at least* a few minutes.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 9:16 PM
Say it ain't so! You're just getting on a roll, and it's been so long since I last read a good series of Glen D rants! (I'm not being sarcastic - I really have missed them. ...I'm not proud.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 9:16 PM
Eric, your ideas were expressed earlier in this thread. You aren't changing any minds, certainly not mine. You have had your say, so time to let things drop as I did.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 28, 2008 9:21 PM
Rich -
you said:
This, above all else, is where my frustration with you stems... because it is this completely false premise that you continuously fail to grasp, and from which you base all the rest of your assertions.
The statement that god is non-existent does NOT require proof. It is EXACTLY the other way around. The statement that god, (or the easter bunny, unicorns, fsm, etc etc etc) does exist requires proof. Period.
And, as a result, you are not in a position to dictate what methods of proof are acceptable to you... "non-detection" or other. If you can not grasp this basic concept, and understand why your entire argument fails from there, then I'm not sure how else to continue the discussion.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 9:33 PM
"Almost everyone here is and is arguing for weak atheism. We are not talking about the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that we don't need her anymore."
Note that 'strong atheism' *doesn't* require 'absolute certainty' that god doesn't exist; rather, it only requires that one believe that god doesn't exist (as opposed to not believing that god exists, or 'weak atheism'). The proponent of weak atheism only claims to lack belief in god, while the proponent of strong atheism claims to believe it's the case that god doesn't exist. Now, when you say that 'science leads to atheism, that science is corrosive to religious beliefs, and that science ought to do so,' you're *not* a weak atheist. You're confusing whether one can prove god doesn't exist with whether one asserts that god doesn't exist; a strong atheist need only do the latter to qualify as a strong atheist.
Posted by: DDeden | October 28, 2008 9:39 PM
Bio-Science is another religion, just replace god/s commandments with gene/s coding. Thou shalt multiply/mutate upon the earth...
IMO biology is natural hardware, religion is supernatural software.
I can't be an atheist, cuz I don't believe there is a god that doesn't exist. I'm just a naturalist.
Posted by: Patricia | October 28, 2008 9:53 PM
Atta boy Glen!
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 9:59 PM
No, you aren't! You're just trying to define what level of atheism people are talking about to suit your own argument!Quite simply, if the universe is mechanistic what role does an interventionalist God play? If people don't see a need to believe in God they won't believe God exists. They will, therefore be, atheist.
Posted by: windy | October 28, 2008 10:04 PM
That's your opinion, but nevertheless nobody is claiming any logical necessity, since that's not the way scientific evidence works. You and the other commenters who felt compelled to start talking about logical entailment display a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge in general.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 28, 2008 10:19 PM
eric,
All that implies is that a strong atheist can also be a weak atheist. Which is stated by the very article Glen cited, if you bothered to read it--it defines "strong atheist" as a subcategory of "weak atheist". It also clears up your confusion over the word "necessary" above; the author means that weak atheists do not necessarily commit themselves to the non-existence of deities, not that they do not consider the non-existence of deities logically necessary.
But you didn't read the article, did you?
That makes no sense. If science is corrosive to religious beliefs, then science tends to remove a belief in god. It doesn't follow that science tends to instill a positive belief in god's nonexistence.
Kel's argument is perfectly consistent with weak atheism.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 10:20 PM
"You and the other commenters who felt compelled to start talking about logical entailment display a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge in general."
Absolutely not. In fact, I have criticized others on these boards or speaking about 'scientific proofs'; I understand perfectly well that science deals with evidence, not proof, and that all scientific conclusions are provisional. In fact, this is implicit in my argument: science can't 'lead to' atheism *because* of this inadequacy. Personally, I agree with Alister Mcgrath here: logically, the most one can say is that science leads to agnosticism.
Posted by: windy | October 28, 2008 10:35 PM
No, silly. It can lead to PROVISIONAL atheism (it doesn't have to). Since all conclusions are provisional, this is not a special handicap for atheism.
There's that word again. If you require logical entailment, we have to be agnostic about all conclusions based on scientific evidence. If you just require a provisional conclusion based on evidence, there is no reason to say that atheism can never be such a conclusion.
Posted by: Jeff Williams | October 28, 2008 10:56 PM
A better (even more accurate) question would be...does evolution (or science) imply AGNOSTICISM?
The biggest issue with evolution among many religious people, and this statement could rightly be generalized to any debate over science vs. religion, is that scientific theories invalidate a fundamental reading of Scriptures. Once CAN be religious and believe in evolution...IF one does not subscribe to a fundamentalist belief that the Bible is the infallible and literal explanation for the world rather than a metaphorical.
So let's reframe the issue. Its not science vs. religion. It is science vs. fundamentalism and Biblical literalism.
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 10:57 PM
That depends on what one means by "proof" - as PZ wrote in the post, counterfactual claims can certainly be scientifically disproven. To the extent that such claims are bases for theism, science renders them fatuous.
Posted by: Jeff Williams | October 28, 2008 11:03 PM
As to scientific proof...if we equate the lack of proof of pink unicorns to the lack of proof of a supernatural deity, then of course we're talking about an apples-to-apples comparison. Of course, speaking philosophically rather than scientifically...the concept of a supernatural deity is a little larger in scope.
Simply put...arguing about the existence of God is not a debate one should carry on from a scientific perspective. That answer has already been debated...and it is no. But since when are arguments about the existence of God ever, ever limited to the scope of science? Two different lenses are at work here and this is not in some odd way like talking about Shakespeare in Calculus class and talking about differential equations in British Literature.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 11:06 PM
Why are people trying to discern between atheism and agnosticism? They are two different constructs where both can be the consequence of the scientific understanding of the world. No reason to believe, no way of knowing - thus science implies both atheism and agnosticism.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 11:15 PM
The problem with that is that many theists posit God as a force in the universe, God is an entity that plays some role in human affairs - how else would they even be able to claim anything about God that way? i.e. He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, was the giver of life - and man in his own image, creator of sin, came down to earth to impregnante a virgin with himself, lived a life of chastity then was tortured and died only to rise back up to heaven and take away the sin of his own creation. Not to mention he's 3 deities in one; he's the father, the son and the holy spirit. He answered prayers, watches over the world, and when people die he is the enternal judge and redeemer. Those who are virtuous go to heaven and those who aren't go to hell.This is a pretty set doctrine for a concept that is unknowable. And most of all, many of those claims are well within the scope of science. Take the interaction away and you have a deist God. And what good does that do a theist?
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 11:16 PM
<pedant>Regarding "the concept of a supernatural deity" - supernatural is redundant here; the set of theists is a subset of the set of supernaturalists.</pedant>
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 11:18 PM
There appears to be some awful fine nits being picked in this discussion. I'm not sure such fine distinctions need to be made. Poe-tay-to, Poe-tah-to. Slice either finely and fry, you have what I call spud flakes.
Another two cents. Carry on.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 28, 2008 11:24 PM
OT but funny.
http://www.bubbygram.com/zenjewishhumor.htm
The Jew and the Athiest
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 11:26 PM
Nerd, you're spot on. But I figure by the time the comment count hits the multiple hundreds, a little relaxation of standards is allowed - I know full well Jeff used "supernatural" as emphasis.
I admit my own point was redundant.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 11:29 PM
Stop nitpicking about the nitpicking. ;)Posted by: Justin Moretti | October 28, 2008 11:36 PM
Evolution does not lead to atheism - only to the rejection of unreason (e.g. a young earth, ID).
Hardline atheists like you, PZ, will never be able to confront the hardline fundies adequately, because in proclaiming your atheism so loudly, you have removed any form of common ground on which to engage them. Some of you, but by no means all, treat all religion with the same contempt that is rightly heaped upon the lunatic fringe (i.e. those same young-earth Creationists), when in fact ONLY a religious person with some philosophical common ground can ease these people back off their precipice.
The hardline atheists fail to understand that the people they are trying to save from (in this instance Christian) fundamentalism have been brainwashed into equating lack of belief in God with lack of a moral compass, and rejection of God with rejection of morality (or even with idolatry). That equation is, of course, complete bullshit - though a believer, I'm no more inclined to believe that than Richard Dawkins is. The fundamentalist preachers who spew this bullshit need to be defeated and discredited on their own ground before their hands can be loosened from the grip they have on their believers.
Science education is a necessary component of the battle for hearts and minds, but the sheep over whom the crazies rule won't listen to even GOOD science education from a person they (have been led to) believe has abandoned all moral restraint. Religion forms the centre of these people's lives, and the more you insist that science and religion are utterly incompatible, the more you will drive them away rather than gather them in.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2008 11:38 PM
Anton: "All that implies is that a strong atheist can also be a weak atheist. Which is stated by the very article Glen cited, if you bothered to read it--it defines "strong atheist" as a subcategory of "weak atheist."
No kidding. Did you actually read my post?
eric: "The 'lack of belief' requirement is obviously entailed by not believing..."
If strong atheism is not believing, and if weak atheism is lacking belief, then I'm clearly saying that strong atheism entails weak atheism. Hence, you've obviously misdiagnosed a nonexistent problem.
"It also clears up your confusion over the word "necessary" above; the author means that weak atheists do not necessarily commit themselves to the non-existence of deities, not that they do not consider the non-existence of deities logically necessary."
No, this is clearly false. That *can't* be what the author meant by 'necessary,' since *that* would imply that weak atheists *can* 'commit themselves to the non-existence of deities'; however, this is precisely what weak atheists, qua weak atheists, cannot do. Now, you may want to argue that they can *if they are =also= strong atheists*, but the author is here *clearly* defining weak atheism *in contrast* to strong atheism (note the key word *contrasts* in the definition):
"Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity."
Since the use of the term 'necessary' came in a definition of weak atheism *in contrast* to a definition of strong atheism, your reading is obviously false. Further, the term 'necessary' qualifies 'non-existence'; it doesn't qualify the commitment of the weak atheist. Indeed, it cannot, since weak atheists make no such commitments.
I've shown your reading to be false, so, if my reading of 'necessary' stands, then my initial criticism of the definition stands.
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 12:00 AM
You do know that misrepresenting PZ invalidates your contention without requiring further analysis, right?
Posted by: Brown Jenkin | October 29, 2008 12:02 AM
Science does not undercut the value of some religious texts as philosophical or literary pieces, or the value of some religious practices (such as meditation).
Science does undermine the epistemological value of religious mythology.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 29, 2008 12:39 AM
Eric,
Yes. And that article agrees with you, which is why your objection holds no water.
Sweet Christmas, you still haven't read the article?
Paragraph 5:
"A strong atheist is also a weak atheist, but the converse is not necessarily true: a weak atheist may assert there is a lack or absence of evidence for justifying a belief in any deity, but he does not necessarily deny the possibility of any deity's existence."
Emphasis mine. Oh, and notice where the second "necessarily" is located?
While you're catching up on your reading, recheck the definition of "contrast." "Weak atheist" and "strong atheist" don't need to be mutually exclusive categories in order to be contrasted. They just need to be different categories.
It is entirely possible to, for instance, contrast the definitions of "French" and "Parisian," even though a Parisian is also French. As long as "Parisian" and "French" are not equivalent, a contrast can be made.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 4:53 AM
"You have already argued that nothing should be discounted as impossible"
-No I didn't. There are many things that are known to be impossible and believing in them would of course be entirely irrational.
"Are you now doing a 180 to agree that religious belief that rests on the hypotheses of impossible events are both irrational and illogical?"
As above, I have never suggested that believing in something that is impossible is anything other than irrational. Since, for something to be impossible, it must have been proven to be the case. However, believing in something which is possible, at least in my understanding of the common usage of this term, is entirely rational. As I said, it is entirely rational and common language usage, for me to believe that my football team will not be relegated right up to the point that it is mathematically impossible for them not to be. Of course I do not know they will be relegated until it is mathematically impossible for them to avoid relegation. After this point, it would be irrational for me to believe that they could avoid relegation. Now of course the difference between the event = {relegation} and the event {a God exists} is that the former is in principle measurable. I know how to form a reasonable expectation based historical data. In other words I can calculate an estimate of the likelihood of relegation. But, I do not know how to make the same calculation for the existence of a God, not least because the object is undefined. Therefore, the likelihood that a God exists is undefined and I am inexorably forced to accept that the probability that a God exists may be any number in the closed interval between 0 and 1. It's quite simple really.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 4:57 AM
"Utter nonsense, so far as belief is concerned. I believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I believe 5 is a prime number. I believe London is the capital of the UK. You cannot know anything without at the same time believing it."
But you can believe something without knowing it. I admit that there is semantic ambiguity, but it is my common understanding, at least it is the case in the UK, that to believe is to accept a statement without necessarily having evidence. Implicit is the understanding that there is perhaps a high chance that one might be wrong. Hence, proof is not a necessary condition for belief. However, to know something requires proof. Of course that does not mean that one cannot believe something with proof. However, what sense is there in saying I believe or have faith in or have an opinion about the number pi? In my mind it is meaningless. I know that the number pi exists and I can prove it. But the essence of my assertion is that it is entirely rational to believe in an event which attracts a non-zero probability. And, the event {a God exists} may well attract a non-zero probability Of course we do not know this for sure; but we have no right to assume that it is not the case.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:00 AM
"How can we measure the dragon if it's an intangible object?"
But I said that "we cannot however measure whether an undefined object is in your garage". I agree with you and it means that we cannot measure whether a God exists either. Therefore, we cannot say that it is impossible that a God exists. Therefore, the event = {a God exists} may attract a non-zero probability. I do not know that it does, but I cannot assume that it does not. And it is my assertion that it is rational to believe in events that attract a non-zero probability.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:03 AM
"In order for me to refute it, I would have to have evidence that it exists"
Cute! But of course there is a willingness to refute the existence of a God without evidence.
"Either you recognize this, and are being intellectually dishonest, or you are a very confused thinker. I believe it is the former."
I do not claim to be a literary giant and indeed I find the semantics of language difficult. But, nevertheless, I beg to differ. Innumerable means too many to count. That would be false, since there exists in each case a 1 to 1 mapping with the set of integers; the set is countable. Therefore, enumerable is consistent, if at least to you aesthetically unappealing. I freely admit my grammar is lazy, but that does not make me a liar.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:05 AM
"The statement that god is non-existent does NOT require proof."
No, you are unequivocally wrong. What if I substituted the words 'elephants are' for the words 'god is', would the statement then require proof? Of course the answer is yes because it is a direct statement of fact and thus requires proof. The statement that one believes that a God does not exist does not require proof; at least in my understanding of the common usage of the term believe which means to accept a statement without necessarily having proof.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 5:29 AM
Of course, you can't prove a negative. But the point of atheist is about belief and not knowledge, we can't know that God doesn't exist; we just have no reason to believe she does.Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:39 AM
I have tried to answer all of your questions (separately for Nerd). My original reason for posting to this blog was because I strongly disagree with the author. My position was attacked and I have defended myself. I am not a troll nor am I a liar and my reasoning is entirely logical. In my view, the only honest position a scientist can take, in generality, in relation to the statement does a God exist is; I don't know. We are entitled to our own opinions (read beliefs) but not our own facts (unknown citation). The statement that a God does or does not exist requires proof. It is not available; indeed the probability of the event {a God exists} cannot be defined. Therefore, the method of Null Hypothesis is unquestionably impotent. Occam's razor fails because we do not know the simplest explanation; indeed as to what is the simplest explanation is the very basis of the argument. We are inexorably drawn to the conclusion that the probability that a God exists may be non-zero. This conclusion simply cannot be honestly or scientifically rejected. I assert that it is, in general, perfectly rational to believe or have faith in or have confidence in an event which attracts a non-zero probability. None of this means a God exists; nor does it mean that it is not rational to believe that no Gods exist. As I said, atheism, theism, agnosticism and science are perfectly happy bedfellows. What do I believe in? Humility, tolerance and democracy; I rest my case and will leave you in peace.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 5:52 AM
So Rich, before you do. You don't think that the implications of the ground-up approach that the scientific method provides is a dagger in the heart of the top-down approach as pushed by the religious? Surely there must be some case that since everything is build from simplicity and becomes more complex that an entity such as God can't just be because it's immensely more complex than everything else observed in nature. So God would need a cause and a plausible cause too? that the appeal to God is really a non-answer, a deflection of any meaningful construct?
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 5:54 AM
Taking that at face value, in what sense is it rational to believe in something the probability of which cannot be defined, which may or may not be non-zero?
Cf. The Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's teapot.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:54 AM
"Of course, you can't prove a negative."
No. It is possible to 'prove a negative'. Indeed scientific investigation largely depends upon this very notion. If you can prove directly that a statement is true, it means that the converse, or negative, is false. As regards empirical investigations, an estimate, say p, of the probability that an event is true should mean that the probability that the event is false, the negative event, is 1-p. Indeed, if it were not the case, it would not be much of a test would it? However, the key point, is that in order for the latter condition to be satisfied, the event in question needs to be measurable and the event := {a God exists} is quite evidently not.
I do not deny atheism is about belief. Indeed that is the very basis of my assertion! And science is about knowledge - not belief.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 29, 2008 5:57 AM
Rich,
Your approach hinges on their being no quality of god that can be defined. If you are saying a god with no defined qualities can't be shown to not exist then you are probably correct. But all religions give their gods at least some definable qualities - infinitely powerful, just, good, etc. - aren't these qualities able to be shown to be either true or false?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 6:30 AM
it is entirely rational and common language usage, for me to believe that my football team will not be relegated right up to the point that it is mathematically impossible for them not to be. - rich
More rich rubbish. It is not rational to believe your team will not be relegated if they would have to win the remaining 5 games by 10-0 while three other teams would have to lose them by similar margins, and are having to sell players to stay in business. Rationality implies adjusting your beliefs to the balance of the evidence. This is not a trivial point. By your standpoint, it is quite "rational" for global warming denialists to continue believing human activities are not causing climate change, for anti-vaccinators to believe the MMR causes autism, for others (or indeed the same people) to deny the causal links between smoking and lung cancer. You appear to assume a sharp line between evidence and proof, while in science no such line exists.
