|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, I can also see that it can be argued that a Creator is a less complicated explanation than the atheist one, but for me I don't.
Of course, mileages vary.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it does depend exactly what is being offered as an explanation and how this fits in the mind of the person whom is being persuaded.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, none of us are actually in this state of ignorance as (I think) all those involved are aware of the arguments put forwards by everyone and is conscious of the created world.
Very true.
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This is the type of conversation we're having.
...it really isn't, by any stretch of imagination.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy, I think where your aeroplane example fails is that it's dealing with the material, with physical things. I think this is the category error that both atheists and theists can fall into, because they treat belief in something supernatural as if it is the same kind of thing as the natural.
So, for a primitive superstitious religious person, there is this blurring between the material and immaterial, equating rainfall and drought with happy or unhappy Gods (or its modern 'parking space' equivalent). For the atheist, it's reducing the divine to a thing that exists or not, which should be able to be posited, observed and understood within a material framework.
But a belief in a creator or the supernatural, or whatever, boils down to a more fundamental thing (IMO). It's simply a gut reaction to the question "is there something more... is there something beyond... is there are deeper meaning beyond the natural?" It's not very easy to verbalise this question. For some, the answer is "no - there is nothing beyond what 'exists'"*. But for others of us, there is this inescapable feeling that there is more to life, that there is a deeper meaning, a supernatural or divine existence beyond what 'is', and that existence itself points towards this.
As you say, this has very little to do with logic, evidence, and argument. And I think that's why the Arts have a lot more (initially) to say about G-d than the sciences do.
Arguing whether this mysterious aeroplane is a bird (or a 'god') in the way you describe is still a discussion within a material framework. I think you're right to say that it's hard to think of a comparable example, simply because what we're talking about is a different category altogether. Someone who says "I believe there is a meaning beyond" is not saying very much about the material universe, other than it is only part of the complete picture.
*Of course, there's plenty of mystery within our physical universe to keep us going for a long time, but I believe there is even more mystery beyond it.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: Why are you assuming a situation in which there are opponents?
No doubt formal debates between opponents happen; but are they a good model for the justification of belief? I don't think so. How often have you come out of a formal debate between opponents thinking that it was a constructive examination of the evidence for and against?
You asked a question: "What on earth can [burden of proof] mean in the context of epistemology?" I answered the question by providing a Wikipedia link of what 'burden of proof' means in the context of epistemology. I also gave an illustrative example, think of it as an extra.
I wasn't really interested in a discussion about how relevant or useful formal debates are. You asked a question related to formal debates, and I answered it. In fact, "how relevant are formal debates anyway?" (I'm paraphrasing here) seems to be moving the goalposts a bit.
This was my formal debate answer ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Otherwise we are left saying that the natural state of people is belief in God.
I'm not sure why this is such an odd claim, given what we know about the history of the world. If the vast majority of human beings through history have property X, it's not exactly weird to say that having property X is the natural state of people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Thanks, goperryrevs, that's a good explanation.
My quibble here is that even for those who experience the "this isn't all there is" gut feeling, not all of them resolve it with reference to a deity. And of those that do, not all believe in a good deity, and of those that do, a smaller number believe in the Christian deity.
So we have layers of belief and "leaps of faith" upon one another here. An atheist who accepts that he too feels there is more to life than the material is not therefore forced to accept Jesus as Lord.
But he who is asking for proof beyond "this is what I have experienced and therefore how I've come to understand life, the universe and everything" is also committing a category error, in the sense of asking for something which cannot be delivered.
I think the contrast here is to an atheist who believes that his whole construct is perfectly rational and that each step has objective evidence which points to the next. He therefore may indeed believe that he can discount the accounts of the believer by pointing to rational explanations of the phenomena described.
Ultimately, I suppose the problem is that there is no objective way to determine what is a category error, or whether even such categories exist. Truth claims which are not logical are not able to be tested - or at least not in the same way.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?
3. 'Extraordinary claim' is also an internet cliche. Without begging any questions, what makes a claim extraordinary?
4. You've not answered my second question at all.
Whether you think burden of proof is an internet cliche or not has nothing to do with it.
Cliches are not thinking but a substitute for thought.
quote:
Affirming your own belief(s) [how to you see and understand the world] to include a belief in magic and invisible super-beings is, by any stretch, an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.
You make that claim. Are you going to give any more reason to accept it?
