"I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter"

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, so be honest. I'd like to compare this poll to the one in the thread Gentlehorse started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496) asking he same question about god beliefs.

"I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter"

I wanted to separate out the semantics argument from the actual rational in coming to one's conclusions here. The point is do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions or do you apply the principle of scientific uncertainty differently?

[Third Eye Open]

I put 'I am certain that there is no harry potter' because I am certain.

You don't have to be absolutely certain to be certain.

[geni]

Rowling's Harry Potter makes real world testable claims.

[Third Eye Open]

Rowling's Harry Potter makes real world testable claims.

Nu uh!! Harry Potter lives outside of this universe, so is not able to be tested by your science. So mleh!!

[Safe-Keeper]

Of course it's true!


The book takes place in real-life England, mentioning other real contemporary countries such as China, Hungary and Norway.
The book gives an accurate narrative on life in said country.
The book portrays the main characters as imperfect.
The book received a totally unexpected reception, instantly becoming exceptionally popular and captivating readers everywhere.
Witchcraft, as well as the creatures in the book series - trolls, dragons, etc., are backed up by other sources independent of the HP series.
Technology depicted in the book - cars, TV's, street lights, etc. are from real-life.
It's a great way of teaching our children morals, helping many to lead better lives.
It's the oldest fantasy book in existence.

[/certain Christians]

[Ladewig]

Witchcraft, as well as the creatures in the book series - trolls, dragons, etc., are backed up by other sources independent of the HP series.

Dragons are even mentioned in the KJV of the Bible. So there.

[Piscivore]

The point is do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions...

Presume your conclusions much?

Which god beliefs?

...[T]he reason we don't look for evidence of Hogwarts is that we've got J.K. over there saying explicitly- and getting paid for- making it up, we've got lawsuits wherein she has argued her ownership of the Hogwarts idea based on the fact that she made it up, No mysterious Scottish castles for which we cannot account, and very, very few (if any) people claiming that Hogwarts actually exists as written in Scotland somewhere.

That's nothing like the thousands of different claims of god.

[quixotecoyote]

You should've done lephrecauns, unicorns, or dragons.

Too many dumb pointless wiggles available to fight your hypothetical.

[Darth Rotor]

OK, so be honest. I'd like to compare this poll to the one in the thread Gentlehorse started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496) asking he same question about god beliefs.

"I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter"

There is no uncertainty of Rowling's existence, her success as an author, nor of the fictionality of Harry Potter. Likewise with the point that her books were physically written by a single author (though doubtless some editors tried their best, and failed, to teach her literary liposuction Decent stories, for all of her door stop habits.)

Also, Rowling does not claim to have created the world, but to have written stories based in a fantasy world and the mundane world. Basic understanding of fantasy and SF writing seems to have escaped you. See Tolkein's "On Fairy Stories" for a discussion of primary and secondary worlds.

While I appreciate what point you are trying to make, please try another analogy, or comparison. This one fails before you even get out of the starting gate.

Where's the wine, by the way, and is it from Chile?

They make great wine.

DR

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rowling's Harry Potter makes real world testable claims.Really? Have you got the wizard powers it takes to get on the Hogwarts Express? If you are a muggle you cannot test the claims.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Presume your conclusions much?..."Do you" is how one frames a question not a conclusion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You should've done lephrecauns, unicorns, or dragons.

Too many dumb pointless wiggles available to fight your hypothetical.I thought about that and did the best I could to make it clear I was asking about the certainty one had knowing the character was fictional. There was no way to avoid excuses not to answer the point of the question without pages of caveats excluded.

The evidence for god beliefs is very clear, these are fictional beings.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The key point of breakdown in the analogy between god and Rowling's Harry Potter is that the latter is far more well-defined.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no uncertainty of Rowling's existence, her success as an author, nor of the fictionality of Harry Potter. Likewise with the point that her books were physically written by a single author (though doubtless some editors tried their best, and failed, to teach her literary liposuction Decent stories, for all of her door stop habits.)

Also, Rowling does not claim to have created the world, but to have written stories based in a fantasy world and the mundane world. Basic understanding of fantasy and SF writing seems to have escaped you. See Tolkein's "On Fairy Stories" for a discussion of primary and secondary worlds.

While I appreciate what point you are trying to make, please try another analogy, or comparison. This one fails before you even get out of the starting gate.

Where's the wine, by the way, and is it from Chile?

They make great wine.