In the case of religion, there is no good evidence whatever for the existence of any deity. There is abundant evidence against the existence of the Christian god, but there cannot be evidence against the existence of an infinitely shy god, which is omnipotent, but deliberately conceals its existence. Such a god is in exactly the same scientific position as leprachauns; and it is here that Occam's razor is invoked. This is often now stated as "Choose the simplest hypothesis", but in the original it was more like "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity" - in other words, do not assume the existence of anything that plays no explanatory role. Since deities, like leprachauns, play no explanatory role, it is unscientific to postulate their existence. As for rationality, if it is accepted that there is no good evidence for a deity, it is precisely as rational to believe in one as to believe in werewolves, leprachauns, the invisible pink unicorn in my garage, etc. If you want to call this kind of completely unjustified but not disprovable belief "rational", no-one can stop you, but I doubt whether it will catch on and certainly has nothing in common with current usage.
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 7:09 AM
It is not rational to believe your team will not be relegated if they would have to win the remaining 5 games by 10-0 while three other teams would have to lose them by similar margins, and are having to sell players to stay in business. Rationality implies adjusting your beliefs to the balance of the evidence.
True. Ordinary principles of reason and logic dictate that, unless a claim can be established on the balance of probabilities, there is no reason to accept it. As regards the generic existence of a God or gods, there is no evidence either way; thus there is no particular rational reason to assume a God or gods to exist. As regards specific religious claims - such as the Christian claim of the divinity and resurrection of Christ - their truth cannot be established on a balance of probabilities with the evidence available to us; thus, relying on rational thought alone, there is no good reason to accept those claims.
However, this is entirely distinct from the concept of faith. Thinking rationally, there is no good reason for Rich to believe that his team will not be relegated. But he is still entitled to have faith that his team will not be relegated; and he remains entitled to so believe until such time as it becomes mathematically impossible that his team will not be relegated.
At the same time, that faith becomes more and more irrational as it becomes more and more likely that his team will be relegated. Thus, if there is a fifty-fifty chance that his team will not be relegated, then it is not really irrational for him to believe that his team will not be relegated; but if there is a ninety percent chance (mathematically) that it will be relegated, then faith to the contrary is irrational. Likewise, some religious claims are more plausible than others, albeit that none has ever been backed up by clear and unequivocal evidence. For example, having studied and analysed the historical issues, I find Joseph Smith's claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates given to him by the Angel Moroni to be an unconvincing claim. It isn't disproven, but considering other issues (the known falsehood of the Book of Abraham, for instance, and the lack of any extraneous corroboration whatsoever for the Book of Mormon's claims), it seems to me highly unlikely. In contrast, claimed events further back in the past, such as the resurrection of Christ, are considerably harder to evaluate; there simply isn't good evidence either way.
Thus, I would assert that reason and faith are separate from and complementary to one another. Until a claim has been empirically disproven, it is possible to have faith in the truth of that claim; but the more unlikely, on the evidence, the claim appears to be, the more irrational it is to believe in the truth of that claim. Some religious claims have been empirically disproven; none has ever been empirically proven; but the others are of varying degrees of plausibility.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 7:12 AM
"You don't think that the implications of the ground-up approach that the scientific method provides is a dagger in the heart of the top-down approach as pushed by the religious?"
No, I don't. And that it not science. It's not satisfactory, I know, but the fact that you have not seen a man walk on water does not mean that a God does not exist.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 7:17 AM
Well no shit, but there's no reason to believe in a God either. Which precisely what atheism is... it's not the knowledge that God doesn't exist, it's the belief. There's no reason to believe in God, just like there's no reason to believe in that dragon, just as there is no reason to believe in Russell's Teapot. If we see no reason for God, then there's no reason to believe that God does exists.Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 7:25 AM
"More rich rubbish. It is not rational to believe your team will not be relegated if they would have to win the remaining 5 games by 10-0 while three other teams would have to lose them by similar margins"
You are of course aware that you are taking the point out of context. I was attempting to explain, at least in my understanding, the difference between knowing and believing. And, if you read my post, you will have noticed that I observed that it was indeed possible to calculate a probability that my team might be relegated. My point is that no such calculation is available in relation to the existence of a God. Therefore, I do not know what the probability a God exists is. For all I know, it could be 1.
"and it is here that Occam's razor is invoked. This is often now stated as 'Choose the simplest hypothesis'"
But we do not have agreement on what the simplest hypothesis is? Currently, the leading hypothesis for the 'Theory of Everything' hinges on the existence of higher dimensions - an object for which no evidence of exists. Is it irrational to 'believe' in higher dimensions?
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 7:30 AM
"Your approach hinges on their being no quality of god that can be defined."
You are correct, I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know enough to be able to say with any degree of certainty that no God exists. I of course accept facts related to specific measurable characteristics.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 7:32 AM
"Well no shit, but there's no reason to believe in a God either."
That is a matter of your opinion, to which you are rightly entitled.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 7:41 AM
"Taking that at face value, in what sense is it rational to believe in something the probability of which cannot be defined, which may or may not be non-zero?"
I am sorry; this really must be the last one. Strictly speaking, the probability is well defined. It is a real number in the closed internal between 0 and 1. In that sense the probability exists. What is not defined is the calculation, or more specifically, the associated measure space. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the probability to be non-zero. Indeed it could be 1. My assertion is that it is quite rational to believe in an event which may attract a non-zero probability especially when that number is unknown.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 7:42 AM
It's the application of the null hypothesis. Science can't prove the non-existence of any entity, that should be well established. But why believe in something that has no necessity? What does God do now that science has found the methodology of the bottom-up approach to complexity and life? What function does God serve anymore? Why believe in him? This stems back to exactly what PZ was saying in his post. The scientific method and the scientific way of thinking does away with God and leads to implicit atheism.What does your God do rich? And how does that fit in with the current knowledge base on the way reality works?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 7:56 AM
You are of course aware that you are taking the point out of context. I was attempting to explain, at least in my understanding, the difference between knowing and believing. And, if you read my post, you will have noticed that I observed that it was indeed possible to calculate a probability that my team might be relegated. My point is that no such calculation is available in relation to the existence of a God. - rich
Not at all. You claimed a belief was rational; I argued it wasn't. I noted the difference in the case of God.
"and it is here that Occam's razor is invoked. This is often now stated as 'Choose the simplest hypothesis'"
But we do not have agreement on what the simplest hypothesis is? Currently, the leading hypothesis for the 'Theory of Everything' hinges on the existence of higher dimensions - an object for which no evidence of exists. Is it irrational to 'believe' in higher dimensions?
Talk about taking statements out of context. As I noted, Occam's original formulation was "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity", and in the current context, that is far more relevant. God is not necessary, therefore postulating a deity is unscientific. As for higher dimensions, in string theories they play an explanatory role, which deities do not - except in the degenerate case of saying "Goddidit", which since it could explain anything, explains nothing. In fact, you may have noticed that some physicists criticise string theory precisely because it has gone so far beyond what can currently be tested. It is not irrational to look for ways to investigate the possibility higher dimensions exist - to make predictions that can be tested; it would certainly be irrational to "believe" in them in the sense that theists believe in God. Your notion that belief in gods is rational, by contrast, depends absolutely on there being no way to bring evidence to bear on the question.
My assertion is that it is quite rational to believe in an event which may attract a non-zero probability especially when that number is unknown.
Yet more rubbish, combined with an attempt to blind us with mathematics. The existence of a deity is not an "event": either a god exists, or no god exists, so the "probability" a god exists is either 0, or 1.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 29, 2008 7:58 AM
I know you've probably signed off by now, but if you haven't - or if you come back later - I'll throw this in: would you agree that the christian god of the bible does not exist as he is defined by them - i.e. he is infinitely powerful, loving and just but still allows suffering (as discussed in the problem of evil)?
There is no doubt in my mind that their god doesn't exist; whether or not some other kind of god - one as yet undiscovered by humanity - exists may be true, but we're getting to the point of what Dawkins referred to as 'being so open-minded your brains drop out'.
Posted by: Guy G | October 29, 2008 8:04 AM
"You are of course aware that you are taking the point out of context. I was attempting to explain, at least in my understanding, the difference between knowing and believing."
I've just spent the last half hour reading through a large section of this argument (isn't work great?), and it appears that this is the key point in your misunderstanding. You are artificially separating knowledge and belief. Your arguments seem to assume that there's a set boundary, when in reality there isn't.
It's a semantic issue again - knowledge is simply a very strong belief. Your very first point was:
"Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith."
Which implies (to me at least) that you assume that science deals in absolute facts. Of course it does not - nothing does. By drawing this artificial separation between belief and knowledge you state that science and faith deal in different realms, and hence do not conflict.
Another issue, which is intricately related is the word "proved". Again this is dealing with absolutes. Nothing can be absolutely shown to be true. Nothing. Again it's a semantic issue as to where the line is drawn.
On a final note, it may be mathematically impossible for your team to avoid relegation, but is it impossible that everyone who has anything to do with running that team (players, administration, everyone) drops dead prior to the end of the season?
Hopefully it's clear what I'm trying to articulate.
Guy
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:13 AM
"You claimed a belief was rational"
And I still do, so long as what you believe has not been proved to impossible. In the case of the latter, I would accept the results of an empirical experiment.
"God is not necessary, therefore postulating a deity is unscientific."
But I am not postulating a God. And I am not suggesting that one needs to postulate a God to understand, let's say gravity. I am saying that it doesn't mean that a God does not exist. If that is sufficient for you to assume that a God does not exist - good for you. But it does not represent a proof to me.
"The existence of a deity is not an "event": either a god exists, or no god exists, so the "probability" a god exists is either 0, or 1."
And you have the unmitigated gall to refer to my comments as rubbish! Of course the existence of a deity is an event. And ultimately, we may know whether one exists or not. The point is; we do not know now. We do not even know what the probability that one exists might be.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:15 AM
"What does your God do rich?"
I didn't say I believed in a God.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 8:27 AM
Of course the existence of a deity is an event. - rich
Crap. It is not an "event" in the normal sense of that word (meaning something that happened or might happen), nor does it fit the specialised sense of "event" used in probability theory.
Probability theory, as I assume you are aware, started in the realm of gambling with dice, where there is a set of possible future events to be considered, each of which can be assigned an exact numerical probability based on assumed symmetries of the situation considered (i.e. that the dice are fair). In the case of events such as horse races, or failure of a machine within a certain time, or a differential diagnosis in medicine, approximate probabilities can be calculated by examining the record of past events in the same class. There are no such symmetries, and no such classes of event in the case of the existence or otherwise of a god: we don't have a "sample of universes" we can examine to see what proportion of them contain a god. Thus there is no sense to assigning a probability to the existence of a god. You are trying to extend a particular form of reasoning beyond its appropriate sphere, and coming up, unsurprisingly, with rubbish.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:27 AM
"You are artificially separating knowledge and belief"
I do not misunderstand. It may be a semantic issue, but they are in my understanding different. Belief does not require evidence. Facts do. Semantics aside, the important point is that we are permitted to have differing beliefs or opinions or whatever you want to call them, but we are not permitted to have different facts. That is my point.
"Which implies (to me at least) that you assume that science deals in absolute facts"
I have of course been rather loose with my language. When I have referred to proof, I was not intending a direct mathematical proof alone. I thought that in most cases I had referred to a direct proof where there was ambiguity. I would of course accept empirical evidence too. Neither is available.
"On a final note, it may be mathematically impossible for your team to avoid relegation, but is it impossible that everyone who has anything to do with running that team (players, administration, everyone) drops dead prior to the end of the season"
Of course it is. What does that change though?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 8:30 AM
I didn't say I believed in a God. - rich
True. But your failure to say you don't, combined with the abysmal quality of your arguments for the claim that belief in a god is rational, make it entirely natural to assume that you do. Why not just tell us, one way or the other?
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:33 AM
"There are no such symmetries, and no such classes of event in the case of the existence or otherwise of a god: we don't have a "sample of universes" we can examine to see what proportion of them contain a god."
More insults! And you have finally got it. If you had read my posts, you may have got there earlier. The event {a God exists}, and it is an event and it might happen, is not measurable because it is not associated with a well defined measure space as you have described, albeit in a rather rudimentary way. I am not trying to extend Measure Theory beyond its boundaries. I am explaining why it does not help in this case. Hence, the Null Hypothesis is impotent.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:39 AM
"But your failure to say you don't, combined with the abysmal quality of your arguments for the claim that belief in a god is rational, make it entirely natural to assume that you do."
You are at liberty to assume what you like. And you clearly feel well informed enough to afford yourself an additional liberty of being insulting. I am looking for the truth. I am not arrogant enough to suggest that I know what it is.
Yours humbly,
An applied probability mathematician.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 8:45 AM
Does this fall under the "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out"?
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 8:49 AM
"Dawkins referred to as 'being so open-minded your brains drop out'"
This is definitely the last one. I agree with this point and sometimes I do feel that my brains are dropping out. Nick Gotts evidently believes that they have already. But that is not, in my opinion, a good argument for closing one's mind; that is not the action of an honest scientist.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 8:56 AM
The event {a God exists}, and it is an event and it might happen
The fact that your tenses do not match might have warned you you're talking rubbish here. In ordinary language, "a God exists" describes a state, not an event, and as we're agreed probability theory cannot be applied, it's not an "event" in that sense either.
I am not trying to extend Measure Theory beyond its boundaries. I am explaining why it does not help in this case. - rich
So why on earth were you babbling about assigning probabilities?
I agree, by the way, that talk of the "null hypothesis" also makes no sense here. It's not a term I've used here. The relevant principles are, scientifically, Occam's razor; and in terms of everyday rationality, the principle of not believing in something you and other people can't sense directly, without some reason to do so.
Yours humbly, - rich
Liar.
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 9:00 AM
Rich:
Hm. You've just asserted that truly believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's teapot as actual entities is "quite" rational.
Wow.
You think that the belief that tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation is rational.
I don't believe you.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 9:21 AM
John Morales@547,
Of course (as I'm sure you're aware) rich doesn't believe the beliefs that you mention are rational. He may possibly say he believes this, but if he encountered people who convinced him they genuinely held any of these beliefs he would, like any other sane person, classify them as irrational if not insane. I think he's arguing in "bad faith" here: he's aware at some level that he's talking rubbish, but can't admit it even to himself because he's both a theist, and someone who prides himself on being rational.
Posted by: druidbros | October 29, 2008 9:22 AM
"You think that the belief that tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation is rational."
Oh crap. I thought that was NEXT week.....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 29, 2008 9:34 AM
A lot of fun while I was sleeping.
Rich, there are many scientists who believe in god. As long as they keep their god out of science, nobody cares for the most part. So I don't see what your point is, but then I'm a working scientist and not a philosopher, so philosophical nitpicking bores me.
If you want to believe in god, fine. Do so. But if you want to convince us, nothing short of Moses' eternally burning bush found in the Dead Sea is going to be evidence enough. Fine philosophical nitpicking isn't going to do the job.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 9:52 AM
"a God exists" describes a state, not an event, and as we're agreed probability theory cannot be applied,"
What if I write {A_t; t>=0}, A:={A God Exists}, t in R+. Is that precise enough for you?
"So why on earth were you babbling about assigning probabilities?"
I am not babbling at all. I have stated in the simplest language that I can muster, that one cannot assign probabilities. Hence, the method of Null Hypothesis is impotent. Hence, the poster who originally posited that his belief in the non-existence of a God was scientifically based on the method of Null Hypothesis was talking, in your rather vulgar vernacular; crap.
"Liar."
Whatever.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 9:57 AM
"I'm a working scientist and not a philosopher, so philosophical nitpicking bores me"
And I am a working mathematician. And I am not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. I am being asked the questions (and insulted) ...
Posted by: wesele | October 29, 2008 10:01 AM
I am not babbling at all. I have stated in the simplest language that I can muster, that one cannot assign probabilities. Hence, the method of Null Hypothesis is impotent. Hence, the poster who originally posited that his belief in the
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 10:08 AM
Chupacabra?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 29, 2008 10:11 AM
Rich, if you aren't trying to convince somebody of something, why are you trying so hard to do so? If you weren't trying to convince anybody, you would stop posting.
Posted by: SC | October 29, 2008 10:11 AM
Ah, my mistake. I assumed your problem was the former, when in fact it was the latter, or some combination of the two. Live and learn.
Posted by: SC | October 29, 2008 10:13 AM
Radioactive Parisian fruit fly?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 10:20 AM
What if I write {A_t; t>=0}, A:={A God Exists}, t in R+. Is that precise enough for you? - rich
The formalism doesn't make the existence of a god an event, in either the natural language or probability theory sense. Nor, to nitpick, is it by any means obvious times can be indexed using the reals. You're mistaking a mathematical formalism for the real world - a sadly common error among mathematicians.
Strictly speaking, the probability is well defined. It is a real number in the closed internal between 0 and 1. In that sense the probability exists. What is not defined is the calculation, or more specifically, the associated measure space. It is perfectly possible for the probability to be non-zero. Indeed it could be 1. My assertion is that it is quite rational to believe in an event which may attract a non-zero probability especially when that number is unknown. - rich@532
As I said, babbling about probabilities. Either a god exists, or it doesn't. Therefore the probability of a god existing, if you want to use that language (it has no useful application here) is either 0 or 1.