I asked what makes a claim extraordinary.
Belief in magic or in invisible entities is really pretty ordinary in human history. So that's not what you mean by extraordinary. So what do you mean? What special meaning are you giving to the word?
For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim? If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations? But surely mathematical calculations are ordinary. Mistakes in mathematical calculations are ordinary. The evidence offered is nowhere near as extraordinary as the claim. No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.
And yet it is reasonable to believe that the stars are many times larger than the earth.
Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.
quote:
Finally, getting to your final comment (the 'second question' to which you refer). Your wording is strange indeed: 'Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?'Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I certainly don't need to spend time disproving all the supernatural claims. Do you lay awake at night wondering how you are going to disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus or Hanuman?
I ask you what evidence is, and once more you talk about proof.
We need to talk about something that is unrelated to the existence of God or the supernatural, since that way we won't be tempted to make ad hoc judgements.
Consider the dating of Homer's Iliad. Some scholars think it's written as early as the ninth century BC; some as late as the seventh. Both sides quote internal features, references to objects and behaviour, and compare them with archaeological finds to support their claims.
Now my question:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?
You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.
Mmm. Well, I'm sure it is true that on a global level more believe in a deity than don't, so I suppose it must then be true that it is not unusual, at least on that level.
I hadn't thought of it like that, fair cop. I was thinking of children and whether they naturally tend to come up with the idea of a deity - in my experience they don't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For some, the answer is "no - there is nothing beyond what 'exists'"*. But for others of us, there is this inescapable feeling that there is more to life, that there is a deeper meaning, a supernatural or divine existence beyond what 'is', and that existence itself points towards this.
As you say, this has very little to do with logic, evidence, and argument. And I think that's why the Arts have a lot more (initially) to say about G-d than the sciences do.
Yes, I think this is right. I'm not sure about the word 'beyond' but words slip when we use them in an arty style to talk about depth and meaning. Similarly I don't like 'supernatural' which suggests something somewhere other than the natural, where the 'other' is understood in relation to all the natural. Belief that the natural is super or extraordinary or divine I'm perfectly happy with.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim?
Yes, I think it is. I don't think one could reason that without intricate observations with specialised equipment.
quote:
If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations?
I think we're talking here about the volume, reproducibility and type of evidence. It isn't just mathematics, it is mathematics backed up with many years of observations by telescope.. etc
quote:
But surely mathematical calculations are ordinary. Mistakes in mathematical calculations are ordinary. The evidence offered is nowhere near as extraordinary as the claim.
Isn't it? I think going to Pluto to back up claims made about Pluto is quite extraordinary, don't you?
quote:
No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.
Can't it? I'm not sure what you mean here.
quote:
And yet it is reasonable to believe that the stars are many times larger than the earth.
Well, only when there is a large amount of observed data to suggest it, together with centuries of reproducible results indicating that these are credible conclusions.
quote:
Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.
I don't think it is rhetorical nonsense exactly, although obviously it is rather more applicable to some fields of thought than others. I think that in the fields of observed science, it is quite a good rule of thumb that someone suggesting something which is way outwith of the general way of thinking on the subject needs to be standing on a mass of data to have anything to convince his peers. But maybe it doesn't work in other spheres.
quote:
I ask you what evidence is, and once more you talk about proof.
We need to talk about something that is unrelated to the existence of God or the supernatural, since that way we won't be tempted to make ad hoc judgements.
Consider the dating of Homer's Iliad. Some scholars think it's written as early as the ninth century BC; some as late as the seventh. Both sides quote internal features, references to objects and behaviour, and compare them with archaeological finds to support their claims.
Now my question:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't. In that context, what evidence could you provide of the non-existence of something?
quote:
You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.
Mmm. I'm not sure if this is fair or not.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You asked a question: "What on earth can [burden of proof] mean in the context of epistemology?" I answered the question by providing a Wikipedia link of what 'burden of proof' means in the context of epistemology.
Just because there's a wikipedia page for something doesn't mean it's actually a sensible topic. You'll notice that few of the references on that page link to things that use the phrase 'burden of proof'. (The first couple of references are about the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which is a different matter.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.
For a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of "working", that is probably true.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I do think that this whole argument is daft, because contrary to what IngoB keeps saying, at a base level being a deist is not rational.