DRMany skeptics ignore the fact there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional creations. Follow the evidence and you reach the conclusion gods are fictional. Most people, skeptics included, are assuming the conclusion that gods exist is one's starting point. That is not where the evidence leads.

[Robin]

Of course it's true!


The book takes place in real-life England, mentioning other real contemporary countries such as China, Hungary and Norway.
The book gives an accurate narrative on life in said country.
The book portrays the main characters as imperfect.
The book received a totally unexpected reception, instantly becoming exceptionally popular and captivating readers everywhere.
Witchcraft, as well as the creatures in the book series - trolls, dragons, etc., are backed up by other sources independent of the HP series.
Technology depicted in the book - cars, TV's, street lights, etc. are from real-life.
It's a great way of teaching our children morals, helping many to lead better lives.
It's the oldest fantasy book in existence.

[/certain Christians]
Reason #9

J K Rowling describes Magic Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If she made it up it would be likely that she would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book talks about the Expecto Patronum in a matter of fact almost bland way.

[Dragoonster]

I treat them the same. I lack belief in Rowling's Harry Potter. I live my life as if neither Potter nor any kind of god exists, as there is no compelling evidence that they exist, and because it's practical to do so. But I can't be certain Harry Potter doesn't exist.

I picked option 1 rather than option 4 because the scientific principle isn't the same as a philosophic position, and the latter is the context of "certainty" for me.

The point is do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions or do you apply the principle of scientific uncertainty differently?

That's a leading question--assuming we all agree that Harry Potter is "known" i.e. "certain" fiction. There's a possibility, no matter how slim, that Rowling was channeling a real Harry Potter world. That's where the philosophic uncertainty lies. And that's why I don't accept the "principle of scientific uncertainty" as having the last word on either god or Harry Potter.

In lay arguments I'm fine with saying neither god nor Harry Potter exists. But if the question is pressed, no I don't have a philosophic certainty that they don't exist. Doesn't have much to do with science imo.

[brodski]

Rowling's Harry Potter makes real world testable claims.

really, which ones?
So far as I can see all of the claims are only testable by non-muggles.
So the only way to test the claims is to accept the basic premise (that there is magic) as true.

and anyway, I've been to platform 9 3/4 and see a luggage trolley stuck part way through the wall!

[Madalch]

Too many dumb pointless wiggles available to fight your hypothetical.

The term is "muggles", unbeliever.

[SusanB-M1]

I voted for the Scientific Principle ... but didn't notice that it overrides common sense! So please ignore my vote. On reflection, I think I might have taken the Planet X option.

[CFLarsen]

Would those living when Jesus lived have lacked a belief in Jesus, or would they have said there is no Jesus?

Just because evidence seems to have disappeared does not mean it never existed.

The argument "I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter" is exactly the same as "Pluto didn't exist until it was discovered".

Some astrologers use this argument when they have to explain why horoscopes were accurate before Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (the latter is not even a planet anymore) were discovered.

Think about the Death Sea Scrolls. Up until 1947, there were rumours of these gospels, but - if we follow the argument from above - we would have to say that we know that they do not exist - because there is no evidence of them, and we know how people got their religious beliefs - right?

But the argument became invalid after 1947, didn't it? After all, we found stronger indication of the existence of the Christian god, because we found a closer source.

No? The argument is as strong as ever, because we just fall back on the "well, we know that religious beliefs are all made up!"?

Then, why ask for evidence at all? Then, the argument is really just a declaration of faith. It has nothing to do with science, it has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism.

Be honest, now.

[Mashuna]

<snip>
Then, why ask for evidence at all?

Who are you, and what have you done with CFLarsen?

[Egg]

Many skeptics ignore the fact there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional creations.
Try changing "ignore the fact" to "don't accept my assertion that".

Are you claiming that the evidence that Harry Potter is a fictional creation is equivalent to the evidence that gods are fictional creations?

[gentlehorse]

OK, so be honest. I'd like to compare this poll to the one in the thread Gentlehorse started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496) asking he same question about god beliefs.

"I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter"

I wanted to separate out the semantics argument from the actual rational in coming to one's conclusions here. The point is do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions or do you apply the principle of scientific uncertainty differently?


So, for the purposes of this thread, someone who believes in an active Harry Potter who is actually working magic in everyday life.... is an atheist?

"No, I do not believe in Rowling's Harry Potter, who is a fictional character in a popular series of books. I believe in a Harry Potter who actually rides a flying broom and casts spells that actually work."

The poll options would call this person an atheist.

This is why the "there is no Harry Potter" does not work as an option. Strong believers in Hobbits are strong disbelievers in leprechauns. I am a clear "none of the above" voter.