To return to a point of substance, you deny the applicability of Occam's razor with the claim that there is doubt about whether "the simplest explanation" of the world would include a god. As I've pointed out, this does not deal with Occam's original formulation. However, sticking to your preferred version, unless the addition of the hypothesis that there is a god does any explanatory work, it is quite clear that any explanation including the claim "and there is a god" is less simple than one that excludes this claim. you have not attempted to claim that postulating the existence of a god does do any explanatory work. The case is then exactly parallel to adding the claim "and there are leprachauns" to a scientific theory. You might argue that if we were to add "and there is no god/are no leprachauns" we would again be making the explanation more complicated, but (at least in fundamental physics), we implicitly add the claim "and there is nothing else relevant to an explanation of how the physical world operates" - we assert the completeness of our theory, and this covers all the possible extraneous and functionless additions we might make to a theory.
I note that you resolutely fail to address the point that there is no difference, in your account, between the "rationality" of believing in a god, and believing in leprachauns, invisible pink unicorns, werewolves, aten-thousand kilometre long sentient jellybean that cries whenever anyone eats a little jellybean, etc. If all you are claiming is that belief in god is as rational as belief in any of these things, I think we'll all be content to leave things there. If not, you need to show what the difference is. In other words, in my vulgar vernacular, put up or STFU.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 29, 2008 11:10 AM
rich said
As Nick Gotts pointed out already, I think the problem is that you are a confused thinker. I have gone out of my way to make sure you understood that I am not talking about god being an impossibility. None of us are... yet your whole response here asserts that that's what I've done.
Please try again to understand the difference between "impossible" and "non-existent" in the context of this discussion. If I am to posit that god is impossible, I WOULD need to provide proof of that claim. However, if you are to posit that god EXISTS, you need to provide proof. And I am correct to say that while all things are philosophically possible, their reality, or actual existence requires proof before such a claim can be considered truth.
That was, and still is, my point.
Posted by: Velok | October 29, 2008 11:15 AM
"The statement that god is non-existent does NOT require proof."
Rich wrote:
"No, you are unequivocally wrong. What if I substituted the words 'elephants are' for the words 'god is', would the statement then require proof? Of course the answer is yes because it is a direct statement of fact and thus requires proof."
This is where you are wrong. The answer is still no!
You can claim that elephants are non-existent, without anybody requiring proof (yes, because it's impossible to prove a non-existence, hence why the null hypothesis don't require proof)). It's the person that claim that elephants do exist who has to come up with the proof. And in the case of elephants, that's quite easy to accomplish. In the case of "god", not so much....
Posted by: Mu | October 29, 2008 11:22 AM
Kel and Owl,
I'm certain my picking the stuff I like out of the bible and ignoring the less savior parts does not meet the standards set by the scripture believers. For me, certain concepts laid out in the Bible even survive if the mere existence of God himself is questionable. Guess I'm lucky I'm only forbidden to reject or have other gods, and he forgot to add "thou shall not doubt me" to the first commandment. So I'm sure I'd get burned at the stake for that interpretation too.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 29, 2008 11:42 AM
and for cripes sake, rich... get some thicker skin. Stop complaining about being insulted. You're really not being attacked as brutally as you are portraying. And "martyr syndrome" is just another slice of evidence that makes us think you aren't being honest about your beliefs.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were demanding our respect out of hand... that doesn't play well here.
Posted by: eric | October 29, 2008 12:32 PM
"While you're catching up on your reading, recheck the definition of "contrast." "Weak atheist" and "strong atheist" don't need to be mutually exclusive categories in order to be contrasted. They just need to be different categories."
Again, no kidding. Since I never claimed they are mutually exclusive categories -- in fact, since I explicitly said just the opposite -- you're pounding on an open door. But you err here in your analysis of the term 'contrast' in this way: while one may contrast categories that are not mutually exclusive, *the differences contrasted* are, by definition, mutually exclusive. Once you get *this*, you'll see why your reading of the term 'necessary' *in the definition* is simply wrong.
"Sweet Christmas, you still haven't read the article?"
Um, I had read the article, but apparently I read it carefully and, most importantly, *critically*, while you did not. (Note the nice example there of categories that are not mutually exclusive, and of differences that are.) Unlike you, I believe it's possible for an unsourced article on the internet to be incoherent (you did notice that it was unsourced, didn't you?). Your entire argument presupposes the coherence of the article, which is why you're blind to any criticism of it.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 12:48 PM
"The formalism doesn't make the existence of a god an event, in either the natural language or probability theory sense. Nor, to nitpick, is it by any means obvious times can be indexed using the reals. You're mistaking a mathematical formalism for the real world - a sadly common error among mathematicians."
The event that a God exists, in other words the first time, which may not happen, that a God is detected, is clearly and unequivocally an event in time. I did not specify the exact form of the process because I can't? This is my point. As regards convergence, I will cheat as usual and make the required assumptions!
"you deny the applicability of Occam's razor with the claim that there is doubt about whether "the simplest explanation" of the world would include a god."
No. I deny the applicability of Occam's razor to determine whether, in generality, a God exists.
"I note that you resolutely fail to address the point that there is no difference, in your account, between the "rationality" of believing in a god, and believing in leprachauns..."
I have addressed this directly and repeatedly. What else can I say? If the event is not measurable, I cannot assume that it is false or true and I am in no position to say which of the un-measurable events to which you refer are more or less likely. Perhaps you are.
"Therefore the probability of a god existing, if you want to use that language (it has no useful application here) is either 0 or 1."
Not that it matters, but this statement is not correct. The event is true or false, 0 or 1 if you like. But the probability of the event being true or false is a random variable, in other words a real valued function mapping an event to a real number in the closed interval between 0 and 1 (by definition). In this case, the mapping does not exist. This is again, my point.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 12:54 PM
"You can claim that elephants are non-existent"
Nope. I would require proof. And, you can prove a negative, either directly or empirically, providing the event is measurable. In the latter case, the probability that an elephant does not exist is implied by the probability that an elephant does exist. I am sorry, but you are simply wrong. However, it does mean that scientists should stick to making statements which they can prove and not go about applying the method of Null Hypothesis in circumstances in which it is not warranted.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 12:58 PM
The event that a God exists, in other words the first time, which may not happen, that a God is detected - rich
"Exists" does not mean the same as "is detected".
the probability of the event being true or false is a random variable,...
An event is neither true nor false. It makes absolutely no sense to say that that whether a god exists or not is a "random variable".
in other words a real valued function mapping an event to a real number in the closed interval between 0 and 1 (by definition). In this case, the mapping does not exist
Oh I see, it's a real-valued function that doesn't exist. Can you really not see what garbage you're spouting?
In any case, why not cut the crap and tell us whether you are claiming that belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns, werewolves, invisible pink unicorns, or ten thousand kilometer sentient jellybeans? If you're not, there's nothing to argue about. If you are, you need to say why.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 1:03 PM
"If I am to posit that god is impossible, I WOULD need to provide proof of that claim. However, if you are to posit that god EXISTS, you need to provide proof."
I am not positing a God exists. I am just asserting that as scientists we cannot reject the possibility that a God may exist and that we have no idea how likely or unlikely it is. That is all. Is that really so hard or contentious? Anyway, whatever you beliefs - good luck with them (and Mr. Gotts, I can assure you that I am sincere).
Posted by: Dan L. | October 29, 2008 1:08 PM
Rich:
Define "to exist." Can something exist if its existence is not verifiable (this seems to be what you are claiming is possible for God)? What does it mean to exist if there is no way to demonstrate that existence?
I would define "to exist" as "to be independently verifiable" or, equivalently but in the language of physics, "to have energy." Does God have energy? If so, God's existence is in principle verifiable and belief in God's existence without evidence is irrational.
Incidentally, in what sense does pi exist? Pi is irrational, so to specify it we need an arbitrary amount of precision. But there is a finite amount of atoms in the universe with which we could indicate the digits of pi. We can't even represent pi within the constraints imposed by material existence; how could it exist? Pi is an ideal like the ideal gas law or a radiating black body. It is not a real thing.
Finally, you've been saying that it's irrational to believe (or not believe) anything without "proof." But there IS no scientific proof. No such thing. Empirical observations admit uncertainty, and with systemic uncertainty in every step of the scientific process, it is impossible to prove anything. Which, incidentally, means that nothing is actually impossible despite your claims to the contrary.
Let me ask, though: is it useful to you to admit the possibility that leprechauns exist? Does it serve any functional purpose? How useful is it to affirm the possibility of the truth of a non-verifiable proposition?
I understand that "usefulness" is not the same as "truth," but there is a difference between mathematical truth and scientific truth (see paragraph above re: empiricism). For a definition of scientific truth, I would say that any independently verifiable proposition is defined as "true" (though always provisionally) -- notice the close connection between my definitions for truth and existence.
If you think it's possible to do better for a definition of "truth" or "existence," please state your case.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 1:17 PM
"Exists" does not mean the same as "is detected".
But for practical purposes they do coincide in this case do they not?
"An event is neither true nor false"
An event happens or it does not, it that context it is typically understood to be true or false.
"Oh I see, it's a real-valued function that doesn't exist."
Correct. It means that the probabilities cannot be assigned, as we have already agreed.
"Can you really not see what garbage you're spouting?"
Perhaps you would like to refer your assessment of Measure Theory to Mr. Kolmogorov.
"If you're not, there's nothing to argue about. If you are, you need to say why."
I already answered this question explicitly. Can you read? This is a science blog right? How can I compare two undefined objects? I cannot distinguish. I'll make it easier for you; I CANNOT DISTIGUISH.
Humbly, once again.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 1:19 PM
Is that really so hard or contentious?
It wouldn't be, but you won't answer whether you're saying it's any more rational to remain agnostic about the existence of the referent of "a God" than that of the cosmic jellybean, or any of an infinite number of frankly silly and unparsimonious ideas.
Is the existence of god more or less likely that the cosmic jellybean? If not (or if less!), then it would seem we all essentially agree. Remaining coy on this point is what's causing Nick and others to suspect that we do not, in fact, agree.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 1:22 PM
rich,
If all you are saying is that there is no proof there are no gods, no-one is disagreeing with you. The point of contention is whether it is rational to believe something just because it cannot be disproved.
and Mr. Gotts, I can assure you that I am sincere - rich
Such an assurance is of course worthless if one already doubts the sincerity of the source. I might believe you if you abandon your cowardly refusal to say whether you are claiming belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns. If not, we can substitute "leprachauns" for "a god" in all your utterances here, and you will still stand by them. So, for example:
"it is rational to believe that leprachauns exist",
and
"as scientists, we cannot reject the possibility that leprachauns may exist and that we have no idea how likely or unlikely it is."
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 1:43 PM
Dan L. Thank you for your post.
"What does it mean to exist if there is no way to demonstrate that existence?"
That is a very good question. In my opinion, the most informative question so far. Indeed how would one define existence for an undefined object? I do not know. That is in essence my point.
"Incidentally, in what sense does pi exist?"
I can characterize pi even if I cannot write it down. The point is that it is a fact. Do you deny the existence of pi?
"you've been saying that it's irrational to believe (or not believe) anything without "proof."
No, I said it is irrational to believe in something which is impossible. It is not, in my view, in generality irrational to believe in something which is not impossible (allowing for semantics of course) and I also accept empirical evidence as shall we say sufficient proof, if not a direct proof. Many things are impossible, but only in the context of assumptions. Relatively impossible I suppose you could say. For example, I think we can agree that it is impossible for 2+2 to equal 5 under the usual field assumptions etc.
"How useful is it to affirm the possibility of the truth of a non-verifiable proposition?"
Scientists should of course stick to making statements they can "prove". That doesn't mean we should not be interested in truth though does it? And closing one's mind is not helpful, at least in my opinion. Who knows where thoughts can lead you?
"If you think it's possible to do better for a definition of "truth" or "existence," please state your case."
I am sorry, I do not know a better answer.
Posted by: Tulse | October 29, 2008 1:44 PM
"I am just asserting that as scientists we cannot reject the possibility that we live in the Matrix where all we see is actually an illusion and that we have no idea how likely or unlikely it is."
How do those two statements differ? Or do they?
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 1:48 PM
The point of contention is whether it is rational to believe something just because it cannot be disproved. - Of course it isn't; but it isn't necessarily irrational either. This might seem like hairsplitting, but read on.
I might believe you if you abandon your cowardly refusal to say whether you are claiming belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns.
Though I know this wasn't addressed to me, I will answer that question. Yes, I do think that belief in the Christian God (as an example; the same could be said of some, but not all, other faiths) is more rational than belief in leprechauns, albeit that it is not entirely rational.
What is the difference between belief in God and belief in leprechauns? Both are, in and of themselves, untestable and unfalsifiable; thus one makes a completely arbitrary choice, to believe or not believe. Discussing it is, essentially, just a sophisticated form of navel-gazing. But when one moves away from the unanswerable generic question of "does God exist?" and towards the specific question of "are the claims of religion X valid?", then the question becomes a different one.
For instance, the specific claim of Christianity - that Jesus of Nazareth was a divine being who was resurrected from the dead - is a material claim of fact, and therefore is, in theory, testable and falsifiable. Unfortunately, its alleged occurrence was so long ago that we don't have any solid evidence either way - just hearsay and second- or third-hand written accounts which may or may not be accurate - that we can't make a real pronouncement on the subject. But the point is, Christianity goes beyond asserting merely that "there is a God", a claim which we cannot evaluate empirically. It claims that a specific person, living in a specific period in an identified Roman province under an identified Roman governor (Pontius Pilate, whose existence has been corroborated from other sources), was physically resurrected from the dead. This is a claim of material fact, and can be tested.
So how does this apply to leprechauns? If one were to assert "leprechauns exist, but they are invisible and intangible, and we can't identify their effects on the material world", then this would be an untestable claim, just like a generic claim of the existence of a supernatural God or gods. Thus, there would be no particular reason to believe it; choosing to do so would be arbitrary. But if one were to assert "a leprechaun called Eric appeared to a number of Irish villagers in July 1868 and gave them each a pot of gold before disappearing", this would be a material claim of fact and therefore, in theory, would be empirically testable and falsifiable. If the only evidence available to us was hearsay and eyewitness accounts, most people would be inclined to be sceptical, due to the lack of strong evidence. But in those circumstances I wouldn't condemn someone, or label them irrational, for believing in Eric the leprechaun. Would you?
Posted by: ric | October 29, 2008 2:01 PM
"Is the existence of god more or less likely that the cosmic jellybean?"
So let me get this straight. This is a science blog and you want me as a mathematician to make a statement as regards the comparison between two undefined quantities. I cannot oblige. I do not know how to. I will repeat; I cannot distinguish. If you feel able to make such a comparison, it's up to you.
"I might believe you if you abandon your cowardly refusal to say whether you are claiming belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns."
But I have not made this claim. I do not know how to evaluate it. I am not saying they are not the same. I am saying I don't know.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 2:04 PM
What is the difference between belief in God and belief in leprechauns? Both are, in and of themselves, untestable and unfalsifiable; thus one makes a completely arbitrary choice, to believe or not believe. - Walton
In the first case, one does not in general choose what to believe; I cannot just decide to believe in leprachauns. more important, whether one adopts such a belief is not arbitrary; my disbelief in both gods and leprachauns is part of a coherent view of what the world is like - so beliefs that are in and of themselves untestable and unfalsifiable can still be adopted or rejected because they follow from (or contradict) beliefs that are testable or falsifiable - in this case, my belief that there is no such thing as magic or the supernatural, which is falsifiable.
If the only evidence available to us was hearsay and eyewitness accounts, most people would be inclined to be sceptical, due to the lack of strong evidence. But in those circumstances I wouldn't condemn someone, or label them irrational, for believing in Eric the leprechaun. Would you?
I most certainly would label them irrational. Enough is known about the unreliability of eyewitness reports, let alone hearsay, and about the tendency of such claims to turn out to be false on close investigation, for it to be quite irrational to accept an eyewitness report of a miracle or magic event, without at the very least a sheaf of similar independent reports, careful questioning of witnesses, and systematic attempts to find alternative explanations.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 2:15 PM
rich,
You are now saying you don't know whether belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns. Since you have said that belief in a god is rational, this means that at the least, you do not know that belief in leprachauns is irrational. In other words, you're a dingbat.
Posted by: spurge | October 29, 2008 2:38 PM
Rich said "This is a science blog and you want me as a mathematician to make a statement as regards the comparison between two undefined quantities."
If this is such a big deal for you how could you possibly think it is ok to believe in something with "undefined quantities"?
Whatever an "undefined quantity" is?
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 2:45 PM
Nick Gotts at #574 - we're really going round in circles here. I don't think we disagree on many of the key premises here, just the conclusion. Let's look at it in step-by-step points (keeping the leprechaun analogy, because I rather like it):
(1) If one were to say "leprechauns exist, but they are invisible and intangible, and we can't detect their effects on the material world", then this would be an untestable and unfalsifiable claim. Ditto for a generic statement of the existence of a God or gods.
(2) Thus, rationally, there is no obvious reason to believe in a God or gods, any more than there is to believe in leprechauns.
(3) However, if one were to claim "a leprechaun called Eric manifested himself in East Nowhere, County Mayo, in 1868, and gave out pots of gold to all the villagers before disappearing without a trace", and adduced as evidence some second- or third-hand accounts based on hearsay, this would be, in theory, a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto for the resurrection of Christ, and for most other purported religious events.
(4) The "Eric the leprechaun" claim of point (3) is not backed up by sufficient evidence to, rationally, merit acceptance. Therefore, reason alone would not motivate anyone to believe in Eric the leprechaun. Again, ditto for the resurrection of Christ, various miracles, et cetera.
Up to this point I think we agree. It's here that we diverge:
(5) Imagine you read the story of Eric the leprechaun. You research it and review all the available evidence. Based on the information available to you, you cannot be sure whether Eric the leprechaun existed; the purported eyewitness accounts could be simple lies, they could be the product of mass hysteria, they could be distorted third-hand accounts of a perfectly explicable event, or a number of other natural explanations. What does a rational person conclude?
I would argue that a rational person would be open-minded as to the existence of Eric the leprechaun. On the facts, Eric might exist or he might not.