Being a theist typically has non-rational (not necessarily irrational) elements. But deism in particular can be very minimalistic, e.g., contain nothing "supernatural" other than accepting the metaphysical argument for the necessary existence of an uncaused Cause. I don't see how one can call that sort of deism "not rational".
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Belief in God is surely not about God's existence, and is not about the contents of the universe. It is about whether we need to feel bleak, friendless and miserable about the world, or whether we can, should, may at least sometimes feel grateful, hopeful, joyful and inspired to live with a will.
It remains mysterious to me why you claim to speak about God, when for all practical intents and purposes you eradicate all traces of the Divine from whatever you say. I think you are hiding behind this pop psychology, but from what exactly?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy, no disagreements with your previous post. But this...
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't.
.
...is wrong. It's not. Everyone agrees the Iliad exists, in the same way, everyone agrees the Universe exists.
It's more like a disagreement as to whether it was really Homer who wrote the Iliad, or more appropriately, whether people believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays or some other person (because there is slightly more of a genuine debate there).
Or, (if I'm being facetious), whether Homer wrote the Iliad (the theistic equivalent), or if the Iliad just appeared into existence (the atheistic equivalent) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, forget the Iliad then. Whether the Q source of the gospels exists.
Some can put forward evidence that it does exist, much harder (if not impossible) to convincingly supply evidence that it doesn't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mr Cheesy, no disagreements with your previous post. But this...
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't.
.
...is wrong. It's not. Everyone agrees the Iliad exists, in the same way, everyone agrees the Universe exists.
It's more like a disagreement as to whether it was really Homer who wrote the Iliad, or more appropriately, whether people believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays or some other person (because there is slightly more of a genuine debate there).
Or, (if I'm being facetious), whether Homer wrote the Iliad (the theistic equivalent), or if the Iliad just appeared into existence (the atheistic equivalent)
There's an old joke about the claim that the Iliad wasn't actually written by Homer but by someone else with the same name. The joke being that all we know about Homer is his name.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim?
Yes, I think it is. I don't think one could reason that without intricate observations with specialised equipment.
'Extraordinary' means 'something someone couldn't reason without intricate observation with specialised equipment'?
I don't think belief in God qualifies as extraordinary under that description.
quote:
quote:
If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations?
I think we're talking here about the volume, reproducibility and type of evidence. It isn't just mathematics, it is mathematics backed up with many years of observations by telescope.. etc
No doubt. Is that enough for the evidence to count as 'extraordinary'?
Well, yes. What I'm trying to get at is that the word 'extraordinary' here is sufficiently vague that the user can get it to refer to anything the user wants it to refer to and not refer to anything the user doesn't want it to refer to, using entirely ad hoc explanations.
quote:
quote:
No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.
Can't it? I'm not sure what you mean here.
The claim is that the size of the stars is entirely outside our experience or even our imagination; therefore the evidence would have to be entirely outside our experience or imagination.
But my underlying argument is that 'extraordinary' is too vague to mean anything precisely.
quote:
quote:
Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.
I don't think it is rhetorical nonsense exactly, although obviously it is rather more applicable to some fields of thought than others. I think that in the fields of observed science, it is quite a good rule of thumb that someone suggesting something which is way outwith of the general way of thinking on the subject needs to be standing on a mass of data to have anything to convince his peers. But maybe it doesn't work in other spheres.
I do rather agree with the suggested principle that someone suggesting something outwith of the general way of thinking on a subject needs rather more data to support their argument than someone suggesting something more compatible with the general way of thinking.
But I doubt that the point that Komensky is trying to argue. I don't think he'd be satisfied that belief in the supernatural is not extraordinary by a claim that belief in the supernatural is the general way of thinking on the subject.
quote:
quote:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't. In that context, what evidence could you provide of the non-existence of something?
I was going for something completely disanalogous, because I want to steer clear of anything specific to the question of theism or supernatural and go for something quite general. Besides Komensky wasn't talking about evidence of non-existence, but rejecting alleged evidence of existence.
quote:
quote:
You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.
Mmm. I'm not sure if this is fair or not.
I'm not sure either, which is why I'm asking.
[ 22. July 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.
Mmm. Well, I'm sure it is true that on a global level more believe in a deity than don't, so I suppose it must then be true that it is not unusual, at least on that level.
I hadn't thought of it like that, fair cop. I was thinking of children and whether they naturally tend to come up with the idea of a deity - in my experience they don't.