:D

[fls]

I'm confused about what "belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" is supposed to mean or what any of this has to do with belief in gods. I'm not sure how something that has always been presented as a work of fiction is supposed to inform us about something that has not (once you get past the trivial realization that some things may be made up).

Linda

[That_guy]

I picked #4 because (for all I know,) there could be some alternate reality in which some freaky mutation happens, granting certain people a "magic-using" gland.

Is it likely? No.
Is it possible? <shrug>
Does it matter? Not even a little, but I'm bored.

[H'ethetheth]

I'm probably misunderstanding the options, but what is the difference between options 2 and 4?

[krazyKemist]

Since the argument is that Rowling isn't pretending to channel the magical world, what about ... L. Ron Hubbard ?

He does pretend that his stories about Xenu are true. He's made a religion out of it. A pretty lucrative and powerful one at that.

So what about it ? How is it different from the bible/quran/talmud/baghavad gita ?

[RobRoy]

It's the oldest fantasy book in existence.


I was fine up to this point, and then I stumbled. Can you explain this assertion further?

[Safe-Keeper]

My list of arguments was lifted from those of Christian apologetics, and one of the things you sometimes hear from them is the mistaken assumption that the Bible is the oldest religious text in existence, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary:).

[RobRoy]

My list of arguments was lifted from those of Christian apologetics, and one of the things you sometimes hear from them is the mistaken assumption that the Bible is the oldest religious text in existence, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary:).

Yeah, I knew that's where you were going, but I guess in all my time in arguments, I'd never heard that one. Learn something new, eh. :D

[Piscivore]

Since the argument is that Rowling isn't pretending to channel the magical world, what about ... L. Ron Hubbard ?

He does pretend that his stories about Xenu are true. He's made a religion out of it. A pretty lucrative and powerful one at that.

So what about it ? How is it different from the bible/quran/talmud/baghavad gita ?

Well it differs from the bible/talmud/baghavad gita in that we know defintitively who wrote it. We know that this person has written very similar works which he has admitted are fiction. There is documented evidence that this person is a frequent and egregious liar.

It differs from the quran/Book of Mormon in that the authors of those works do not have other published works accredited to them for us to compare. We also have very little documented evidence about either of their personal lives, certainly nothing close to what we have for Hubbard.

However- this isn't really the point I am trying to make. It is relatively easy to show that the evidence that these gods, these beliefs, are fiction. Smith's account of Native American life is at odds with acheaological record, just for example. Hubbard's fantasies violate basic physics in a number of ways. The Bible is a clusterf[ruleX] of wrong. But the reason we can do so is not because of generalisation errors like "Harry Potter is Fiction, there is evidence Zeus is fiction, therefore gods are obvious fictions" or the petitio principii in the OP of "do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions"- it is because these gods and beliefs are defined. They make specific claims. Claims that can be examined on their own merits, and not dismissed out of hand with fundamental logical errors.

[krazyKemist]

However- this isn't really the point I am trying to make. It is relatively easy to show that the evidence that these gods, these beliefs, are fiction. Smith's account of Native American life is at odds with acheaological record, just for example. Hubbard's fantasies violate basic physics in a number of ways. The Bible is a clusterf[ruleX] of wrong. But the reason we can do so is not because of generalisation errors like "Harry Potter is Fiction, there is evidence Zeus is fiction, therefore gods are obvious fictions" or the petitio principii in the OP of "do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions"- it is because these gods and beliefs are defined. They make specific claims. Claims that can be examined on their own merits, and not dismissed out of hand with fundamental logical errors.

I think the OP was asking why we should treat those differently. Maybe the comparison was wrong because Rowling isn't trying to start a religion. But L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were. Their followers also make claims, and also dismiss any kind of "documentary hypothesis" of any sort.

[Tanstaafl]

Tsk, Tsk. So little faith here...

Actually, J. K. Rowling discovered the very real existence of Harry Potter and the crew at Hogwarts, which is also a real school. However, people generally are unable to experience the dimentional shift that allows them to visit there to see for themselves.

As a single, welfare mom, Rowling knew she could profit from this, given her writing talent. But a little investigation convinced her that there's much more money to be made writing a novel than in non-fiction. And really, who could argue with her results?

So she decided to claim that Harry was fictional, and wrote of his exploits in a series of "novels". And now that she has started down this path, she can never admit to the fraud. She is forced to deny that Harry Potter is real. But I believe her days in this scam are numbered; Harry Potter came to me in a dream telling me that he is real. Surely he will appear to others also, and we will spread the word.