For this reason, for instance, I am generally open-minded as to the reality of ghosts, near-death experiences, occult events, miracles and purported religious experiences, et cetera. There are many accounts of such occurrences, the credibility of which varies drastically - some are undoubtedly fabricated, or have plausible natural explanations - but based on the evidence available, I would never make a sweeping statement such as "ghosts do not exist" or "miracles do not occur". Rationally, surely one should take the same approach to the divinity of Christ?
Of course, this is perhaps where the analogy ends - since Eric the leprechaun does not purport to promise eternal salvation, nor does he say "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe." There is no reason why I would have to make a concrete decision as to whether I believe in Eric the leprechaun, because nothing in particular rests on it. In contrast, Christians believe that the choice of whether or not to have faith in Christ is the most important of all life-choices.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 3:07 PM
I would argue that a rational person would be open-minded as to the existence of Eric the leprechaun. On the facts, Eric might exist or he might not.
For this reason, for instance, I am generally open-minded as to the reality of ghosts, near-death experiences, occult events, miracles and purported religious experiences, et cetera. - Walton
Walton, I know you believe in all sorts of absurd rubbish, from God to "free markets". Just because you are excessively credulous, there is no reason I should be. None of these tales of ghosts, miracles etc. have ever stood up to thorough investigation: either they were disproved, or there was simply insufficient evidence to decide if we consider only that specific case. But if we have any sense, we don't. We ask: if there were any reality to such woo, why has every case where there is sufficient evidence turned out to be explained by fraud, error, or some other natural phenomenon? Why are ghosts, miracles, leprachauns, telepathy, reincarnation, magic, etc. etc. so shy? Why do the kinds of supernatural events reported change over time and space, like fashions? (You won't find much ectoplasm being produced these days, or many penis-stealing magicians in Croydon.) By far the simplest explanation, and therefore the one we should adopt until it is disproved, is that none of these things exist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 3:14 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 3:16 PM
blockquote fail but I see Nick addressed what I was saying as I was failing.
Posted by: Velok | October 29, 2008 3:17 PM
Rich:
If you really mean what you're saying, you actually mean that for anything people tell you exist, you think it's rational to belive that it might? If that goes for "god", it goes for The Flying Spaghettimonster, pink unicorns and anything else the imagination can come up with. Do you _REALLY_ mean that?
If I tell you that there are orange dottet Zebras, you will say that there might be? Because you can't prove otherwise? Or is it_RATIONAL_ to think that I'm full of it, and no such thing exists? So, as long as neither of us can prove that they exist or not, it's _rational_ to believe it might exist such an animal? I think you need to look up the word rational.
From wikipedia: Rational: Characterized by truth or logic.
If you really mean what you are saying, why are you wasting our time with your delusions?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 29, 2008 3:19 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
Yet there is not one incident of these things being supported by any verifiable evidence.
Do a search for NDE on this blog and you'll find some long discussions about those.
Chimpy, I have to correct you on this; you you find repeated bugfuck insane ravings from the imprisoned Kenny on the subject.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 3:25 PM
True. With some of us giving studies and info on how wrong he was.
But mostly bugfucking insanity from K-Toad
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 29, 2008 3:25 PM
eric,
Really? In fact, you've actually made both claims.
Mutually exclusive:
"That *can't* be what the author meant by 'necessary,' since *that* would imply that weak atheists *can* 'commit themselves to the non-existence of deities'; however, this is precisely what weak atheists, qua weak atheists, cannot do."
Not mutually exclusive:
"If strong atheism is not believing, and if weak atheism is lacking belief, then I'm clearly saying that strong atheism entails weak atheism."
Oh, and in that latter quote you also defined "strong atheism" as "not believing." That conflicts with your prior statement that a strong atheist must "assert that god doesn't exist." What's that you were saying about incoherency on the internet?
Sure. So? Look up--your explicit claim, again, was that "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" are mutually exclusive, and that the author of the article also holds this position. You were talking about the categories, not the "differences contrasted."
Huh. Funny, you weren't complaining about the sourcing before.
So what exactly is your problem with its being unsourced? Are you claiming that it significantly misrepresents the common definitions of weak and strong atheism? If so, would you like to provide a better-sourced article which would support your original claim that atheism entails "ruling out *any* possible god?"
I mean, the Wiki articles are better sourced, but I really don't think they're going to help you on that count....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
Ah, I see. Because you failed to understand the definitions provided by the article, while the rest of us managed to do so, the article is incoherent. The Principle of Anti-Charity, eh?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 29, 2008 3:27 PM
From picking nits to NDE? What a drop in rationality. Next up, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 29, 2008 3:38 PM
Rich,
You cannot say a number is "well defined" if it's the product of an unknown calculation based on an unknown measure space. How do you know there's a single measure space that would be most appropriate to use here? If there is, how do you know it's finite and therefore can be normalized to a probability space in some non-arbitrary way? How do you know the set of possible gods, or possible god-run realities, or whatever the relevant set is, is a measurable one?
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 3:50 PM
Walton, I know you believe in all sorts of absurd rubbish, from God to "free markets".
These things are hardly comparable. I freely admit that I'm fairly unsure as to the existence of God, and I try to keep an open mind on religious and spiritual matters, given the obvious lack of evidence (as we've discussed).
In contrast, free markets do not rest on "faith" or "belief". The free market, as you know full well, is a specific economic model, not a belief system. "Free" isn't a value judgment; it's a descriptor of how the model operates ("free" in the sense of "not centrally controlled or managed", not "free" as in "freedom and apple pie"). The term isn't trying to imply that the mere existence of market mechanisms makes people "free" on its own (that would certainly be an unsustainable belief). Like all economic models, it doesn't always work perfectly - market failure is a reality in some areas, because of problems such as negative externalities and the depletion of public goods, of which the market on its own cannot take account. But as a general rule, with some exceptions, it tends to be better at delivering general freedom and prosperity than is government control or central planning. So when I say "I believe in free markets", this is lazy shorthand for "based on empirical evidence, current economic theory and logical deduction, it can be seen that a free market mechanism is, in most sectors of the economy, the most effective way of achieving economic growth, rapid wealth creation and general prosperity." It is not comparable to religion in the slightest. It does not rest on "belief" in an abstract, unknowable and inherently unprovable entity.
As you know full well, it is intellectually dishonest to compare "belief in God" to advocacy of a particular socio-economic model.
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 3:59 PM
None of these tales of ghosts, miracles etc. have ever stood up to thorough investigation: either they were disproved, or there was simply insufficient evidence to decide if we consider only that specific case. But if we have any sense, we don't. We ask: if there were any reality to such woo, why has every case where there is sufficient evidence turned out to be explained by fraud, error, or some other natural phenomenon? Why are ghosts, miracles, leprachauns, telepathy, reincarnation, magic, etc. etc. so shy?
I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. I don't believe in ghosts, telepathy, magic, etc. Most of it is almost certainly fabricated or the result of hysteria. But I'm pointing out that surely open-mindedness is a better approach to take? If one doesn't have to make a concrete decision as to the reality of something, why do so?
As regards religion specifically, it is true that most purported divine interventions within recent history are, on the evidence available, highly likely to be fabricated. (Joseph Smith's claim to have received golden plates from the Angel Moroni being a good example. I mean no disrespect to any Mormons who may be reading this; but I am personally sceptical, based on a thorough review of the evidence.) But when it comes to events further back, we simply don't have enough evidence to make a clear determination. For instance, I certainly couldn't dismiss out of hand the Prophet Mohammed's claim to have received a revelation from God; there isn't enough clear evidence either way. Ditto for the resurrection of Christ, or (going further back) most of the divine interventions in the Hebrew Bible.
One can of course make the argument - as you have - that if we can thoroughly debunk virtually all purported divine interventions and supernatural occurrences on which there is a substantial amount of available evidence, why shouldn't we presume that those for which there is insufficient evidence are also unlikely to be true? And that is a strong argument for which I do not have a decisive rejoinder. But I will merely say that some seem to me to be more plausible than others.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 29, 2008 4:15 PM
I've now read all the way to comment 400. By that rate, I should keep up with the end of the thread by tomorrow evening or something...
Comment 140:
How is silence any less physical than a testimony? And why did you suddenly move the goalposts from "scientific" to "physical"?
142:
Are you sure God is the most parsimonious explanation for explicability?
Why do we find it beautiful?
I suppose if we'd find the whole world unbearably ugly, we'd kill ourselves instead of reproducing. In other words, we've been selected for finding the world beautiful, the exact same way that we've been selected for being afraid in the dark (those who weren't afraid in the dark have all been eaten by the hyenas).
206:
Sure. After all, it's -- for all I know -- just as probable that the Sumerian religion is the right one and everyone's shadow, completely regardless of faith, works, grace or anything, will go to a dark, depressing underworld and eat mud for eternity, or, on the other hand, that Christianity is right and Hell exists but is empty because God stretches out His hand to everyone after death (this, incidentally, is what I was taught), never mind the possibility that there's no afterlife at all whatsoever. Given this diversity, apathetic agnosticism is the only feasible option; converting to every religion just in case (see YouTube) is physically impossible.
227:
But what is the point of presenting an opinion without even trying to defend it?
248:
WTF?
(Also, didn't you know that science cannot prove, only disprove?)
I support Scientific Triassicism!!!
The idea that the truth must lie in the middle is a logical fallacy.
Well, duh. "Evolution" means "descent with heritable modifications". Individuals cannot evolve, populations do. Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. Incidentally, this also holds for "theory".
304:
Still doesn't work. Birds appearing at the same time as "fish" and before all land animals contradicts the evidence blatantly. Nice (and very common) try.
314:
This phenomenon is common, though. Compare: Global warming isn't happening, and it's not our fault, and it's actually a good thing, and it's too late now to do anything about it.
369:
Complete nonsense. The premise is not just wrong, but also unnecessary. If you want me to elaborate, tell me.
Indeed not. And drop the pointless pre-orthographic h already. :-)
398:
Bullshit. In English (and German and French), the word "God" tends to be treated, strangely enough, as a proper name (it's not given an article and used to refer to one particular god), so capitalizing it makes plenty of sense in those many cases.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 4:30 PM
I certainly couldn't dismiss out of hand the Prophet Mohammed's claim to have received a revelation from God; there isn't enough clear evidence either way. Ditto for the resurrection of Christ
What about Osiris and Mithras? You can't possibly consider the modern persistence of an ancient idea in one case versus another to provide support for the claim. If (counterfactually) Mithraism had survived at the expense of Christianity, which petered out (ha!) sometime in the 3rd Century, would you be giving Mithras a pass and scoffing at the clumsy myth of a peasant from an obscure corner of Galilee who was resurrected?
In my opinion, your suspension of judgement on stories with all the hallmarks of myth is entirely misplaced. Nick's arguments re: ghosts, psychic powers and all the rest apply just as well here. The older the tale, the murkier the facts of the matter, the more likely it is the product of mythmaking, not less.
I will merely say that some seem to me to be more plausible than others.
But on what basis do you make this determination? That's the point. What makes the resurrection of an individual whose very existence can be called into question more plausible than a kitschy story of divine revelation via golden plates, which at least has a known historical figure as its protagonist?
Posted by: Dan L. | October 29, 2008 4:40 PM
I'm sorry, it's clear that you DON'T understand what people are here referring to as a null hypothesis.
One can disprove the null hypothesis "elephants don't exist" by proving its negation. But one cannot directly prove that "elephants don't exist." How could you? You could photograph every square inch of Africa and India, not find a single elephant, give me all this evidence, and I could say "no, silly, elephants live in the arctic!" or on Mars, or in the Andromeda galaxy. You can only ever disprove a negative; never prove one (at least in an empirical context). The fact that I can't prove that "unicorns don't exist" doesn't mean that I can't rationally believe that unicorns don't exist. (Then again, you never defined "rational." For a mathematician, you're not very good at defining terms.)
Given that one can NEVER directly prove any proposition of the form "X does not exist," it's silly to say that a belief of the form "x does not exist" is irrational. If that's the case, then I'm forced to believe in EVERYTHING if I want to be rational. Literally everything. An uncountable infinity of things.
Incidentally, I already pointed out to you why "proof" is not coherent in an empirical context. Why do you keep demanding something you simply can't have? Seems a little...irrational. Since proof is impossible in science, just about any possibility is admitted. It's the mathematicians (myself included, I suppose) that need to keep their minds open.
Speaking of irrational, I assert that pi does not, in fact, exist. You may be able to prove that pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, but that doesn't mean it exists. See: my definition of existence. Pi doesn't have an energy and thus it's not detectable. But then again, you seem to be a Platonist and I am emphatically NOT a Platonist. (Also, this universe is not Euclidean. In general, there are no perfect circles, but if there were, pi would not be the ratio of the circumference to the diameter in general, due to relativity.)
Finally, if you accept my definition of existence and assume that God's existence cannot be verified, then it is irrational to believe in God and rational not to believe in God. Since God's existence can't be verified by one person, it cannot be verified by independent observers, and thus God cannot, by definition, exist.
Posted by: Ian Davidson | October 29, 2008 4:48 PM
"Does evolution imply atheism?"
I think another way to answer this question is less philosophical and less general. When I first read the question and title of this article I understood the question to be. "Does evolution disprove god?" One reason for this is because sadly there are many people out there that take issue with evolution and science in general because they think, those like us (atheists) believe it does. So many are absolutely determined to see our position as atheists as a positive affirmation just like their faith is. We all know this isn't the case. Atheism is not the believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect are wrong. That's an entirely self centered view to have of atheism.
As an atheist, I think the answer to the question, as I've noted I understood it above, is, "No."
Evolution does not mean that god is not possible. That's not why it's such a hit with atheists. The beauty of evolution is that it explains the diversity of life WITHOUT the necessity of god.
That a theist would twist this around and demand that it's the same thing as saying "God is impossible." is highly indicative of their intellectual nature.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Of course they don't, but that's not the question at hand. It's if beliefs are irrational if they are without evidence. And it could be argued in a world of bottom-up design where complexity is emergent that a being that defies that principle, one who is the creator of the universe and everything in it, is an absurdity because of the sheer improbability of something like that just existing.Posted by: Lurkbot | October 29, 2008 4:50 PM
I can verify the existence of a vengeful god, because for my sins, I've read through this whole thread. As a noob here, you may not be interested in my opinions, but through the wonder of the internet, here they are anyway:
I think you guys are quite simply talking past each other. I deal with loons on a daily basis: not only religious nutjobs, but new-agey types, parapsychology buffs, occultists, Foucaultian "postmodernists," et endless cetera. They all seem to be afflicted by the same condition as Rich, which I believe is that while the rest of us have an organ for evaluating probabilities, they have a simple two-position "Belief Switch" inside their heads.
For them, If it's impossible to mathematically prove that some entity or phenomenon doesn't exist, that constitutes absolute proof that it DOES exist. Most of us would say that telepathy or clairvoyance or whatever either happens or it doesn't. If it does happen, it's by definition "natural" and not supernatural, if it doesn't, we're under no obligation to explain it. To these two-toned thinkers, however, just because someone, somewhere has asserted the existence of such a phenomenon, and I can't prove through my omniscience that it has NEVER happened in the history of the world, that PROVES that it does happen. Q.E.D.
Mathematicians too, seem to think that "non-zero" probability equals "worth worrying about." There's a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in this room could find themselves in the opposite half to the one I'm sitting in, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it, and the probability of that is enormously greater than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or YHWH the Wind God.
Trying to talk people into using a part of their brain that doesn't exist is a mug's game, I've found, but don't let me put a damper on the argument: I love this blog!
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 4:52 PM
Who is saying God is not possible? Surely taking away the necessity of God would imply there's no reason to believe in him.Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 4:57 PM
What makes the resurrection of an individual whose very existence can be called into question more plausible than a kitschy story of divine revelation via golden plates, which at least has a known historical figure as its protagonist?
I don't find Joseph Smith's claims credible for a number of reasons. Firstly, some years after he claimed to have received the golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon, he purchased an ancient papyrus from a travelling salesman. He purported to translate this papyrus, producing a work known as the "Book of Abraham" which the LDS Church still regards today as a scriptural text. At the time, hieroglyphics were unreadable; but since part of the papyrus was discovered in 1966 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, modern Egyptologists have concluded that it was an ordinary funerary text and had nothing to do with Abraham.
There's also the fact that the Book of Mormon, while it purports to describe the actual history of tribes of Jewish descent in the Americas, is not corroborated by any secular history or archaeology, and no location named in the book has been positively identified. Furthermore, it describes several animals and plants which are not thought to have existed in pre-Columbian America; and, even accepting the text at face value, the rate of population growth which it describes among the Nephites and Lamanites would have been near-impossible, considering normal prehistoric life expectancy and death rates.
To any LDS readers, I apologise for making disparaging remarks towards your religion, and I have the highest respect for many LDS people. But I must be honest; based on the available evidence, I am sceptical of the basis of the Mormon faith.
As to what makes the claim of the resurrection more plausible, the simple answer is that I'm not sure. I'm by no means a convinced or committed Christian believer. I'm not trying to argue that everyone should believe, only that it's not inherently irrational to do so.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 5:17 PM
Okay, Walton, but derive some general principles for me. I don't need to be told, in specific, why the Mormon foundation myth is ludicrous; it's ludicrous. I want to know on what basis you suspend judgement on equally ludicrous claims from older, more established traditions.
Criticisms like these, from Shredding the Gospels, are no kinder to the passion accounts of the gospels than you are to the Book of Mormon (and do cut it out with your bowing and scraping to Mormon insanity. It's insanity, and it's not respectable in the least):
Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.
Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple.
Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.
Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah: Claiming to be the Messiah was in no way blasphemous nor any violation of Jewish law. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God. There is no way that a person claiming to be the Messiah could have been convicted of blasphemy.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 5:27 PM
So? Apply the same scepticism to the Old and New Testaments that you just did to the Book of Mormon. Is there anything in the OT that says that God will ever have a child? The verses that Christians point to in Isaiah and Jeremiah and so on are weak and vague; they certainly say nothing explicit on the topic. Is there anything in the OT about Original Sin? Again, it's something made up, after the fact, in the NT, to account for what Jesus was supposedly incarnated-and-sacrificed for. And so on and so on.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
You reject the Book of Mormon because it makes claims about reality that are demonstrably false. Clearly the OT should be rejected for the same reason, and without the OT, there's not much point in holding to the NT.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 5:33 PM
Walton,
In comparing "free markets" to God I was not being disingenuous: both are equally mythical objects of worship. All markets are embedded within larger cultural and institutional structures, all have rules which do not follow from the nature of "a market" in itself, and which advantage some and disadvantage others: what counts as a contract, who can make contracts, under what circumstances can one party back out, what can be used to pay... the list is practically endless. Most capitalist markets, specifically, depend on the power of the state to enforce rules (the only exceptions are black markets). The fundamental problem with both neoclassical and Austrian economics is the belief that markets can usefully be studied outside their cultural and institutional context.
Incidentally, your claim that the term "free market" is not intended to convey approbation is itself highly disingenuous.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:42 PM
"You are now saying you don't know whether belief in a god is more rational than belief in leprachauns."
No Nick. I have said that belief in an event which attracts a non-zero probability is not, and I will now use the term, illogical/irrational (same thing to me). Since I cannot assume that the probability of an event which cannot be measured is zero, it is not illogical to believe that it might be true. It's simple. So simple even say, a biologist, could understand it.
I was then asked to state whether it was more or less likely or more or less rational that a leprechaun or a (G)god might exist. How can I compare two things when I do not even know what they are? On the contrary sir, you are the, what was it, dingbat?
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:47 PM
"If this is such a big deal for you how could you possibly think it is ok to believe in something with "undefined quantities"?"
It is the calculation of the probability that is undefined. We know the probability exists, we just don't know what it is. And, it might not be zero.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 5:49 PM
The probability of the loch ness monster existing is non-zero too, but the extreme improbability makes it an irrational belief. Nothing can be ever zero, but there sure are some extremely improbable entities and occurrences out there which given their unlikelihood makes them irrational to believe in.Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 5:49 PM
You reject the Book of Mormon because it makes claims about reality that are demonstrably false. - Actually, to split hairs, they aren't demonstrably false; just highly improbable. It's not strictly impossible that there could have been Nephite and Lamanite civilisations in pre-Columbian America, building on a large scale and using horses and other draft animals of non-American origin. But it's highly implausible, given that there's absolutely no archaeological evidence to support it.
So? Apply the same scepticism to the Old and New Testaments that you just did to the Book of Mormon. Is there anything in the OT that says that God will ever have a child? The verses that Christians point to in Isaiah and Jeremiah and so on are weak and vague; they certainly say nothing explicit on the topic. Is there anything in the OT about Original Sin? Again, it's something made up, after the fact, in the NT, to account for what Jesus was supposedly incarnated-and-sacrificed for.
I do apply the same scepticism. I don't accept the Bible as an infallible divinely-inspired whole. I see no reason why the letters of Paul, for instance, should be treated as scripture. They're simply one early Christian leader's letters, giving his personal opinions and advice; he doesn't claim to be speaking for God or to be making infallible statements. His work may be useful to Christians as moral and spiritual guidance, but this doesn't put it beyond question and debate. So I don't see why the epistles are any more likely to be infallible than the works of C.S. Lewis, for instance.
And I don't think the Gospels can be sensibly viewed as infallible accounts either. They contradict one another, for a start, as has been cited above. Moreover, the early Church chose today's four Gospels, out of a vast number of other texts purporting to recount the life of Jesus (such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Thomas) as, presumably, the most likely to be accurate (though it would seem likely that political considerations also entered into the choice).
But, in fact, it would seem to me that their lack of agreement on the details is not necessarily a weakness, as regards their value as historical sources (though it does give the lie to any notion of infallibility). It shows that the Gospel writers didn't just copy one another (though Matthew and Luke are thought to have drawn on the same source, the "Q gospel"); rather, they wrote independently and, presumably, from separate oral and written traditions. Thus, where they do agree - which they do on the most important aspects of the story - it would seem that it is highly plausible that those aspects are, in essentials, accurate.
As to your point about the OT: I think the same considerations apply. While evidence shows that not all its details are necessarily accurate - which is unsurprising, since many of the books likely originated from oral historical traditions and was written down a considerable time after the events they recount - extraneous evidence has corroborated many of its historical claims. For instance, it was once thought that the Babylonian ruler "Belshazzar" was an invention by the writer of the Book of Daniel; yet later discoveries of Babylonian records showed that there was a prince regent/de facto ruler called "Bel-shar-asur" during the relevant period. The Book of Daniel gets some details wrong - for instance, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar; rather, Nebuchadnezzar had been king several years before but was of a different dynasty - so the Hebrew Bible is not infallible; but it is, although demonstrably inaccurate in some details and written from the perspective of a single nation, nevertheless at least as good as any historical source we have from that era.
So I don't subscribe to Biblical infallibility - how could I, considering that the selection of "canonical" books in modern Bibles was made by the Church in recorded historic times largely for reasons of political expediency? - but I do think much of the Bible is useful as a genuine, albeit partisan and often second-hand, account of historical events. And if it is useful in recounting quotidian events, why reject out of hand its accounts of supernatural intervention?
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:50 PM
"If you really mean what you're saying, you actually mean that for anything people tell you exist, you think it's rational to belive that it might?"
No, it must be possible. Indeed it is logical not to dismiss the existence of something which has a non-zero probability of existing.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 5:54 PM
"You cannot say a number is "well defined" if it's the product of an unknown calculation based on an unknown measure space."
A probability is a well defined concept. It is agreed that calculation of a probability in this case is not. The whole point is that the event is not measurable.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 5:58 PM
So it's rational to believe in Bigfoot, life on Mars or the pan-dimensional travelling Ziltoid the Omniscient because they are all possible (however low the odds are)?Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 6:15 PM
Nick @458, indeed. It's clear to me that Rich is obviously intelligent but not arguing in good faith.
Walton,
That's not the way I see it. Open-mindedness refers to not precluding belief in something (call it X) until one has examined all available evidence for X and either found it wanting or not, at which point one is either believes in X or does not, this belief being tentative subject to new evidence.In ordinary language, scepticism regarding something means one does not believe in that something - is it not yet clear to you that, at least for some atheists who post here, we are sceptical about Deities based on the available evidence?
Also, it seems to me to be mealy-mouthed to say you're sceptical of the basis of the Mormon faith, unless you're not in fact also sceptical of the faith itself (which would be odd to say the least).
What disparaging remarks? I see none.
Such unthinking and unnecessary deference and respect for something you consider a false belief is one of the reasons why those beliefs persist.
Here's that disingeuous qualificaion. Not inherently so, but when combined with empiricism? Hm.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 6:16 PM
I have said that belief in an event which attracts a non-zero probability is not, and I will now use the term, illogical/irrational (same thing to me). - rich the dingbat
'"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."' - Lewis Carroll: Alice Through the Looking-Glass.
Rich, you can't just define words to suit yourself - at least, not without telling those you are conversing with. In ordinary parlance, "illogical" and "irrational" do not mean the same. If a psychiatrist is interviewing a patient who insists that aliens are talking to him from the shower head, and will shortly appear and enthrone him as Lord of the Earth, she will conclude these beliefs are irrational. They may, however, be maintained with complete logical consistency. If you meant "illogical" from the start, you should have said "illogical" - but presumably, you wouldn't regard the patient described as holding irrational beliefs - after all, they are not impossible. No-one here has been arguing that belief in a god is logically contradictory. You are a time-wasting dolt and a troll, and I'm adding you to my killfile forthwith.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 6:19 PM
It shows that the Gospel writers didn't just copy one another (though Matthew and Luke are thought to have drawn on the same source, the "Q gospel")
Matthew and Luke wrote directly from Mark. Almost all of Mark is contained in Matthew, and about two thirds of Mark is in Luke. Q was not a gospel in the commonly understood meaning of that term, but a collection of sayings devoid of narrative passages.
rather, they wrote independently and, presumably, from separate oral and written traditions. Thus, where they do agree - which they do on the most important aspects of the story - it would seem that it is highly plausible that those aspects are, in essentials, accurate.
Where they agree are largely the passages that Luke and Matthew lift directly from Mark and their other common source, Q. This is the opposite of "they wrote independently."
By "the most important aspects," I can only assume you refer to the passion account. A close reading of Mark (where the others derived the framework of their own passion narratives) shows it to be highly mythologized and comprehensible in the context of the age only via pervasive reference to apocalyptic and eschatological passages from Isiah, Jeremiah and Daniel. In essence, Mark's passion is a kind of midrash --fictions intended as commentary on scripture; not history, and not even intended to fool any contemporary into believing it was historical.
The gospels are patently theological fabrications, with no more to recommend them as history than the Book of Mormon other than the imprimatur of long tradition.
Posted by: rich | October 29, 2008 6:23 PM
But one cannot directly prove that "elephants don't exist.""
I am sorry, but I did not say one could.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 6:24 PM
#611:
Isiah = Isaiah.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 6:24 PM
Actually, it is impossible. One of the points made about such Mormon claims is not just that there were civilizations, but that they had battles with metal weapons. Metal does not simply disappear in less than 2000 years; the absence of evidence, here, is evidence of absence.
Unanimity on a central point does not mean that what they are unanimous about actually happened.
There are many different versions of the tale of Red Riding Hood. Does that mean that we can conclude that wolves can speak and wear human clothes as disguises?
Precisely because the alleged supernatural entity about which they claim intervened, if it were real, would speak for itself, and would have ensured that nothing obviously false be recorded as its words and actions.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 6:30 PM
It shows that the Gospel writers didn't just copy one another (though Matthew and Luke are thought to have drawn on the same source, the "Q gospel"); rather, they wrote independently and, presumably, from separate oral and written traditions. Thus, where they do agree - which they do on the most important aspects of the story - it would seem that it is highly plausible that those aspects are, in essentials, accurate.
Where is the evidence they wrote "from separate oral and written traditions", rather than drawing on the same traditions, and made different selections from it, as well as making up bits as each felt inclined? It is highly implausible that, e.g. the resurrection accounts are accurate, not only from internal evidence (e.g. the women in the garden with the tomb at first identified someone who spoke to them as the gardener, and later "realised" it was Jesus. Come on...), but because they describe a miracle, and it is far more plausible that the accounts are wrong than that such an unprecedented event happened. As has been pointed out, the accounts of Jesus' trial are obviously inaccurate (if not completely invented); the same is true of accounts of the crucifixion (there was no supernatural darkness - Pliny and others who collected accounts of anomalies, would certainly have mentioned it) - so it is wholly irrational to trust the Gospels' account of a supernatural event, written decades after it occurred. For goodness sake, go and read up on John Frum if you want to know what oral tradition can do in a few decades.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 29, 2008 6:41 PM
rich,
The general concept of probability is well-defined. It doesn't follow that a particular application of that concept is equally well-defined.
An even number is a well-defined concept, but "the even number which is between 1 and 5" is not well-defined.
The maximum of a set of numbers is a well-defined concept, but "the maximum of the integers" is not well-defined.
Then "the probability of the existence of God" doesn't mean anything. It's like talking about "the square root of the largest integer."
Posted by: windy | October 29, 2008 6:44 PM
I would rather want to know how God is supposed to explain it at all. Does God find his own existence explainable and how did he gain this ability?
Posted by: Steve_C | October 29, 2008 6:46 PM
When there's zero evidence for something... how is it NOT logical is believe the probability is zero or close to zero.
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Also, it seems to me to be mealy-mouthed to say you're sceptical of the basis of the Mormon faith, unless you're not in fact also sceptical of the faith itself (which would be odd to say the least).
I was being conciliatory. On the (relatively small) chance that there were any members of the LDS Church reading this page, I wanted to avoid picking a fight, because it's tangential to the main issue here. Religious beliefs are often very personal, and while it's essential to be free to criticise and challenge them, I never wish to denigrate the beliefs of others. (Including atheists, for that matter.) But I had to use Mormonism as an example, as it is one of the few religious traditions I know quite a lot about (albeit purely from an academic perspective; I'm not LDS and don't have any LDS friends or relatives) and am capable of critiquing on an informed level. I couldn't do the same for Islam, for instance, simply because I'm not all that familiar with its history and theology. This isn't a discussion about the relative merits of the Latter-day Saint movement, and I didn't want to make it such.
There are many different versions of the tale of Red Riding Hood. Does that mean that we can conclude that wolves can speak and wear human clothes as disguises?
Fair point, and I didn't claim it was good evidence. But, to my knowledge, the story of Red Riding Hood has never purported to be historical. (Just as some Bible stories - e.g. the book of Job, or Jesus' parables - are intended for moral instruction and never purported to be recounting real history.)
In contrast, the Gospels purport to be records of a historical event (though they do not claim to be eyewitness accounts, and almost certainly are not). And though the precise dating is much contested, it's generally accepted that they were all written within 100 years of Jesus' death and (purported) resurrection. So while they are undoubtedly distorted by a generation of telling and retelling - hence the differences in the details, and the known errors - it seems perfectly plausible to suggest that they reflect real historical events.
While it's true that oral traditions can become distorted massively over a few decades - I believe someone above cited "John Frum" and the Pacific island cargo cults - bear in mind that the cargo cults arose in very remote, isolated small communities with primitive cultures. In contrast, during the period in which the Gospel authors were writing, Christianity was spreading across the Roman Empire - for its time, a cosmopolitan and diverse political unit, and one with a tradition of rational and philosophical thought inherited from the Greeks (indeed, the addressing of the Christian message to sceptical Greek, rather than religious Jewish, audiences is a major theme of parts of the Book of Acts and some of the Epistles).
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Rich, what you are describing as belief sounds a lot more like what I'd refer to as hope. Non-existence might be a problem for belief, but it isn't as much of a stumbling block for hope. Anyone can hope for anything, no matter how unlikely. Belief, on the other hand, needs something at its foundation.
Admittedly, I can't imagine why anyone would hope the god of the bible - a malignant, capricious, despicable monster - exists, unless they're monsters themselves.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2008 7:02 PM
it seems perfectly plausible to suggest that they reflect real historical events.
No, it doesn't. Read what I wrote above about Mark's passion as midrash. The gospels are theological fictions, likely not understood by contempoaray readers as anything but. It was later Christian tradition (mid- to late-2nd Century) that turned them into (implausible) histories and thus made the spurious attributions of them to legendary figures of apostolic times.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 29, 2008 7:08 PM
If there really is no evidence which bears on it, the probability may not be well enough defined to fix at zero.
For instance, if I flip a coin--but tell you nothing about its shape or weighting--would you say the probability of heads is zero or near-zero?
I would say you can't make a claim about the probability of heads at all. Without additional information, you can't even begin to form a probability space.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 7:11 PM
No, it isn't. For example, see CJO's link and citations explaining how the alleged trial was completely ahistorical, given both Roman and Judean legal practice and traditions.
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 7:16 PM
Read what I wrote above about Mark's passion as midrash. The gospels are theological fictions, likely not understood by contempoaray readers as anything but. It was later Christian tradition (mid- to late-2nd Century) that turned them into (implausible) histories and thus made the spurious attributions of them to legendary figures of apostolic times.
I don't see any decisive or incontrovertible evidence for this assertion; surely it's just one interpretation? We do know that the Gospels cannot be accurate in every detail, because they conflict with each other, with Josephus' Antiquities and with other sources on certain details.
But in the end, we have confirmation from archaeological evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate, and from Josephus of the existence of John the Baptist and his execution by Herod, inter alia. So we know that the background historical context of the Gospels was a real one. While the genre of theological fiction was (and is) prevalent, you haven't shown me any very clear evidence in support of your assertions re Mark. Given that we don't know exactly when any of the Gospels were written or who wrote them - we have traditional attributions, but those aren't supported by the text or by extraneous evidence - how can you make such assertions so confidently?
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 7:19 PM
Admittedly, I can't imagine why anyone would hope the god of the bible - a malignant, capricious, despicable monster - exists, unless they're monsters themselves.
This, and not the scientific or historical perspective, is IMO the single biggest problem with Christian belief. The internal inconsistency between the loving God portrayed in the NT and by modern Christian teaching, and the spiteful, vindictive and fiercely nationalist figure of the Torah and Joshua narratives, is too great to easily explain away.
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 29, 2008 7:20 PM
"Admittedly, I can't imagine why anyone would hope the god of the bible - a malignant, capricious, despicable monster - exists, unless they're monsters themselves."
My new signature! Thanks, Wowbagger!
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 7:22 PM
So it's only the fact that the bible is touted as a historical document that makes the impossible content within more probable? You are relying on anecdotal evidence of people who thought that earthquakes and volcanos where the result of homosexual sex (there are some who still think that btw), and this is for miracles? And you aren't even relying on them, you are relying on prose written by people almsot 50 years later who never witnessed it themselves. And this was at a time where Jesus had to complete with deities who could do those miracles.It's legend, there may have been a real person called Yoshua but there's no reason to suggest that he could do anything as reported in the bible, and it would be more credulous to believe that the stories were embellished so that Yoshua could compete with those other mangods around by the time of pagans. If Jesus did indeed exist, he would have been nothing more than a Jewish cult leader. But that's hardly surprising, there have been plenty of cases throughout history of people claiming to be the messiah and plenty who were around at the time of Jesus.