Children are not born with a set of names pre-installed for everything that exists (or in the case of God, whatever verb you want to use, to short-circuit the apophatics). So it's hardly surprising that a five year old would not say, out of the blue, "There's a creator who made everything." Granted they may ask their parent "Who made the world?" and the answer the parent gives will be what the parent believes. If the answer is "nobody knows for sure; maybe a god (insert brief description here), maybe nobody" (the honest agnostic answer) then the child may later investigate the god option.
If "indoctrinated" by theist parents, the child will presumably believe in gods/God, at least for a time. If "indoctrinated" by atheist parents ("nobody made the world; it just is"), they will presumably not believe in God/gods, at least for a time. There are of course conversions in both directions.
None of this answers the question, why is theism (or at least deism) so much more popular down the halls of time than atheism? Did humans develop a sense of the divine before we left Olduvai? Or did it happen in multiple places at different times? And if so, why? We as a race/species would seem to be predisposed to "leap" (if you must) to that conclusion/explanation, even if children aren't born being able to produce it without being given words for it by their caregivers.
Leaving me to wonder, why does the case of the child matter? It assumes a "blank slate" which is as much a leap of faith (and indeed given what we know about genetics and epigenetics a demonstrably false one) as anything else. Given such, it is perfectly reasonable to think that the existence of God/gods is something we are genetically predisposed to. Then the argument shifts to, Why would that be?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?
Deliberate pun or Freudian slip?
Just a typo. Not every typo has meaning.
(Tangent warning!) I am intrigued at friends who call themselves atheists because they do not believe in God, but they are sure angels exist.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:
1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.
2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?
3. Why?
4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:
1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.
2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?
3. Why?
4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims. No doubt many people are convinced they were abducted by aliens. Whatever their claims, none of them are evidence of space aliens. The claims of a god or gods (why can't there be an evil god?) must simply be addressed like all claims. What is the evidence? The evidence in none. The evidence of the experience is a separate case.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:
Even if I did, I'll never find it, so I'll happily accept the challenge again! QUOTE][1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.[/QUOTE]It is enough evidence, whether you call it extraordinary or not, for a personal belief, but if that person wishes it to be accepted as true by others, then it must be accompanied by objective, testable facts, preferably obtained via the scientific method. quote:
2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?
If one objective piece of information about God, or any god, existed, then it, having stood up to testing and verification, would become a fact and, whether acknowledged by only a few or by many, would remain a fact unless new and more reliable information and facts superseded it. quote:
3. Why?
Because over recent centuries, and particularly in recent years, anyone using modern technology knows that it works because it has been tested and, if something goes wrong, more study of facts, more testing and checking will usually result in reliability being restored. There are no testable, checkable facts about God or any god. quote:
4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?
Because there has always been a natural explanation in the end. This is so reliably the case, that, although it is clearly true that there are a vast number of things we don’t know yet, the likelihood of a natural explanation sooner or later is very high.
The more we know about the natural world, how medical cures can be made, tested and used, how man-made machines can travel accurately as far as Pluto, the more the work of scientists gains people's confidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to think about the answers to your questions. It has been rather a twiddling-thumbs day today!
[ 22. July 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I missed one of the brackets or slashes or something - sorry about that!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: Just because there's a wikipedia page for something doesn't mean it's actually a sensible topic. You'll notice that few of the references on that page link to things that use the phrase 'burden of proof'. (The first couple of references are about the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which is a different matter.)
Sigh. You wrote a post stating that 'burden of proof' is a term from the legal realm, casting strong doubts on whether it had any meaning in epistemology.
As a reply, I linked to a Wikipedia article that starts with the words "In epistemology, the burden of proof is ..." This article has existed for 5.5 years, and is visited approximately 300 times per day.
Does this show that 'burden of proof' is a sensible term in epistemology? It does. I am a Wikipedia contributor with over 16,000 edits. Yes, there are inaccuracies on Wikipedia sometimes. But not of this order; I know how it goes. If 'burden of proof' wouldn't be a sensible term in epistemology, there would be vicious wars on whether to keep the article, with various deletions attemps within days of the article having been started. Instead, the article has been around for years.
If you think there is interesting information in the article's references, you're more than welcome to read them. You asked whether 'proof of doubt' is a term in epistemology. I have shown you that it is.
[ 22. July 2015, 17:39: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:
1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.
2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?
3. Why?
4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?