So who's ready to help me set up stopjkrowling.com?

[Piscivore]

I think the OP was asking why we should treat those differently.
Answer: Because they are not the same.

Maybe the comparison was wrong because Rowling isn't trying to start a religion.
It is wrong. Yet SG insists it means something. Something definitive.

But L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were. Their followers also make claims, and also dismiss any kind of "documentary hypothesis" of any sort.
So what if they do? Evidence is evidence. But evidence disproving Smith's or Hubbard's versions of "god" have no bearing whatsoever on the god[dess] of the wiccan next door, the "kama" of the Shinto, or the unnamed mammoth god of the ancient Cro-mags that first crossed into North America.

[Piscivore]

Tsk, Tsk. So little faith here...

Actually, J. K. Rowling discovered the very real existence of Harry Potter and the crew at Hogwarts, which is also a real school. However, people generally are unable to experience the dimentional shift that allows them to visit there to see for themselves.

As a single, welfare mom, Rowling knew she could profit from this, given her writing talent. But a little investigation convinced her that there's much more money to be made writing a novel than in non-fiction. And really, who could argue with her results?

So she decided to claim that Harry was fictional, and wrote of his exploits in a series of "novels". And now that she has started down this path, she can never admit to the fraud. She is forced to deny that Harry Potter is real. But I believe her days in this scam are numbered; Harry Potter came to me in a dream telling me that he is real. Surely he will appear to others also, and we will spread the word.

So who's ready to help me set up stopjkrowling.com?

Do you want to know what is really funny? Last saturday, we went to Goodwill and found the British versions of the first four Potter books in paperback. :D

[FireGarden]

The key point of breakdown in the analogy between god and Rowling's Harry Potter is that the latter is far more well-defined.

Gentlehorse tried to get around that in his thread:

For the purposes of this thread, let's go with the deist god: Created the universe and said sayonara.

Which is why I voted for the beer -- even though I don't drink.

I would most definitely care if Harry Potter existed. Or any kind of magic. There's too much evidence against it, however.

[Piscivore]

Off topic: "Rowling's Harry Potter" sounds like a name for a rare bird, rose or butterfly.

[Silentknight]

I would most definitely care if Harry Potter existed. Or any kind of magic. There's too much evidence against it, however.

I wouldn't care. I was once a believer myself, but magic left me so disillusioned and with too many unanswered questions in life. After a long period of soul searching and introspection, I gradually drifted away and came to my own conclusions about the world. Harry Potter could descend from the heavens (riding on his broomstick) and shake my hand, but I still wouldn't want to go back to my old beliefs. Regardless, I find it far more fulfilling to study, compare, and contrast various magic systems from around the world, than to feel I have to pick one to believe in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The key point of breakdown in the analogy between god and Rowling's Harry Potter is that the latter is far more well-defined.I could list any number of fictional characters and just as readily could list any number of fictional gods. The idea Pele, Ra, Thor, Zeus, and so on are fictional but somehow we must keep in mind one of these thousands of fictional gods might be real is a stretch.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Try changing "ignore the fact" to "don't accept my assertion that".The reason I say "ignore the fact" is not because I am saying they simply disagree with the conclusion. One rarely hears the argument mentioned when hearing the claim, we have no proof of gods one way or the other. Not very many people mention the fact we do have evidence god beliefs were made up time and time again in the course of human history. There are archaeological descriptions of the initiation of fictional god beliefs such as the Cargo Cults of modern times. Instead, people speak of gods as if the origin of god beliefs were irrelevant to the question of whether gods existed. You can argue with the conclusion about what the evidence of the origin of god beliefs implies, but the origin of god beliefs is most definitely relevant to the god question.

Are you claiming that the evidence that Harry Potter is a fictional creation is equivalent to the evidence that gods are fictional creations?No. I am claiming that the evidence of all the thousands of fictional god beliefs and the lack of evidence of any real gods supports the conclusion all gods are fictional characters.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm confused about what "belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" is supposed to mean or what any of this has to do with belief in gods. I'm not sure how something that has always been presented as a work of fiction is supposed to inform us about something that has not (once you get past the trivial realization that some things may be made up).

LindaI was trying to get at the double standard applied to known fiction when the argument is made, we cannot disprove the existence of something. We cannot disprove the existence of Harry Potter. Does that mean anyone actually makes the claim, therefore Harry Potter could exist? Perhaps in a semantic argument or merely as an argument of the rules of the scientific process.