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 7:24 PM
Walton @619,
Thank you, I now know you were being mealy-mouthed, which I don't consider an admirable trait.There's a difference between denigrating a belief and denigrating the right to have a belief; cf. the remarks I made about inapropriate deference. That you felt the need to pre-emptively apologise for a non-existent offense just in case someone who you consider has a (relatively small) chance of even seeing your post is offended indicates something, don't you think?Again, care to address why you felt you had to say that Christian belief is "not inherently irrational", as opposed to "not irrational"? Because it seems very like an evasion.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 7:25 PM
Speaking of completely ahistorical stories that were claimed to "reflect real historical events", consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan
There are probably others that I am sure are out there: stories made up, fabricated entirely, to serve a religious and/or political point.
So? Consider how Mormonism propagated through America — were the people who converted to the movement all "in very remote, isolated small communities with primitive cultures"?
Same question with Scientology.
Cults spread through every culture, and manage to trick people of every level of intelligence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 7:30 PM
Uh-huh. And because George Washington existed as a real person, we know that he chopped down a cherry tree when he was a little boy, and then told the truth about it to his dear papa.
Come on.
Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2008 7:35 PM
And because George Washington existed as a real person, we know that he chopped down a cherry tree when he was a little boy, and then told the truth about it to his dear papa.
No - just as we don't give any credence to the apocryphal stories about Jesus' childhood from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
But we are fairly sure, for instance, that George Washington served as a military commander and as the first President of the United States. Just because apocryphal stories about a historical figure are untrue does not mean that the central historical claims of their life are untrue.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 7:40 PM
Sigh. You were originally referring to Pilate and the Baptist. The central historical claims of their respective lives that have been confirmed archaeologically is that they lived in Roman Judea — not that they respectively judged (and condemned) Jesus, or dunked him in the river.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 7:49 PM
Jesus is not a historical figure in anything like the same sense as George Washington: there are no contemporary accounts of his life, the later accounts are heavily mythologised, and there are even real doubts about his existence. King Arthur or Robin Hood would be a closer parallel, although I'd say Jesus's existence was somewhat (but only somewhat) more firmly based.
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 7:55 PM
One thing I always find believers doing is taking the firmly held notion that a man called Jesus lived and from there using it as proof of him being the son of God. What reason at all is there to suggest that if there was a man called Jesus then he must have healed the sick, brought back the dead to life and died to redeem the sins of mankind. It just doesn't logically follow!Posted by: The MadPanda | October 29, 2008 8:04 PM
Okay, Walton, here you have another question (since you seem determined to play biblical scholar in addition to your other roles): why do we ignore the noncanonical texts dealing with one Yeshua ben Yusuf, Nazarite?
For that matter, how can you be sure that the texts you hold as authoritative are, in fact, any more or less accurate than ones you dismiss as apocryphal?
Mull that over and get back to us after due consideration, if you would. Study early Church history with a jaded and skeptical eye, perhaps.
I hate to say this, but to a degree rich seems to be trying for the 'special pleading' ploy. He may be sincere, but sincerity (like popularity) is no guarantee of truthfulness. Truthiness, maybe...
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 8:08 PM
Walton, every bit of evidence you bring regarding the alleged historicity of Jesus to shore up the credibility of belief in Jesus as God (i.e. Christian belief) is trumped in spades by Sai Baba. So, clearly, using your rationale, devotees of Sai Baba are even more rational in their beliefs than Christians are.
Hm, actually, they probably are - so, what does that say about Christian belief? ;)
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 29, 2008 8:19 PM
Hey, good point, John!
Lookit all the neat info we have on Sai Baba! Confirmed birthdate, for one...
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 29, 2008 8:32 PM
The idea behind it is that "atheists have denied the Bible, saying that Jesus didn't exist," and if they think they have reasonably good evidence that he existed (and I accept it as probable that a cult was built around some Jewish teacher of the 1st century AD), that just blows the atheists out of the water.
Of course, most "atheists" or other evil-thinking persons that they include in the camp of "Jesus-deniers" haven't denied the possibility that Jesus existed, and likely most actual atheists think it probable that he (though not the mythic Jesus) existed. And it would make no difference to what is properly inferred even if atheists had denied that Jesus existed.
It's the old false dichotomy that dominates the "thinking" of anti-evolutionists. "They" deny the Bible, and/or creation, and if "they" are wrong about anything (Piltdown, whatever), the Xians automatically win. Basically, your "true believer" is simply wrestling with the Devil and the devil's followers, and a win is a win. They're not thinking in terms of evidence, but that the "atheists are against Jesus" or some such thing.
I don't know if I told you anything, really (this is meant to be more a response to the thread than to a person), but it seemed worth noting once again that we're simply not dealing with people who are trying to use evidence properly, instead wanting to win against anyone who denies Jesus and Holy Writ.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 29, 2008 8:55 PM
Loved seeing Rich and Walton getting smacked down. They appear to lack good thinking skills. Knowing when to call it quits shows intelligence (CoachOlsen, that is a warning for you), but they both failed miserably.
Rich, if you could be honest enough with yourself to know when your argument has been damaged, you would do better. But you are arrogant, and think that there is no rebuttal to your feeble attempts at logic. So you just across as a weasel. I think you're young. In time you will learn.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2008 9:21 PM
Modern Christian teaching tends to whitewash God as being portrayed as loving in the NT, but a careful reading finds that the spiteful and vindictive cruelty is in there as well. The Parable of the Talents is in there, as is the bit about letting the dead bury the dead, and hating one's parents if one is to follow Jesus, and bringing the sword rather than peace...
There is far too much in the NT that strongly suggests that Christianity was an eschatological cult, and Jesus was a narcissistic, arrogant, cold-blooded cult leader — even assuming he was a real human being.
See also Fighting Words, by Hector Avalos.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 29, 2008 9:23 PM
Generally accepted by whom? Bishops? The earliest fragment of any gospel is the Rylands P52 fragment which, if it can be said to have a generally accepted date, is paleographically dated between 125 and 150 CE. In reality, there is not a single fragment of any New Testament book that is "generally accepted" as dating to the 1st century CE.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 29, 2008 9:44 PM
When there's zero evidence for something... how is it NOT logical is believe the probability is zero or close to zero.
Because there's no deductive chain of inference to that conclusion. (So many people use the word "logical" without any apparent understanding of what it is.)
But consider this: why do we think there aren't any precambrian rabbit fossils? It isn't just because there's no evidence of such a thing, but because there is strong evidence against them -- they are inconsistent with our evidence-based theories.
Ditto with Odin and the Easter Bunny, and God (see the proabilistic arguments against the latter in Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Stenger's "The God Hypothesis").
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 29, 2008 10:16 PM
Actually, it is impossible. One of the points made about such Mormon claims is not just that there were civilizations, but that they had battles with metal weapons. Metal does not simply disappear in less than 2000 years; the absence of evidence, here, is evidence of absence.
Sigh. These conversations are hopelessly muddled when even the best of the lot put forth like blithering idiots. To show that something is impossible, you need disproof, not just evidence. And you can't weasel out by taking "disproof" in the informal sense of a demonstration of very low probability because Walton made a point of distinguishing improbability from "strict" impossibility, so you need to logically deduce your conclusion. Which is in fact impossible for the sort of empirical matter you're discussing.
Sheesh.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 29, 2008 10:34 PM
In ordinary parlance, "illogical" and "irrational" do not mean the same. If a psychiatrist is interviewing a patient who insists that aliens are talking to him from the shower head, and will shortly appear and enthrone him as Lord of the Earth, she will conclude these beliefs are irrational. They may, however, be maintained with complete logical consistency.
"in ordinary parlance" people misuse words and concepts all the time, and create distinctions between "logical" and "rational" than cannot logically/rationally be supported. Regardless of any imagined "logical consistency", one cannot logically/rationally deduce a conclusion that aliens will appear and enthrone one as Lord of Earth, even if one is truly perceiving voices coming from one's showerhead.
If you believe that logic and rationality are so separable, then please explain what determines whether a belief is or is not rational.
Here's a clue from http://www.google.com/search?q=define:rational
"consistent with or based on or using reason"
"Characterized by truth or logic"
"Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem"
There are of course other definitions, but it's just plain bad faith to ding Rich (or anyone else) for putting a slash between the two words.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 29, 2008 10:57 PM
I have said that belief in an event which attracts a non-zero probability is not, and I will now use the term, illogical/irrational (same thing to me).
Saying it doesn't make it so. Believing something that is implausible, let alone extraordinarily unlikely, is irrational and illogical (regardless of whether those are distinguishable). In fact, even believing something that is more than likely true, but still allows reasonable doubt, is irrational and illogical. (Note: I believe that Obama will probably win, but it would be irrational for me to believe that Obama will win, since I have good reasons for thinking he might not.)
(Strictly speaking, one can distinguish between a belief that is merely irrational because there's a reasonable basis for doubt, and a belief that is also illogical because its negation can be logically deduced from accepted premises. E.g., a belief that that there is a greatest prime is not just irrational, it is also illogical.)
Posted by: Kel | October 29, 2008 11:11 PM
PZ Myers winning this election is a non-zero possibility. It's possible that he can get written in on enough ballots and win the election, but it's an almost incredibly improbable event. It would be very irrational to believe PZ will win, even though it's a possibility. Just because it could happen, doesn't mean it's a realistic possibility. If someone said they had a firm belief that PZ Myers was going to win this election, I would say it's very irrational.
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 11:51 PM
I think it's clear that Rich painted himself into a corner trying to support his claim ("I simply said that believing that a God "did it" is not irrational or unscientific unless it can be proven otherwise.") whilst attempting to maintain an appearance of humble rationality, leading to making ever more outlandish claims ("My assertion is that it is quite rational to believe in an event which may attract a non-zero probability especially when that number is unknown."), his appeal to authority ("Yours humbly, An applied probability mathematician.") having fallen flat.
Rich:
Well, not in those very words, but he might as well have. Not to do so is cowardice.Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 4:01 AM
"Then "the probability of the existence of God" doesn't mean anything. It's like talking about "the square root of the largest integer.""
I do not agree. The event {a God is detected} (for Mr. Nick) will or will not happen. We know that the probability that it will happen falls in the closed interval between 0 and 1, by definition. We just don't know what the number is.
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 4:13 AM
"Speaking of irrational, I assert that pi does not, in fact, exist."- Dan L
If I understand correctly, you define an object which exists as one which can be detected by known physical means. You then use this definition to say that an object that cannot be detected in such a way does not exist. If I am not mistaken, this is tautology which has allowed you to prove that pi does not exist which is plainly absurd.
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 4:29 AM
"In ordinary parlance, "illogical" and "irrational" do not mean the same." - Nick Gotts
Rational (Definition): Consistent with or based on reason; logical: - Dingbat!
And so Mr Nick, to bring this whole thing to some kind of closure I present the following summary our virtual exchange. You initially demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of elemental concepts of measurably and stochastic processes in addition to an incomplete knowledge of the basic definitions of Measure Theory. Having finally grasped, not without considerable grunting, and ultimately agreed my original point, which was that we cannot construct a coherent experiment to test for the existence of an un-measurable object, you then proceeded to request that I bravely perform a cardinal comparison of two numbers which we both agreed that we could not calculate. You then plunged to even further depths of stupidity to request that I compare the some undefined cardinal measure of the rationality of believing that two undefined objects exist. You then proceeded to draw false conclusions on my behalf on the basis of a comparison which I refused to make for the simple reason that I did not know how to do it. End of term report for Mr. Nick: must try harder and learn to pay attention in class.
My conclusion is that you are either simply retarded or a blog troll or both. I will continue my search for truth in this important matter and leave you to wallow in your mud pit of ignorance and arrogance while waiting for your two randomly oscillating brain cells to collide to allow you to generate an intelligent thought. But of course it is hopeless to try and formulate an expectation of when this event might occur, because it is not an event, and the probability is either 0 or 1 and the continuous time mathematical model we might be tempted to use to formulate such an expectation does not apply to the real world. So with apologies; Mr. Brown, Mr. Wiener and, for that matter, Mr. Einstein, are all delusional. But it doesn't matter because according to another blogger, even if we could conceive of such a model we would not be able to write down the solution because pi does not exist, because it does not emit energy, which means the solution to the model we can't apply doesn't exist, and which means the normal distribution doesn't exists which most likely means that this blog does not exist. Happily, that would mean that you do not exist which is, in fairness, no great loss to the sum of human knowledge.
Posted by: Walton | October 30, 2008 4:38 AM
For that matter, how can you be sure that the texts you hold as authoritative are, in fact, any more or less accurate than ones you dismiss as apocryphal?
I did in fact specifically address this earlier, at #605. The answer is that I don't automatically hold anything as "authoritative". The early Church did cherry-pick documents in determining what would and would not be included in the canonical Bible; although no doubt the origin of the texts was an important factor, it's also well-known that their choices were influenced by political considerations, namely the need to quash minority viewpoints such as Gnosticism. So I do think it's useful for modern scholars to read (and critically evaluate) the rejected texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas (as the "Jesus Seminar" does in trying to build a picture of Jesus as a historical figure).
And if you read my post at #605, I did acknowledge that no part of the Bible is likely to be "infallible"; there's no logical basis from which to treat it as such, given that the Gospels contradict each other and have a few known errors. And as I said, I have no idea why the letters of Paul are included; they are just advice from one early Christian leader (who never met Jesus in person) to various congregations, and don't actually purport to be the revealed word of God. While Paul may have great persuasive force for Christians, I don't see why his work needs to be regarded as "scriptural" any more than does that of, say, C.S. Lewis. (And, of course, some of the epistles may not have been written by Paul at all.)
But much of the Biblical narrative can be seen as an account - albeit distorted, partisan, and mostly written down many years after the fact - of historical events. The OT seems, indeed, to be probably much more accurate than was previously thought. For instance, the existence of David and Solomon was questioned by most scholars until very recently, when in 2005 a "large stone structure" was unearthed in Jerusalem that may be the palece of David.
Since I'm overtly rejecting Biblical infallibility and questioning vast swathes of orthodox Christian doctrine, I'm sure that the fundamentalists you all describe would view me as almost as "godless" as you. But I don't think the Christian tradition ought to be rejected entirely.
Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2008 4:48 AM
Hi Walton. Did you see #636? No comment?
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 4:48 AM
"I think it's clear that Rich painted himself into a corner"
I did no such thing and I am happy to reveal I accept that a God may or may not exist. How could I support a different conclusion? I continue to assert that it is not illogical/irrational to believe in an event which attracts a non-zero probability. I have stated repeatedly that I will accept the empirical findings of a coherent experiment which indicates that the probability of an event existing is close to zero. In the case of as to whether a small green man lives at the bottom of my garden or a lizard like creature lives in a loch in Scotland, I will accept that conventional methods of detection indicate that the existence of the defined objects is extremely unlikely. What I do not accept is that it in any way indicates that a God in generality, or any other un-measurable object, does not exist. It is therefore both logical and rational, in generality, to believe in a God. And no amount of juvenile references to a variety of pink multi-legged things amounts to a coherent case in contradiction. Furthermore, and it was the point of the original exchange, atheism is a belief. It is in no way supported by the null hypothesis or Occam's razor as has been suggested by some posts. And as a direct result, evolution does not imply atheism.
Posted by: Kel | October 30, 2008 5:04 AM
Yes it is. There's no evidence for God, no reason to believe in God, God becomes the ultimate 747 and thus this all implies atheism.Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2008 5:08 AM
Rich:
Fine, so you must therefore hold that belief the event that "tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation" is rational, unless you can justify assigning it a zero probability.You're in a similar position to that Michael Behe was in the Dover trial, when in an attempt to claim intelligent design was a scientific theory changed his definition of the term so that it included astrology.
Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2008 5:23 AM
Rich:
Well yes, but don't you consider that the category of beliefs based on evidence is qualitatively different to that of beliefs based on supposition?Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 30, 2008 5:57 AM
The event {a God is detected} (for Mr. Nick) will or will not happen.
Fail. "a God is detected" is not an event, it's a judgment. There are no definitive tests for the existence of a God. The existence of a God would have to be an inference, bu it would hard for an inference to be rational when "a God" is so ill-defined. How could we even distinguish between, say, Odin and Kal-El in a halloween costume?
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 30, 2008 6:08 AM
A number is chosen randomly on [0,1). What's the probability that it falls within a given Vitali set?
A number is chosen randomly from the real line. What's the probability that its magnitude is less than 1,000?
What in the world does this mean?
No, it's not.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 30, 2008 6:09 AM
Rich wrote:
A hypothetical for you, Rich:
Let's say I have a small child, and move to a secluded part of the country - not difficult; I live in Australia and there are many places to which I can go that are remote enough that I can control how much information the child has access to (esp. with the current government's plans to fuck with our internet).
So, I raise the child without any reference to gods or religion - hardly impossible, or even difficult, since I control information and the child can not access that information his or herself. He/she is, for all intents and purposes, completely ignorant of the existence of even the belief in gods, let alone any information about why he/she should or shouldn't believe in them. The child is truly atheist.
How, precisely, is that child's atheism a belief?
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 30, 2008 6:18 AM
rich has already asserted that god is undefined and immeasurable, so by his standards we can't distinguish between a god and me in a Halloween costume.
Why he thinks it's possible to "detect" such a god, I don't know.
Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2008 6:34 AM
Wowbagger, in your hypothetical, I think you have to additionally stipulate that she does not independently postulate one or more deities.
Posted by: Kitty | October 30, 2008 6:34 AM
It is my understanding that the interpretation of this site as the palace of David and Solomon is still questioned by most archaeologists, except those who have the ulterior motive of claiming that the site 'proves' Jewish claims to 'ownership' of all of Jerusalem.The archaeologist who excavated here was funded by conservative Jews and an American banker with that goal specifically in mind. The interpretation of the dig director , therefore, is tainted by her 'seek and you shall find' presumption.
Bad archaeology is the same as bad science - don't start with conclusions and make the evidence fit.
While the find itself is very exciting, as it's not every day that such a structure from the 10th century BCE is found, it is not evidence for the existence of David and Solomon.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 30, 2008 6:37 AM
but it's just plain bad faith to ding Rich (or anyone else) for putting a slash between the two words. - truth machine
No it is not. I gave an example of the difference, you yourself gave one in your very next comment. "truth machine", my aunt Fanny!