1. How would you know that an experience was an experience of God? If you're talking about inner convictions, thoughts, voices, inexplicable coincidences, answers to prayer, how does anyone know what to ascribe them to? To have an extraordinary experience is one thing, to immediately know it's cause is quite another.
2. Isn't evidence by nature a sort of public, pass-on-able thing? If I claim evidence for my theory about pasta and the decline of folk music but say that I can't in any way share the evidence, people might not take me very seriously.
3. Becauses given above.
4. This seems to be an atheist who thinks God is supposed to be a natural object, as many of them do. But it's the result of confusion.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
2. Isn't evidence by nature a sort of public, pass-on-able thing? If I claim evidence for my theory about pasta and the decline of folk music but say that I can't in any way share the evidence, people might not take me very seriously.
But your theory might still be true.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Some people say they have been kidnapped by aliens. I am going to assume that some sincerely believe this has happened to them - so in that case, if someone was to relate their experience, would that he evidence for the existence of aliens? Would not most people bring in other knowledge and think that this person was delusional or worse - due to the lack of objective convincing evidence that they exist?
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens? Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
I think care is needed when using a “burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim” approach, as the linked article explains.
“If I claim that I can read auras, then it is up to me to prove that I can. It isn't up to my opponents to prove that I can't.” The null hypothesis here is not 'You can't read auras', but 'I don't know whether you can read auras or not'. Similarly, one cannot make the claim that the null position is 'God doesn't exist', but 'God might or might not exist'.
The section on pluralism is interesting in this regard. Probably a better way of approaching things is to examine the relative probabilities for competing worldviews.
Might I also suggest, following on, that if God exists, to claim that would be an ordinary statement of a true fact. To say that claiming the existence of God is extraordinary, is to start with a null hypothesis that God doesn't exist.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some people say they have been kidnapped by aliens. I am going to assume that some sincerely believe this has happened to them - so in that case, if someone was to relate their experience, would that he evidence for the existence of aliens?
It would depend on how well I knew the person, what I know about their character, their mental health, and details of the story they tell, especially if any of it can be corroborated or discounted. But either way, yes, it's evidence. It might be weak evidence, it might even turn out to be evidence that is contrary to what the person claims.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Would not most people bring in other knowledge and think that this person was delusional or worse - due to the lack of objective convincing evidence that they exist?
Hold on, the universe is a very very big place, and we live in a tiny part of it. Of course we don't have convincing evidence that aliens exist. An amoeba in Antarctica doesn't have convincing evidence that polar bears exist, that doesn't mean they don't. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of aliens existing - it's just if there are any, they are probably a long, long way away. I mean, one of the greatest scientists of our time just announced a $100,000,000 project to find extraterrestrial life. It's worth at least entertaining the possibility that aliens exist.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens?
Yes. The former is 'beyond', the latter is within the confines of creation. Finding out whether aliens exist or not is the task of the standard scientific method. Finding out whether G-d is or not is outside its scope.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?
Of course they can be considered evidence. It's the quality and nature of the evidence that matters (as Dafyd has been trying to explain). Evidence and proof are not the same thing.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
None of this answers the question, why is theism (or at least deism) so much more popular down the halls of time than atheism?
Because it is an answer. Perhaps correct, perhaps not, but it is simple and easy.
"What is that father?
That is a cart, son.
I made it. I felled the trees, shaped the wood and bound it together with rope and hide.
What is that?
That is a rainbow.
Who made that and how?
Well, son, it is a meteorological phenomenon caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in tiny water drops in the air. The colours are actually the components of sunlight which, when combined, appear whitish to our eyes.
However, since this is the late neolithic and I don't understand what I just said, let's say the Gods are smiling upon us".
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
But, anyway, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to convince.
I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but why use the phrase 'burden of proof' to express it? If what you think it means is that I'm not justified in calling the other person irrational or saying that they hold their beliefs without evidence merely because they disagree with my claims, then I would happily agree;
Yes, that. I used 'burden of proof' because that is what had been used. Late into this discussion and not justifyin what anyone said.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're comfortably in the lead hatless.
mousethief, damn good question on what evolutionary and/or phenomenological processes have disposed us to belief in the supernatural. Just as I do whilst denying all claims since Christ.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
quote:
No doubt many people are convinced they were abducted by aliens. Whatever their claims, none of them are evidence of space aliens.