Does science really need to include such nonsensical concepts?

And, if science does not need to include nonsense, then why are we so reluctant to call god beliefs equally nonsensical?

[Arthur Denton]

of course it's true!


the book takes place in real-life england, mentioning other real contemporary countries such as china, hungary and norway.
the book gives an accurate narrative on life in said country.
the book portrays the main characters as imperfect.
the book received a totally unexpected reception, instantly becoming exceptionally popular and captivating readers everywhere.
witchcraft, as well as the creatures in the book series - trolls, dragons, etc., are backed up by other sources independent of the hp series.
technology depicted in the book - cars, tv's, street lights, etc. Are from real-life.
it's a great way of teaching our children morals, helping many to lead better lives.
it's the oldest fantasy book in existence.

[/certain christians]

conspiracy theory!!!

[CFLarsen]

It's very simple: When someone says "I know for sure", then we realize that that person isn't talking about science.

Scientific conclusions are always provisional.

No amount of hand-waving can alter that.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Forgive me for possibly repeating what you have already said elsewhere Skeptigirl, but I think yours is a reasonable inference derived from there being such consistent evidence indicating God beliefs are the product of human imagination, leading people such as you and me to infer the relationship: God beliefs <=> human fantasy.

I have drawn a similar inference about jumping off cliff tops and hitting the ground hard.

As for Deist beliefs: who cares about a God who does not interact with the universe?

[Dragoonster]

I was trying to get at the double standard applied to known fiction when the argument is made, we cannot disprove the existence of something. We cannot disprove the existence of Harry Potter. Does that mean anyone actually makes the claim, therefore Harry Potter could exist?

I do; so do you if you picked option #4 in the poll (if I remember it right). He could exist, if Rowlings is channeling from a real world, whether consciously or not, or other minute possibilities. Aside from the book and characters itself there's no evidence this is the case. But it is possible. No double-standard for me.

Perhaps in a semantic argument or merely as an argument of the rules of the scientific process.

Which certainly "counts". You can't simply dismiss slim possibilities so that your conclusions are more bullet-proof. And if you dismiss some rules with "merely", you open the gate for anyone else to dismiss some rules that don't fit their argument, or their bias. Also see below (*)

Does science really need to include such nonsensical concepts?

Of course it does. It doesn't need to pay much if any attention to them though. Or publish a list of unsupported claims.

This giant millenia-old religion debate is far more interesting sociologically than scientifically. Science itself doesn't give a hoot, and has no double-standard. It treats Potter and god almost exactly the same, as do I.

And, if science does not need to include nonsense, then why are we so reluctant to call god beliefs equally nonsensical?

Science does need to allow for the possibility that the nonsense is actually sense. If it didn't, it wouldn't ever need to review any evidence at all for Harry Potter or god's existence. Or previously, atoms, genes, or germs. No good evidence has come forth thus far, but that isn't a reason to dismiss it forever.

It's acceptable to see the lack of evidence, and so ignore the claim until someone new clamors on about it. That's as good as it's going to get--science doesn't need to prove it doesn't exist and is incapable of doing so anyway. No need to give science more power than it should have just so we can 100% dismiss something. That's equally nonsensical, unscientific, and quite biased.

*--Why are you so focused on science when it comes to this kind of thing? The existence of gods or Harry Potter is more in philosophy's domain than science's, as no persuasive scientific evidence exists for either. Science has made its conclusion for now--lack of evidence, the claim is not supported. That's really all science needs to do about either matter. All other arguments are philosophic, social, political, etc.

[Bluefire]

I answered differently in this and the other poll. The reason for this is that the god-poll was a general "any god-like being anywhere" kind of question, and as such I answered lack of belief there.

This question is more akin to (and comparable to) a question like "does the Christian God as believed by [Catholics , just as an example] exist." For such a question I would have answered "does not exist", just as I did in this poll.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The existence of gods or Harry Potter is more in philosophy's domain than science's, as no persuasive scientific evidence exists for either. Science has made its conclusion for now--lack of evidence, the claim is not supported. That's really all science needs to do about either matter. All other arguments are philosophic, social, political, etc.

Huh? There is plenty of evidence to support the hypotheses the Wizard Harry Potter is a fictional character and personal Gods are the product of human imagination. There is little evidence to support the hypotheses the Wizard Harry Potter is a real person or personal Gods exist.

It isn't a judgement based on the lack of evidence, it's a judgement based on the balance of evidence (and often which hypotheses produce theories with the greatest utility).