Posted by: Walton | October 30, 2008 6:42 AM
John Morales at #652: Yes, I read #636, but faced with a flood of responses (and since I had to go to a lecture this morning) it wasn't possible to reply to everything at once.
In reply to #636: Fair point. And though I'm not familiar with Sai Baba, in reading the article to which you linked I would have to say, tentatively, that there is nothing inherently irrational in believing his claims. Of course, I haven't conducted research into the miracles he purports to have performed - and there were some mentions of sceptical studies in the article - so I wouldn't presume to make a pronouncement either way. This, you see, is open-mindedness. When faced with an alleged supernatural or divine phenomenon, I don't see why I should assume it to be untrue until proven otherwise, merely because some other supernatural or divine phenomena in history have been shown to be fabricated. Rather, I keep an open mind, research the available information on the relevant phenomenon, and only then determine whether, and to what extent, it is credible. As I've said, I spent months studying and reading about the Latter-day Saint movement, and eventually concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Book of Mormon is probably fabricated; but even so, I don't condemn people for believing it. As to the central claims of older religions, such as Christianity or Islam, there simply isn't enough concrete evidence either way - so continued open-mindedness seems to be the only logical approach.
So this is not a case of treating Christianity, Judaism and Islam as more credible than other religious traditions simply because of their global popularity, antiquity and institutional inertia. Truth is not determined by a popularity contest. Rather, I am open-minded as to the validity of any spiritual claim, unless and until clear evidence is adduced to establish its probable untruth.
Personally, I'm increasingly inclined towards a pantheistic, universalist viewpoint with regard for various different religious traditions; if there is a God, it seems to me most plausible that He reveals Himself through many of the different faith traditions, albeit that all teach distorted or imperfect versions of the truth viewed through the lens of its social context. (Rather like the Baha'i doctrine of "progressive revelation".) So I don't take the Bible literally; it's a human creation, recording centuries of oral tradition that was no doubt distorted in the transmission, and I don't see it as containing all truth. But it is nevertheless a useful way of understanding one perspective on God. (I would probably be a Unitarian Universalist, except that I don't agree with their advocacy of leftist political causes, and they don't have much of a foothold in the UK anyway.)
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 30, 2008 6:59 AM
John Morales, #661, wrote:
I would hope that, given all the information needed to explain natural phenomena, encouraged to ask questions when the kind of events that lead to magical thinking occur and protected from the indoctrination into religious belief no child would independently postulate one or more deities.
Which'd be a fascinating experiment in itself; unfortunately, I can't see it getting through ethics.
But if it helps, then yes, the child does not at any point postulate the existence of one of more deities.
Posted by: Guy G | October 30, 2008 9:37 AM
Rich:
Does this mean that you think there are events which have a zero probability? I would be interested to hear an example, since I don't believe that you can have a real-life event which has exactly zero probability. Close enough not to matter practically, but not precisely zero.
If not, then you are effectively stating that there is nothing which it is illogical/irrational to believe. Is this what you are saying?
To pose it simply, are you:
a) Implying that there is nothing which it is irrational to believe
OR
b) Implying that there are events which have exactly zero probability of occurring
And if you wouldn't mind clarifying:
If you answered a), then what is the meaning of the word irrational to you? Can you think of an example of something which is irrational?
If you answered b), can you think of any real events which have exactly zero probability of occurring?
Guy
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 30, 2008 10:53 AM
It's because without Paul, and a few other later Xian books of the NT (like the late Gospel of John, and Hebrews), there is no theology, no reason for Jesus dying and being resurrected.
The synoptic Gospels consist largely in the story of Jesus, and Jesus' teachings, giving little or no reason for a new religion to arise, or for Judaism to shift dramatically (the original Xian desire).
Paul gives a theology, and apparently the most popular version, which tells "why Jesus died," clearly an issue of great import to the early church. Some complain that Paul founded Xianity, not Jesus, but whatever the merits of such a claim, Xianity (or probably, any Jesus-inspired sect separate from mainline Judaism) would not exist based solely upon Jesus' teachings.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: SC | October 30, 2008 11:05 AM
Good questions, Guy G.
Posted by: Dan L. | October 30, 2008 11:11 AM
I never said you did. What you said was that a belief of the form "there is no X" is irrational without proof. I pointed out that there are no statements of the form "there is no X" that can be proved (only disproved). Therefore, by your reasoning, a belief of the form "X doesn't exist" or "there is no X" is always irrational. Thus, the belief "there are no pink rabbits at the bottom of the ocean" is irrational. Any 8 year old child could tell you that your position is ridiculous.
As I recall, you didn't object to my definition of existence, nor did you offer an alternative. If you can't define terms and you don't object to my definitions, then I'm going to proceed using my definitions.
You are mistaken; this is not a tautology. If you have no grounds for rejecting my definition, then my definition is the best we have at the moment.
Moreover, it is not absurd that pi does not exist. It is no more absurd to say that pi does not exist than it is to say that unicorns do not exist. Neither one has ever been apprehended in nature; both are only encountered within the minds of human beings. There is no a priori reason not to believe that "pi" is an imaginary creature.
You've also conveniently ignored most of my points arguing against your characterizations of epistomology. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is really starting to seem that you are not arguing in good conscience.
Posted by: eric | October 30, 2008 12:34 PM
Anton, I have not had a chance to respond to your last post, so I apologize for this late reply.
I think I see just where our dispute lies, and why we've been more or less talking past each other. I take responsibility for the misunderstanding, since I see that some of what I wrote was not as precise as it should have been. Therefore, rather than go back and respond to each point, I'll make my case as clearly as I can.
Here are the definitions we were discussing (for easy reference):
"Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist..."
And here is a further claim from the article Glen posted: Strong atheists are also weak atheists.
Okay, here is why I think the article's content is incoherent.
Weak Atheism is defined as *both* the lack of belief in god(s), and as no commitment to the belief that god doesn't exist. This seems uncontroversial: it's the claim made most frequently by weak atheists, both on this blog and elsewhere: "We don't claim that god doesn't exist, we merely lack the belief that he does (perhaps because there is no evidence, or perhaps for any number of reasons).
Strong atheism is defined as the belief that no god(s) exist.
Now, the weak atheist and the strong atheist *do* share one common element: both lack the belief that god exists. But here is where we encounter the incoherence I was referring to: weak atheism *isn't* defined -- neither in the article, nor in the posts of most weak atheists -- as *only* a lack of belief in god; note, it *also* includes no commitment to the existence of god(s). (Incidentally, this is why weak atheists can be agnostics). But if a weak atheist, by definition, lacks belief in god *and* doesn't claim that god doesn't exist, while a strong atheist *does* claim that god doesn't exist, *then a strong atheist, according to the articles very definitions, cannot be a weak atheist (since you cannot both not claim that god doesn't exist, and claim that god doesn't exist). Weak atheism is consistent with strong atheism if weak atheism is defined as *only* a lack of belief in god(s), *but this isn't what the article says*, and it's not what weak atheists claim.
I hope that clears things up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 30, 2008 12:44 PM
I see Rich still isn't getting it. First, atheism is not a belief, but rather a disbelief. Look in the dictionary. Making up your own definitions and changing them on the fly may be problem with us following your logic.
Second, your whole exercise, which to me appears utterly illogical, seems to have been done in order to allow for gods to exist. Gods don't exist, except in various peoples imaginations. If they exist, show me the phyisical proof. Until I will just have to classify with with JK, PM, SF, PR, and a few other godbots who have tried to prove god without showing any physical evidence.
Posted by: CJO | October 30, 2008 1:15 PM
I have no idea why the letters of Paul are included; they are just advice from one early Christian leader (who never met Jesus in person) to various congregations, and don't actually purport to be the revealed word of God.
Funny, that...
And curiouser and curiouser, by his own account (corroborated, legendarily at least, and in a divergent account, in Acts) Paul visited the Jerusalem leaders (Peter, James "the brother of the lord" et al), who, according to tradition, most certainly DID meet Jesus in person (one of whom is supposed to have grown up with him, fer chrissakes!), and, though they and Paul had numerous disagreements, one of them, to judge by Paul's writings in reaction, was not a question of the legitimacy of the revelation to Paul.
It's practically the keystone of the "argument from silence" for the non-historicity of Jesus. If there had been a real, single founder of the early Christian movement, why on earth would his inner circle not question the authority of this interloper, Saul of Tarsus, on the grounds that they had a different experience of Jesus than he did --in the flesh, as opposed to Paul's visions? Further, why is Paul's interest in Jerusalem exclusively the church elders there? Why, if a mere decade previous, the savior of the entire world had been crucified, buried, and resurrected there, does Paul demonstrate zero interest in recounting any experiences there and why doesn't he view his visit as a pilgrimage rather than a meet and greet?
Perplexing questions, I would think, from the traditional view. Taking the assumption that Jesus was a figure of myth, however, the questions just melt away. There was no disagreement about Paul's authority because his experience with Jesus, though later in time, was of the same character as the experience of the Jerusalem leaders, who had visions, too. It's not a pilgrimage, because there are no holy sites: there is no tomb in Jerusalem, Golgotha is a squalid killing-field, and nobody of note ever came out of Nazareth.
Of course Paul does claim to be speaking the word of god, revealed to him, directly, by Jesus risen, the Christ crucified. The esteem in which his writings were held by the congregations to which he wrote are a clear indication that Christians of the first generation after the purported ministry and death of Jesus didn't have a problem with that.
In all of these considerations, we have to be careful of projecting modern attitudes onto ancient minds. There was simply no expectation that a religious figure be anything but a mythical construct. Gentile adherents of 1st-Century hellenized Christ cults (Paul's audience) would actually have found the notion of a bodily-resurrected crucified criminal quite profane, and, frankly, disgusting.
Posted by: CJO | October 30, 2008 2:30 PM
Glen:
It's because without Paul, and a few other later Xian books of the NT (like the late Gospel of John, and Hebrews), there is no theology, no reason for Jesus dying and being resurrected.
Oh, there's plenty of theology in the Synoptics. Problem was, they're divergent theologies. Paul's stature in the canon arises, I think, from his abhorrence of schism and his contant plea for unity among the bretheren, even amidst doctrinal and liturgical chaos. For Paul, of course, the issue is that the risen Christ is coming, soon, and He won't know who are the chosen unless all are one in Christ.
For the later church fathers who preserved his writings as a fundamental part of the canon, these considerations were long ago moot. Jesus hadn't arrived and it was time to settle in and consolidate power for the long haul. So the establishment of an orthodoxy (by no means a certainty before the fact) benefitted from a founding figure whose over-riding concern was agreement between communities and the unity of worship.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 30, 2008 3:30 PM
Sure, there's theology, pretty much Judaic theology, in the Synoptics. What I meant was that there is no (Xian) theology that "explains" what would have to be important to worshippers of a god who allegedly died and rose again.
Jesus in the Synoptics doesn't differ much from (yes, often divergent) the theology of his contemporaries, unless it's with respect to his own role as prophet ("godhood" seems to be a later invention).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 30, 2008 4:36 PM
I think I've finally figured out why arguing with Rich does no good. It's that pesky term "non-zero." Obviously Rich believes in the real number line, Cantorian set theory, transfinite cardinals, all that stuff. To him a number can be arbitrarily small and still non-zero.
Cantorian set theory is fascinating in a "far out, man!" slightly-stoned junior-high-school-bull-session kind of way, but it has no application to our universe. If you could measure the diameter and circumference of the observable universe exactly in units of the Planck Length (and ignore its curvature due to General Relativity) you could only determine pi to 62 decimal places. So yes, Rich, in our universe, a number that is sufficiently close to zero IS zero, and the probability of the existence of YHWH is much, much smaller than 10^-62!
Of course, from a mathematical point of view, both Cantorian and non-Cantorian set theory are equally worth pursuing, but if the Axiom of Choice leads to such absurd conclusions, then in the real world, it would have to be considered experimentally disproven.
Posted by: eric | October 30, 2008 4:58 PM
"and the probability of the existence of YHWH is much, much smaller than 10^-62!"
Actually, one cannot speak coherently about the probability of god's existence (this is perhaps the single greatest weakness of Dawkins's 'God Delusion'). God is defined as a necessary being, so if he exists, he exists in all possible worlds, and if he doesn't exist, he exists in no possible world. I think the confusion can be cleared up in this way: a unicorn is defined as a horse with one horn. We can ask questions about the probability that unicorns exist, *but we cannot ask questions about the probability that unicorns have horns*. In other words, speaking about the probability of god's existence makes as much sense as speaking about the probability that unicorns have horns -- which is to say, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 30, 2008 5:03 PM
Lurkbot, you may be on to something. In my business, once something gets "below detection limits", we ignore it. A purist could argue that we could have a parts per billion impurity, but if we can only measure that impurity to 100 parts per million, the whole parts per billion business is just speculation/sophistry.
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 30, 2008 5:27 PM
"God is defined as a necessary being, so if he exists, he exists in all possible worlds, and if he doesn't exist, he exists in no possible world. I think the confusion can be cleared up in this way: a unicorn is defined as a horse with one horn. We can ask questions about the probability that unicorns exist, *but we cannot ask questions about the probability that unicorns have horns*. In other words, speaking about the probability of god's existence makes as much sense as speaking about the probability that unicorns have horns -- which is to say, it makes no sense whatsoever."
There it is! Exactly as I said a while back. To a certain kind of mind, once the existence of something has been asserted somewhere, anywhere, by anyone, the only possibilities are existence and non-existence. The absence of absolute proof of non-existence constitutes proof of existence. Dichotomization in action.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 30, 2008 5:28 PM
That's a definition of God. It is certainly not the only one — and I suspect it's one of the more flawed ones.
Colloquially, perhaps. Yet not necessarily. The word "unicorn" itself means "one-horn"; "horse" is an interpolation. Depending on how carefully worded the definition is, unicorns do indeed exist (any horn-growing animal with one horn), might potentially exist, with technology (genetically modified horse), or almost certainly cannot exist (horse with a horn that can detect virgins and poison).
The same goes for God. If "God" is defined as being exactly equivalent to "The universe, and all its laws and contents", then obviously God exists. And so on and so forth.
I think we need to formulate definitions a little more carefully than we do before making assertions about whether that which is defined exists.
Posted by: CJO | October 30, 2008 5:44 PM
Well, who died and made god necessary?
I'm being facetious, but, really, I see here the same sleight of hand at work as in the ontological category of supposed proofs for the existence of god. I question that "existence" is an attribute, equivalent to "has one horn," or any other physical attribute one might assign to the members of a class.
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 5:45 PM
"There's no evidence for God, no reason to believe in God" - Kel
No, the name for that position is agnostic.
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 5:48 PM
"Fine, so you must therefore hold that belief the event that "tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation""
- As I have repeatedly said, how can I logically deny an event which is possible. I didn't say I would believe it.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 30, 2008 5:49 PM
Rich,
You're claiming atheism is a belief. It is not. See my hypothetical at #659.
Posted by: eric | October 30, 2008 5:52 PM
"I think we need to formulate definitions a little more carefully than we do before making assertions about whether that which is defined exists."
I wasn't speaking about god's existence, but about the absurdity of speaking about the 'probability' that god exists. If god is defined as a necessary being, then you can't meaningfully speak about the probability that he exists, since 'existence' is part of the definition. Now, don't mistake this as an attempt to set up and run an ontological argument. It isn't. Note, I said in post #676 that *if* god exists, he exists in all possible worlds, and *if* he *doesn't* exist, he exists in no possible world (this is just what it means to say that god is defined as a necessary being -- you have only these two alternatives).
Note that I was obviously using the acceptation of the term unicorn. Also note that everything you said about the various possibilities is entirely consistent with what I said (i.e. that we can meaningfully speak about the probabilities of unicorns existing), though it seems to me that in your last example (viz. horse with a horn that can detect poison and virgins) you've come darn close to confusing physical or technological impossibility with logical impossibility (i.e. there's no contradiction involved in your example).
"I think we need to formulate definitions a little more carefully than we do before making assertions about whether that which is defined exists."
I would certainly agree with this, but I notice that this advice is usually selectively put forth.
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 5:54 PM
Guy - there are of course events which have probability zero. An example, I died yesterday. And, I have repeatedly drawn the distinction between direct prood and empirical proof. Of course, in the latter case the result cannot be zero, except in a degenerate case, but I will accept an estimate from a coherant experiment which shows that the probability of an event is not statistically different from zero. In other words, the Loch Ness Monster.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 30, 2008 6:15 PM
The upshot is that rich would, if he's consistent, complain about you telling your child that ghosts don't exist.
It's the worst form of pedantry, but it looks like he's never going to stop while he's here. He wants words like "atheist" and "agnostic" to be exclusive of each other, and the mere fact that language is hardly that precise eludes his pompous posturing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: rich | October 30, 2008 6:27 PM
I really cannot be bothered to answer any more of your questions. I believe that I have made my position clear. I do feel bad about lashing out at Nick, even though frankly he deserved it for being a petulant pilluck. Instead I will share something with you. And before any sycophantic bigots the amongst you throw a Carly Simon, I am not seeking your sympathy or acceptance. I left those juvenile tendencies behind a long time ago. I spent this morning with my mother at the hospital. She is the dearest person to me in the world along with my wife and children. We were told she has lung cancer and that it is inoperable. Why am I telling you this? Well you wanted real world. You seem to have a dislike for mathematics (curious for a science blog). This is as real as it gets. My mother is a devout Christian; a proper one who sees only good in people. Her belief in God is the only way that she is going to get through this. Of course this does not mean a God exists, it doesn't prove anything. But what it does mean is that I have seen at first hand what it means. So please don't tell me it is irrational or illogical or irrelevant. I don't know what I believe, but I am quite sure that the answer is not going to be found in a book on the null hypothesis. The best of luck with your beliefs, whatever they are.