They most certainly are. From wikipedia:
quote:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
You are confused between "evidence" and "good evidence" or "strong evidence" or "conclusive evidence."
quote:
The claims of a god or gods (why can't there be an evil god?) must simply be addressed like all claims. What is the evidence? The evidence [is] none.
This is circular reasoning.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.
I never claimed it must be true.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.
I never claimed it must be true.
No, you didn't. But ISTM, that is the caboose of that logic train for most people who use it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is that?
That is a rainbow.
Who made that and how?
Well, son, it is a meteorological phenomenon caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in tiny water drops in the air. The colours are actually the components of sunlight which, when combined, appear whitish to our eyes.
However, since this is the late neolithic and I don't understand what I just said, let's say the Gods are smiling upon us.
And in what way do you imagine that your physical answer is incompatible with your theological answer? Are droplets intrinsically evil, so that their interaction with sunlight cannot be God (gods) smiling upon us? The idea that only one description level is in truth possible for one phenomenon is merely a belief, and in my opinion not a particularly rational one where agents are concerned. Compare: lilBuddha noticed herself making a mistake in detecting grammar errors, her brain showed increased theta oscillations in the frontal region. Did you not notice a mistake? Are you in truth non-existent as an agent just because I can measure your corresponding brain activity? Or are these simply two ways of describing the same thing, which in fact inform and complement each other?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]And in what way do you imagine that your physical answer is incompatible with your theological answer?
Didn't say it was. Just making the point that humans contemplating the existance of gods does not indicate the existance of gods. Simply that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It would depend on how well I knew the person, what I know about their character, their mental health, and details of the story they tell, especially if any of it can be corroborated or discounted. But either way, yes, it's evidence. It might be weak evidence, it might even turn out to be evidence that is contrary to what the person claims.
Thanks for responding, I was trying to think of an example that is more similar to the one we're discussing.
I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.
I think the exception here would be if there was some kind of exceptional collaborating evidence: a lot of eyewitnesses to the same event, a lot of extra data which cannot be disputed, a lot of experts who are saying that this must have happened.
A personal saying this happened - when the thing they're describing is highly unlikely to have happened - isn't going to be regarded by many as evidence of anything.
Of course, I accept that this depends on your own frame of mind. Someone who is a conspiracy theorist may well be more prepared to believe. But I think someone who is interested in science and evidence is going to expect a lot more than just someone saying something happened.
quote:
Hold on, the universe is a very very big place, and we live in a tiny part of it. Of course we don't have convincing evidence that aliens exist. An amoeba in Antarctica doesn't have convincing evidence that polar bears exist, that doesn't mean they don't. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of aliens existing - it's just if there are any, they are probably a long, long way away. I mean, one of the greatest scientists of our time just announced a $100,000,000 project to find extraterrestrial life. It's worth at least entertaining the possibility that aliens exist.
That's true, but not what I asked. Someone saying that they were abducted by aliens is not evidence which scientists can use to weigh whether aliens exist. The fact that some scientists believe in the possibility that they exist does not even mean that they exist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens?
Yes. The former is 'beyond', the latter is within the confines of creation. Finding out whether aliens exist or not is the task of the standard scientific method. Finding out whether G-d is or not is outside its scope.
OK. I don't think things are as clear cut as this, but fair enough.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?
Of course they can be considered evidence. It's the quality and nature of the evidence that matters (as Dafyd has been trying to explain). Evidence and proof are not the same thing.
I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.
A man standing in a dock high on drugs telling the judge that he was in a "spacecraft flying to Pluto" instead of robbing the bank he is accused of is not really giving evidence that the court will accept. In a strict sense, he is "giving evidence" in that he is speaking the words in a court of law. But I think one needs to come up with the construction of an idea that is beyond the fantastical to really be considered evidence.
The same in science, I think. A wild result is not really "evidence" if the simplest explanation is that there was some kind of methodological error. Usually such anomalous results are removed from analysis because of the potential to skew and bias conclusions.
Proof is a more difficult concept. In mathematics, a proof is something where you use deductive reasoning and logic to show that something is true in all cases.
In observed science, this is much more difficult to do, of course. It is much harder to "prove" anything definitively, so the only tools we have left are repetition and reproducibility - more experiments completed in the same way to get the same results.