The real problem is that there are infinite possible hypotheses to consider. One can always think of a contrived way to incorporate evidence which supports one hypothesis into another hypothesis. E.g., "Dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God to confuse us." All I can say is thank God for Occam's razor.

[Dragoonster]

Huh? There is plenty of evidence to support the hypotheses the Wizard Harry Potter is a fictional character and personal Gods are the product of human imagination. There is little evidence to support the hypotheses the Wizard Harry Potter is a real person or personal Gods exist.

It isn't a judgement based on the lack of evidence, it's a judgement based on the balance of evidence (and often which hypotheses produce theories with the greatest utility).

Thanks for the correction.

The real problem is that there are infinite possible hypotheses to consider. One can always think of a contrived way to incorporate evidence which supports one hypothesis into another hypothesis. E.g., "Dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God to confuse us." All I can say is thank God for Occam's razor.

True, but this is only a problem for science when it biases what to research or test. Society is the primary cause of this, and the obvious difference between theists' and the nonexistant Potterists' influence on science.

This isn't only a problem theists have. Non-theists may want a scientist to spend time trying to disprove a single physical claim of a tenet's mythology, even though none of the mythology has any scientific credibility, and/or 100 previous tests of that mythos have failed. That also is a poor use of science.

Theism is so scientifically unsupported in general right now that focusing an argument about it on science seems beside the point. It's greatest effect is on society, via laws theists want to create that would impose their beliefs on others. That, in particular individual rights, is more an argument about ethics. All the god exists--god doesn't exist debate is secondary or tertiary (to philosophy), particularly as neither side can prove the other side false.

[Safe-Keeper]

There are things which strongly suggest that Harry Potter is fiction.
But there are also things which strongly suggest that Yahweh is fiction. For example that we know that certain, rather many, actually, parts of the Holy Bible are little more than plagiarism of other mythologies.

If I read a book, which was purported to depict a true story, and it told the tale of a young adopted boy who realized that he was destined to become a great wizard and had to be sent off to a school for aspiring magi, where he was caught up in a struggle against a dark wizard whom everyone were terrified of... I'd regard it as nothing more than a retelling of The Philosopher's Stone, regardless of how many names were changed, or events and symbols slightly altered.

The same way, when I hear the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient myths retold in a new packaging, that makes it pretty clear to me that they're not real, merely retelling of old stories. Of course those old stories could be true, and of course the retelling could coincidentally be true while the originals weren't (it's technically possible that in the future some poor boy is going to go through pretty much the same things Harry Potter did), but it's far more likely to just dismiss them as fiction.

[Piscivore]

I answered differently in this and the other poll. The reason for this is that the god-poll was a general "any god-like being anywhere" kind of question, and as such I answered lack of belief there.

This question is more akin to (and comparable to) a question like "does the Christian God as believed by [Catholics , just as an example] exist." For such a question I would have answered "does not exist", just as I did in this poll.

Exactly.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hmmmmm (http://thefifthdistrict.com/potter/)

[Piscivore]

Hmmmmm (http://thefifthdistrict.com/potter/)

Indeed. (http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/newppp/channels/Mysterious%20Ticking%20Noise.htm)

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are things which strongly suggest that Harry Potter is fiction.
But there are also things which strongly suggest that Yahweh is fiction. ....Can anyone cite a single god belief that is not obvious fiction?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Indeed. (http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/newppp/channels/Mysterious%20Ticking%20Noise.htm)

Heeey! Our moderator Remiev is in that play!! :)

[Piscivore]

Can anyone cite a single god belief that is not obvious fiction?

Are you presuming that all god beliefs are known to us here?

If I stand on a freeway overpass for 40 years and only see four-wheeled cars, does that mean all cars have four wheels?

Do you want to look up "Hasty Generalisation" one more time? I really think you should.

[Piscivore]

Heeey! Our moderator Remiev is in that play!! :)

Really? Awesome!

[Egg]

Can anyone cite a single god belief that is not obvious fiction?
Obvious to whom? The vast majority of people in this world are theists.

ETA If I claim that my cat can speak Latin and cure headaches, the lack of evidence to support those claims does not mean that my cat is entirely fictional.

[elipse]

Dragoonster: I think the reason science keeps getting brought up is because of creationism and its attempt to horn in on the realm of science. I mean, really. All of us, no matter what we answered in the poll, conduct our lives the same way--with the assumption that no god is gonna meddle in our affairs. The only reason this discussion matters is when one is talking to or about believers, and even then only (to me, anyway) if they're trying to undermine the bits of science they don't like. If no one is trying to undermine science research or education, I couldn't give less of a crap if they believe in Pele, Odin, or Egg's latin-speaking cat.