And no Glen, I would not complain about teling a child that a ghost does not exist. You are at liberty to believe waht you want about ghosts. I tell my children to keep an open mind. it's the only scientific thing to do.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 30, 2008 6:34 PM
And if we define "being" as including "has empirically demonstrable attributes", then we have defined god out of existence.
Heh.
"almost certainly"Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 30, 2008 6:36 PM
The earliest definition of agnostic I heard was someone who didn't believe in god, but was seeking proof for god. An atheist was just an agnostic who gave up the active search. So in my mind, the two words overlap a great deal. Trying to totally separate them seems like a waste of effort.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 30, 2008 6:42 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism, by definition, means without a belief in god or gods; the prefix a- meaning 'without'.
While an atheist can believe there is/are definitely no god/s, it is not a necessary condition for atheism. As per my hypothetical upthread, I can be without the belief in something if I've never heard of it - I don't need to know that it doesn't exist before I can lack belief in it.
Posted by: Kel | October 30, 2008 7:04 PM
No, it's both! Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals in belief. I don't see any reason to believe in God so I don't believe in God, hence I'm an atheist. I also don't know for sure that God doesn't exist so I'm a weak agnostic.In short atheism = not belief. agnosticism = not know. The definitions overlap because they deal with two seperate issues. How is it you can not grasp this?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 30, 2008 7:10 PM
Well I didn't say that you're consistent, having left that question completely open.
The scientific position is, of course, that you are not at liberty to believe what you want about ghosts. That is to say, legally one may believe that they exist, and scientifically it is not absolutely forbidden to believe in ghosts (science is not about censorship), but the important thing is that scientifically you cannot claim that the non-zero possibility of ghosts existing leaves any meaningful chance that they do. In normal parlance, we would simply say that they do not exist.
Unfortunately, your position would allow IDists endless scope to complain about its virtual shut-out from science due to its lack of evidence. For the mere positing of a "designer," no matter how bizarre its penchant for designing life to look exactly as expected by design, might make its "possibility" something legitimate to bring up in science, in science classes. Likewise with the FSM, Plato's Forms, Hindu myths that a god is dreaming this world, etc., etc. I have to wonder if sneaking ID into science class isn't behind your countless attempts to impose meanings onto terms that are not understood by others according to your desires.
I think that none of us consider some sort of ID to have a non-zero possibility, after all. Which is totally superfluous to what science is about--this being finding evidence in favor of hypotheses while generally remaining falsifiable by possible future data. We say that life was not designed, for the very fact that we have not found evidence of design in life, outside of our own genetic engineering projects.
To be sure, we also do not base science on non-zero possibilities, meaning that a pedantic insistence upon the non-zero possibility of ID does not affect science (after all, science is well aware of the fact that non-existence is difficult, often impossible, to demonstrate). So you may not be pushing ID, I really don't know. My main point is that science is interested in being able to state with high probability (that's the goal, not always the practice) that something is or is not the case.
After all, species are declared extinct from time to time. Occasionally this turns out not to be the case--the coelacanth being a famous example. Science does not mope when it turns out that it is wrong, because it considers itself to have a non-zero possibility of being wrong, in all of its statements (in many cases certain facts, "laws," and theories are considered to have a negligible possibility of being wrong). Most scientists are only too happy when declarations of extinction turn out not to be the case, aside from diseases.
Much of what goes by the term of "atheism" today takes science as the model means of coming to determinations about claims outside of human affairs (and many of the latter as well). This is why "atheists" don't mind saying that "god is extinct," to go for the analogy (except that god presumably never existed). That way "God" isn't the subject of endless discussions about "possibilities," we just toggle to the most probable position on the matter, thus cutting through a lot of useless discussion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: eric | October 30, 2008 10:35 PM
"The scientific position is, of course, that you are not at liberty to believe what you want about ghosts...the important thing is that scientifically you cannot claim that the non-zero possibility of ghosts existing leaves any meaningful chance that they do. In normal parlance, ***we would simply say that they do not exist***...***My main point is that science is interested in being able to state with high probability (that's the goal, not always the practice) that something *is* or *is not* the case***..."God" isn't the subject of endless discussions about "possibilities," ***we just toggle to the most probable position on the matter***, thus cutting through a lot of useless discussion."
Ah, Glen, you've just proven two of my points.
First, most atheists who *claim* to be weak atheists aren't *really* weak atheists.
Second, weak atheism is little more than a tactical position, *especially* when so-called 'weak atheists' claim scientific support for their position. When it suits them, they're perfectly happy to claim that they believe it to be the case that god doesn't exist (usually when ridiculing an ignorant theist, or when trying to showcase their scientific bona fides); however, on other occasions (usually when they run into a theist with a modicum of philosophic training), they hide under the 'weak atheism' claim in a cowardly attempt to escape any onus in a debate.
Posted by: Kel | October 31, 2008 12:12 AM
You fool, strong atheism covers weak atheism too. Again, if there is no reason to believe in God, why believe? There's no reason for belief, so they are atheist by default.Posted by: Owlmirror | October 31, 2008 2:58 AM
*snort*
Oddly enough, those "theists with a modicum of philosophic training" are often all too eager to avoid any sort of rigorous definition of God, and for any particular definition, they will definitely avoid the question of on what basis they can make any epistemic claim to that definition without empirical evidence in the first place.
Theology is fundamentally dishonest.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 31, 2008 3:23 AM
AKA professional sophist/apologist tapdancers armed with intellectual dishonesty directly proportional to the aforementioned 'training', and every evasion technique in the book.
Which is great for winning arguments, but useless for actually achieving anything of substance.
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 4:06 AM
Rich:
No. It's just that metaphysical issues are not decidable mathematically, though you're not the first person to try to befuddle us.That you've ignored Anton @658 does not mean you dislike mathematics - but it does seem like avoidance and it addresses your probabilistic claims.
Even I, with little training, get his point even if I can't mathematically demonstrate it - the probability is undeterminable but infinitesimally close to zero.* So, why bring it up? That's argumentum ad consequentiam, which may be applicable to ethical calculus but certainly not to logic.
--
*feel free to correct me.
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 4:40 AM
Walton @664, thanks for the response.
I see you got my point, which I shan't belabour other than to suggest you consider how, if the mythologising of self-proclaimed prophets or Avatars can occur so quickly, even in modern times when scientific thinking and a large knowledge base is available, then how much more powerful and profound would it be in ancient times.
As an aside, why do you speak of God? Is polytheism somehow inferior or less convincing? If so, is it because it predated monotheism or because it seems to you (ahem) less coherent?*
*Consider those rhetorical questions, I'm not asking for a response. :)
Posted by: Guy G | October 31, 2008 5:20 AM
Maybe you died yesterday, were resurrected, and forgot about it. Assuming that the existence of a god has a non-zero probability, and there is a non-zero probability of it being the Christian God (hence all powerful), there is surely a non-zero probability that he intervened and then made you forget about it.Yes, it's a trite explanation, but that's the point. However unlikely it is, you've stated that you don't find it irrational to believe it, since it has a non-zero probability. And what exactly is your criterion for determining whether something is statistically equivalent to zero? You have to draw a line somewhere. Is it at 0.0000000001 probability? Or 0.00000000001?
I'd be interested to know whether you accept my hypothesis that you died yesterday having a non-zero probability. Yes I know that it is of course for every practical reason zero, but it is not precisely zero. And if so, do you think that it is rational to believe that you did die yesterday?
To be honest, I don't believe that you honestly think that it is rational to believe something just because it has a non-zero probability of being true. You gave the example of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster as having a probability no different to zero. That might be true for practical purposes, but I would say exactly the same thing about any one specific definition of a god. I would assert that both are as unlikely as to be practically zero.
Since you give the Loch Ness Monster as an example, does this mean that you find belief in the Loch Ness Monster to be irrational? If so, what is the difference between that and a god? I really don't think that you can honestly say you are being objective. It seems that you have said things in haste because they back your assertion that belief in a god is rational, and are now unwilling to back down, despite numerous examples.
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 5:28 AM
An interesting progression.
Rich @371: Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith.
Rich @379: What I am saying is that until proven otherwise, believing in general terms in the existence of a God, to the extent that does not contravene known facts, is entirely rational and not at all unscientific.
Rich @ 653: I continue to assert that it is not illogical/irrational to believe in an event which attracts a non-zero probability.
me @ 655: Fine, so you must therefore hold that belief the event that "tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation" is rational, unless you can justify assigning it a zero probability.
Rich @ 682: "Fine, so you must therefore hold that belief the event that "tomorrow the Galactic Confederation will contact planet Earth by means of technology unknown to us and demand all humans paint their noses green on pain of annihilation""
- As I have repeatedly said, how can I logically deny an event which is possible. I didn't say I would believe it.
Apparently, quotemining is acceptable to Rich.
Rich, I call you out as a liar (cf. Rich@543: "I am looking for the truth.").
Your original assertion was that such a belief is not irrational, now it has become not logically deniable.
"I didn't say I would believe it" - if you choose not to believe that which is (according to your own assertion) rational, then you are not seeking the truth.
Bah.
---
PS Others have pinned Rich down on other points; they're probably not as obsessive as I in pinning down disingenuity.
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 5:38 AM
Bah at myself too, I rushed the final part.
" ... if you choose not to believe that which is (according to your own assertion) rational ..."
is poor reasoning. I retract that entire sentence.
But I otherwise stand by the post, and its intent.
Posted by: eric | October 31, 2008 7:30 AM
"You fool, strong atheism covers weak atheism too."
Not in all cases; it depends on the definitions you're using.
Are these two propositions consistent?
(1) I only lack belief in god's existence, and do not claim that god doesn't exist.
(2) I claim that god doesn't exist.
They're not consistent, so the next question is, do they accurately represent the claims of weak (1) and strong (2) atheists? The answer is obvious -- just read the comments on this blog.
Posted by: malletman | October 31, 2008 12:49 PM
Evolution (or any science for that matter) are not incomatible with the tenets of liberal, non-literalist forms of religion. But that is because the tenets of such religions are so vague and nebulous as to not be contradicted by anything.
However, the mode of thought which leads scientists to accept evolution is incompatible with accepting religious claims.
These two different compatibility claims are frequently confused.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 1:04 PM
Note, I said in post #676 that *if* god exists, he exists in all possible worlds, and *if* he *doesn't* exist, he exists in no possible world (this is just what it means to say that god is defined as a necessary being -- you have only these two alternatives). - eric
Which is why "necessary being" is nonsense. A "possible world" is simply one of which a consistent description can be given. Consistent descriptions can be given of worlds both with and without a being with any self-consistent set of attributes.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 31, 2008 2:43 PM
Oh?
Remind me again what the difference is between (¬X) and ¬(X).
And for that matter, the difference between ¬X and ¬¬¬X.
Posted by: windy | October 31, 2008 6:54 PM
eric:
Then what should we think of your retreat into a hair-splitting argument about the distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism, as if that would settle the issue, when Glen originally pointed out "weak atheism" only as a counter to your ignorant claim that atheism must by definition "rule out" any possible god? And now suddenly you are an expert on the different definitions of atheism and how atheists use these definitions to hide from theists. Yeah, right.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 31, 2008 7:21 PM
John,
Actually, that wasn't my point, although certainly it's possible that the probability of God could be (with suitable assumptions) infinitesimal. My point was that, sometimes, probability is not a meaningful concept.
My first example:
A Vitali set is a collection of numbers which is non-measurable. It's not that its measure is zero, or infinitesimal...it simply doesn't exist. Essentially a Vitali set is not the sort of entity for which measure, or "length," means anything. Therefore, it's impossible to plug it into a probability calculation.
rich argues that, even if we don't know how to do the calculation, we can still say the probability is between 0 and 1, because probabilities always are--but in this case, there may not be a probability to fall between those bounds.
By analogy, the sign of a number is always positive or negative. But what if you want the sign of sqrt(-1)? Well, there isn't one. You can't just say, "I don't know the sign, but it must be positive or negative, because signs always are." The concept of "sign" is simply not appropriate for imaginary numbers.
My second example:
The set of real numbers in the interval (-1000,1000) is certainly measurable. The problem here is that the appropriate probability distribution is not specified, and there's no way to choose a probability distribution which isn't completely arbitrary. You can't choose a uniform distribution over the real line, because the real line is infinitely long--that would imply that the distribution is zero everywhere, from which it would follow that there's zero probability of choosing a number at all! Which is absurd. But if the distribution isn't uniform, then maybe it peaks near zero and the number chosen will definitely fall in (-1000, 1000). Or maybe it peaks near -4000 and the number chosen will definitely not fall in (-1,000, 1000). Who knows?
So you would have to take all the possible probability distributions into account. But that requires making a probability distribution of the distributions! And so on ad infinitum. The original question about "probability" just wasn't well-enough defined to have a meaningful answer.
So there's not much point talking about whether a god--of the ineffable, unpredictable, omnipotent sort--is likely to exist. Even posing that question assumes knowledge about the "set of all possible universes" which we don't have. What we can say is that a god's existence provides no explanatory value not matched by simpler hypotheses, so there's no point believing in one.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 31, 2008 8:00 PM
eric,
No problem; mine was also delayed.
But that's not how you interpreted the article's definition the first time. You said that its definition meant that weak atheism was "without a commitment to the *necessary* non-existence of deities"--emphasis yours. You said that this meant weak atheism could involve commitment to the belief that god doesn't exist, provided it didn't claim that god's nonexistence was logically necessary. In which case it would also be strong atheism, and therefore the definitions provided didn't adequately distinguish between the two flavors.
That was your argument in #487. Did you not mean to say that?
By the way, I think that your initial reading of the definition was literally correct--if you looked only at that one sentence, at least. The author's placement of "necessary" was clumsy.
Actually, multiple weak atheists on this very thread have said that weak atheism can involve the claim that god doesn't exist. We particular weak atheists may not make that claim, although Kel may--I'm not sure--but that doesn't invalidate the definition we provided.
But if you choose to define weak atheism as ruling out that claim, you can reasonably do so. Certainly, many people do define weak atheism that way.
Again, that's not only not how I interpreted the article, it's not how you initially interpreted it either. Under that interpretation, you would have had even less justification for saying that the article fails to distinguish between strong and weak atheism--the two positions would have been mutually exclusive!
But it doesn't really matter. Provided you recognize the existence of a flavor of atheism which at least permits lack of belief without a positive belief in the nonexistence of gods, Glen has made his point. Contrary to your claim in #464, atheism does not entail ruling out any possible god.
Posted by: Kel | October 31, 2008 8:12 PM
Eric, can you answer this. Without a reason to believe in God, why should you? That is implying atheism. In the case of God what is the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence?
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 9:01 PM
Anton,
I appreciate the clarification.I confess I had to look Vitali sets up, and the whole concept is way above my head (it reminded me of the feeling I had in early high school, when during a library browse I found a book entitled something like Elementary Number Theory, and on examining it found it utterly incomprehensible. Elementary did not mean what I thought it did!).
Here again you're over my head - I presumed that you were referring to a continuous uniform distribution (ie that the interval (-1000,1000) is equally probable to all other intervals of the same "size" within the reals given a random selection).PS Excuse my poor terminology, it's been a more than quarter century since I studied mathematical statistics.
And please don't bother to explain it further, to me anyway - I'll take your word for it pending others' objections :)
Posted by: windy | October 31, 2008 9:06 PM
I don't think it's necessary to concede eric's implicit argument that the matter rests on the definition of weak and strong atheism - then attempting to define away weak atheism as a dishonest ploy.
I am happy to make the claim that gods don't exist, and admit that I don't know for sure, but science can only support provisional claims anyway so I don't see any principle that would absolutely rule out using science to argue for explicit atheism. Whether we want to call that a type of strong atheism or explicit weak atheism is not very important.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 31, 2008 9:43 PM
John,
Aww, please? I like to hear myself talk.They are very counter-intuitive. Some mathematicians reject them entirely, but it's hard to do that without rejecting the Axiom of Choice, which most mathematicians would also find counter-intuitive.
That's certainly what most people would intuitively like to pick--the trouble is that there is no such probability distribution if you're dealing with an infinite interval.
After all, a probability distribution has to integrate to 1. But if the value of a uniform distribution is anything other than zero, then over an infinite interval, it'll integrate to infinity! And if it's zero, it'll integrate to zero.
Geometrically, think of it this way. What's the area between the x-axis and an infinitely long horizontal line? Either zero, or infinite. You can't get 1.
So any probability distribution over an infinite interval has to peak somewhere, maybe in more than one spot, and then taper off towards zero on both ends.
This is, by the way, one more reason why most fine-tuning arguments are silly. "Fundamental Constant X has to lie within this narrow range for life to exist! What are the odds of that happening?" Well, you don't know the odds. Maybe that narrow range happens to be where the probability peaks and the odds are really good. Or not. Who knows?
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 31, 2008 10:00 PM
windy: I agree. Personally, I don't want to say that hazy deist gods don't exist, because their existence doesn't matter empirically, so it seems more parsimonious to say nothing about it. On the other hand, most of the gods people actually worship would have an empirical impact if they existed, and in that case, I think science certainly has something to say about it.
Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2008 10:03 PM
Anton, you wouldn't happen to be a teacher, would you? :)
That actually makes sense to me, and you've reawakened my understanding of some long-dormant concepts, thanks!
Regarding the fine-tuning arguments, I've certainly used that argument before; another argument is, of course, that they refer to "life" rather than to "life as we know it".
(replace "life" with "spacetime continuum" when the fine-tuning claim shifts to physics).
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 2, 2008 3:08 PM
Yep. And, they're basically trying to half-ass a Bayesian argument without the prior probabilities for god vs. no god, and without the conditional probabilities for life-as-we-know it given either no god, or any god other than the one particular one they're plugging.
'Tis a trainwreck.