In philosophy, I think if we are trying to say that it is possible to "prove" something, we are liable to get into a chain of logic like Socrates in The Republic - this then that then the other - which leads to ridiculous extremes nobody believes in.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As a reply, I linked to a Wikipedia article that starts with the words "In epistemology, the burden of proof is ..." This article has existed for 5.5 years, and is visited approximately 300 times per day.
Does this show that 'burden of proof' is a sensible term in epistemology? It does. I am a Wikipedia contributor with over 16,000 edits.
It's a Start Class quality article.
Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable. However, they're not strong enough evidence to override contrary evidence in any given case. In particular, if you're doing academic work you stress that wikipedia itself is not a source: you can use it to find the sources cited in the article. And, as I said, the cited sources here are lacking.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website produces no hits for 'burden of proof'.
That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.
There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
Who said I'm answering your questions only? I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y. If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. I stepped on a spider and within hours it rained. Therefore, this is evidence that stepping on spiders (at least sometimes) makes it rain. Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind. You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic. There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods. The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one. That discussion can be had in a similar context to that of alien abduction or visions of the Virgin Mary. In both cases, there is heaps of the sort of evidence you seem to be considering.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.
There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this paper appears to be examining the concept of "burden of proof" in terms of philosophical argument and dialogue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable.
Thank you, but this isn't exactly what I meant. The Wikipedia article could very well contain inaccuracies; that happens sometimes even if the article is visited a lot (300 visits / day is a relatively low number for that). It is evidence though that 'burden of proof' is seen as a reasonably sensible term in epistemology.
I'm a development worker not a philosopher, so I don't know how universally the term is accepted in epistemological circles. I googled a bit, and I found some peer-reviewed articles that discuss the concept rather quickly; I can give you the links if you want. I'd say that this is sufficient evidence (I might even say proof) that the term isn't just an internet cliché.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
On burden of proof:
Richard H. Gaskins, Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse (Yale, 1992).
K. Parsons, God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism (Prometheus Books, 1989).
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
To me, perhaps the most interesting and exciting thing about the scientific method is that the Theories involved are constantly open to challenge. This often reinforces the Theory in question, but any new, improved addition, or correct challenge, is, in the main, welcomed by those seeking the truth. There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?
I do agree with you, more or less. All of us have theories about God to some degree, and we do challenge each other on those theories (a lot of discussions on the Ship are about exactly that). Sometimes this leads to our personal theories being corrected or improved.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.
I think I would personally phrase it as: the evidence for alien abductions when examined has always been found to be weaker than the evidence against.
quote:
I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.
Scientific enquiry requires that evidence be checkable or repeatable. And personal testimony is not generally checkable.
That doesn't mean that the relation between evidence and proof differs. It just means that what counts as admissible evidence in science is different from what counts as admissible evidence in, for instance, history or sociology or autobiography. That's why history is not a science.
Suppose someone wants to find out which group of birds flamingos are most closely related to. Looking at anatomy they seem most closely related to storks; the lice in their feathers are most closely related to duck lice (lice are conservative enough in their hosts that this is evidence); and their egg proteins are most similar to herons.
Are those all evidence? Yes. They are all evidence. But at least two must be evidence for a false conclusion.
In fact, according to wikipedia recent genetic studies, and studies of fossil anatomy, suggest flamingos are most closely related to grebes. DO the egg proteins still count as evidence, even though we now know there is no relation to ducks? It seems to me that they are still evidence even though we are confident that the conclusion is wrong due to the preponderance of evidence that they're unrelated.
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain. That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
Does that make my position clearer?
(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.
quote:
Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.
I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.
quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
quote:
Does that make my position clearer?
No, not really, I'm afraid.
quote:
(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)
I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.
[ 23. July 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.
Whether it's evidence can't depend on how it turns out in the end. The whole point of evidence is that you don't know how it will turn out in the end. If it's only evidence if it turns out to be relevant in the end, then you don't know whether you've got evidence until you know how it will turn out, which defeats the purpose of using evidence.
What makes the egg protein evidence is the existence of a general rule that if two bird groups have similar egg proteins they are probably related (because similar egg proteins are probably created by similar genes which are probably inherited from a common ancestor). The general rule exists even in the minority of cases where the probabilities don't turn out.
Saying the egg protein is not evidence if it turns out evidence in the wrong direction is a bit like saying you were wrong not to buy a lottery ticket if the lottery comes up with your birthday.
quote:
quote:
If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.
I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.
I believe Komensky was referring to a superstition that stepping on spiders makes it rain.