Piscivore: I find your insistence that SG refute every single god a bit silly. It's not unreasonable to say that I find no evidence whatsoever for any god (or set of gods) that created the world and then continued to meddle in it in ways contrary to the laws of nature. This is a blanket assertion that covers most gods that actual people actually believe in, if not every conceivable concept of god. I think your definition of "god" is too "waiting for godot"-- when you talk about god, it could mean anything, even a long awaited goatherd. When we're talking about a philosophical construct, we're not longer in the ring with the people we need to be engaging.

If this was just a nice philosophical jaunt, I'd be more willing to play along. But it's not. It has repercussions in the way we frame debate with creationists, etc, and that makes the stakes high enough that I'm not willing to sit around and play "who can think of the most obscure concept of god". I don't care if you think space aliens have us in a bell jar, so long as no one yanks science funding or teaches kids that "god did it, the end" or blows up abortion clinics or embassies. The only concept of god we need to worry about is the concept of god that causes people to act. That's the only concept we should be considering in the poll, because it's the only one that matters to the debate, in my opinion.

Having said all that, SG's poll could have used a re-write, although I'm sure the same can be said for my post. :)

[CFLarsen]

Blanket assertions have a tendency to bite you in the ass.

"The Earth is flat."

"Continents don't move."

"Rocks don't fall from the sky."

[Piscivore]

Piscivore: I find your insistence that SG refute every single god a bit silly.
If she's going to claim that all "gods are obvious fictions", don't you rather think she ought to?

It's not unreasonable to say that I find no evidence whatsoever for any god (or set of gods) that created the world and then continued to meddle in it in ways contrary to the laws of nature.
No, it isn't- but that is a small subset of gods, not all gods.

This is a blanket assertion that covers most gods that actual people actually believe in, if not every conceivable concept of god.
Or most defined gods, yes. Hardly anyone prays to an entirely undefined god- although some of them are only weakly and ambigously outlined.

I think your definition of "god" is too "waiting for godot"-- when you talk about god, it could mean anything, even a long awaited goatherd.
That's rather my point- making blanket statements about "god" is patently ridiculous when there have been something like 100 billion people infesting this planet, potentially each with a unique, and largely unknown, idea about what "god" means.

When we're talking about a philosophical construct, we're not longer in the ring with the people we need to be engaging.
I'm not sure we actually need to be "engaging" anyone- skepticism and science isn't warefare and it shouldn't be a "cause"- but that's a different discussion.

But if we ever are "in the ring" with a theist, we must deal with their ideas about "god" on their own merits (or lack thereof), and not try to hand-wave them away with pre-conceived arguments that do not apply.

That's what I think SG is after here- a "magic bullet" that will render impotent every idea about god that ever is, was, or could be. I can understand that emotional desire, but she's letting it lead her to fallacy.

If this was just a nice philosophical jaunt, I'd be more willing to play along.
I'm not talking about philosophical possibilities, entirely. There are lots of real-world, professed and worshipped, concepts of "god" that do not fit the mould of a Zeus or Yahweh. And even more stillwe have not the first idea about.

But it's not. It has repercussions in the way we frame debate with creationists, etc, and that makes the stakes high enough that I'm not willing to sit around and play "who can think of the most obscure concept of god".
Really? The "stakes [are] high enough"? What "stakes"? That's argument from emotion, and I'm afraid that if the "stakes" are "someone doesn't think the way I do" that's not a good reason to abandon logic for a hayfork and torch, in my opinion. Careful, down that road leads anti-theism, not atheism, and there's precious little skepticism when you get there.

I don't care if you think space aliens have us in a bell jar, so long as no one yanks science funding or teaches kids that "god did it, the end" or blows up abortion clinics or embassies.
Those are problems with individuals and their actions, not with "god". Not all people who blow up buildings or cut science funding are motivated by theism. Not all theists blow up buildings or cut science funding. Not all theists even support ID in the classroom- I spoke with one of them running for our local school board on Thursday.

Getting rid of "god" is not the answer to those problems. But again, that's another discussion.

The only concept of god we need to worry about is the concept of god that causes people to act.
I'd rather address what people do, than worry about what name they give themselves when they do it. Otherwise, you hang all the Muslims for the actions of a handful that have attacked us, or condemn physicists for the bombing of Hiroshima.