He is saying that there is no evidence for the superstition. I'm saying there may be very weak evidence outweighed by far stronger evidence in the other direction.
quote:
quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
Not quite my point. If I believe that in general pigs do not fly, and I see what I think is a pig flying, I can either revise my belief that pigs don't fly or I can decide that there must be some other explanation for what I think I saw.
If it was strongly reasonable for me to believe beforehand that pigs don't fly then the latter is the rational option.
quote:
I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.
I believe hearsay evidence (that is, reports of what somebody else said) cannot be accepted and forced confessions, or such like. I don't believe a judge can direct a jury to ignore evidence on the grounds that it's a tall story, though she may I think make sarcastic remarks in her summing up. I think she has to leave judgements of whether something's a tall story to the jury to decide.
[ 23. July 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm learning a bit about this difference between evidence and proof myself. It came up in a discussion I had with orfeo a couple of weeks ago. I'm hampered a bit by the fact that these seem to translate as the same word (bewijs) in Dutch.
quote:
mr cheesy: I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
The way I understand it, in this case your *belief* wouldn't be the evidence. But if you could show in some way that on Tuesday 2.13pm you stepped on a spider and on 2.35 it rained, this would be evidence in favour of your belief that stepping on spiders causes rain.
It would be very weak evidence of course, and it would immediately be disproved by stepping on a couple of dozen other spiders, but if we look at the definition of the word, it would be called evidence.
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose in science, that things like repeatability are emphasized. Thus, if you step on a spider and it rains, you would expect, first to repeat this yourself, to see if it happens again, and second, that others will also repeat it. Furthermore, you might start to guess about possible connections, and also make predictions, which are testable.
This seems very different from personal experience, although I suppose that some people have 'repeats'. But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this? Maybe to an extent - I know Buddhists and Sufis who have had very similar experiences, but not of the Shimmeringness, alas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
Who said I'm answering your questions only?
Well since you quote my questions, then immediately make this statement, I think I can be forgiven for thinking this is an answer to my questions. That's kind of how quoting and responding tends to work here. Why would you quote my questions, and my questions only, and then immediately ignore them and answer somebody else? It makes no sense. But then there's a hell of a lot on this thread coming from the atheists that makes no sense.
quote:
I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y.
You're reasoning circularly again. I'm saying that somebody claiming to have witnessed X is evidence for X. This happens in law courts every day, thousands of times a day. It may not be very good evidence. They could be hallucinating. They could be misremembering what they saw. And so forth. But it is still evidence, according to the definition of evidence. If we can't agree on what words mean, we cannot have a sensible or fruitful discussion.
quote:
If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. <snip>
All none to the point, as your examples are not analogous to what I am arguing.
quote:
Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind.
That's not my starting point in this discussion. This strand of the discussion is merely about the meaning of the word "evidence," which you have wrong.
quote:
You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic.
No I am not. Nowhere in this discussion am I presupposing the existence of God/gods.
quote:
There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods.
You don't know that. How many people claim to have encountered (say) Zeus? How many people claim to have encountered Yahweh? Each such claim is one piece of evidence. It may amount to a hill of beans. They may all be mistaken. But that's not what the word evidence means. You claim to know what it means but repeatedly insist on using it improperly.
quote:
The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one.
No, that is the discussion I am having. The discussion about the EXISTENCE of gods is separate from this one. I am merely trying to establish the common-sense, dictionary meaning of "evidence," and the fact that you are not using it properly.
For any discussion to be fruitful, everybody needs to be using the words the same way. Otherwise they will think they are agreeing, or think they are disagreeing, when in fact they aren't even saying the same thing.
I am working (as is Dyfed) towards agreement on the meaning of the word "evidence." I am taking the common-sense, dictionary meaning of the word, and showing that people here are not using it according to the normal definition. They have created a special definition which suits their argument, and which nobody has actually defined with any degree of precision, or in a way that is not question-begging or a category error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.
Spiders are not animals. They are demons from the yawning chasms of Hell in exoskeletal form, spawned from the evil mind of the Prince of Darkness himself.
Scientific proof of this claim available upon request.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?
There are certain herbs that can help you with this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?
There are certain herbs that can help you with this.
Some friends of mine travelled to the Amazon to take ayahuasca, and had a good vomit, anyway, when they got back, realized you can get it in Brixton. Not such nice scenery though, same vomit maybe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