That's the only concept we should be considering in the poll, because it's the only one that matters to the debate, in my opinion.
We have to deal with the poll as it is, not as you think it "should be". :)

[Safe-Keeper]

Piscivore: I find your insistence that SG refute every single god a bit silly. If she's going to claim that all "gods are obvious fictions", don't you rather think she ought to?Do you need to disprove each and every fantasy creature, from trolls to unicorns to Oni, for me to not believe in them?

[Piscivore]

Do you need to disprove each and every fantasy creature, from trolls to unicorns to Oni, for me to not believe in them?
No. Of course not. But SG isn't "not believing", she's positively declared them "obvious fictions"- without knowing what a lot of them even are. It's that little half step into fallacy from "all the swans I've observed are white" to "all swans are white".

[fls]

No. Of course not. But SG isn't "not believing", she's positively declared them "obvious fictions"- without knowing what a lot of them even are. It's that little half step into fallacy from "all the swans I've observed are white" to "all swans are white".

But if that is your example, I don't think you understand what Skeptigirl is saying. A better example would be the step from "all the swans I've observed are birds" to "all swans are birds".

Linda

[gentlehorse]

No. Of course not. But SG isn't "not believing", she's positively declared them "obvious fictions"- without knowing what a lot of them even are. It's that little half step into fallacy from "all the swans I've observed are white" to "all swans are white".

Or:

"All swans I've observed are white" to "There are no black swans."

[Piscivore]

But if that is your example, I don't think you understand what Skeptigirl is saying. A better example would be the step from "all the swans I've observed are birds" to "all swans are birds".

Linda

Swans are birds by definiton. We don't need to observe any swans to assert that all swans are birds. If it's not a bird, it's not a swan, no matter how much it may so resemble one. I'm sure it would make things much easier for SG if all gods were fiction by definition, but that's not the case.

ETA: Trying to rework someone's definition into something that you can disprove easily is another fallacy.

[Piscivore]

Or:

"All swans I've observed are white" to "There are no black swans."

Indeed. I used the example I did because it also excludes pink, green, red, blue, purple, orange, mauve, chartruese, mint, teal, yellow, grey, and magenta swans, which is essentially what SG does with her argument.

[fls]

Swans are birds by definiton. We don't need to observe any swans to assert that all swans are birds. If it's not a bird, it's not a swan, no matter how much it may so resemble one.

Exactly. There are certain characteristics to being a swan that are essential, such that if that characteristic were removed, it would no longer be a swan. Colour is not one of them.

If you remove those characteristics from your god-concept (no matter how unconceived it is) that are essential to god-ness, it may now fit within those constraints we are already aware of (and therefore may exist), but it would no longer be the sort of god we are talking about. If I stated that unicorns are mythical horse-like creatures with a horn and you stated that your idea of a unicorn was a four-legged animal with a horn and that they weren't mythical, you haven't proven the existence of unicorns when you show me a rhinocerous. By removing the characteristics that make something a unicorn, you have also removed the characteristics that make it mythical.

I'm sure it would make things much easier for SG if all gods were fiction by definition, but that's not the case.

But that is not really what is being said. Those same characteristics that are essential to the god concepts we are familiar with are the same characteristics that make them testable and objectionable. It is because those god concepts fail testing that it is assumed they are fiction. Undefined god concepts may not have those characteristics that are testable, but then they are unlikely to be objectionable. The extent to which we call something a fiction is the same as the extent to which testable claims are made. Even before the idea has been conceived and transmitted, we realize that these characteristics are so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable. That is the basis for presupposing that something we would refer to as a god concept that requires belief is also something that could be shown to be a fiction, just like we presuppose that something that we would refer to as a swan has the characteristics of a bird.

ETA: Trying to rework someone's definition into something that you can disprove easily is another fallacy.

Exactly. That is my complaint. By leaving the definition of god open, you are reworking it into something that could exist (so you can disprove Skeptigirl's assertion), but now that something is no longer really god. Or at least it isn't the sort of god we would bother calling a fiction.

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well said, Linda.

I have been saying that we have enough evidence now to conclude human created gods are all fictional. I find it a double standard to be able to draw a certain conclusion about all swans or all leprechauns or all witches but not all gods.

And the second part you have stated in different words is the goal post shifted definition of a god one cannot test for. Such a definition only arose from the recognition god beliefs were beginning to look universally fictional. If you want to either hold on to your own god belief or you accept the argument someone else has made that science cannot disprove the existence of gods, then you must change the definition of god to one which cannot be detected by the scientific process. But that god definition is a contradiction because such a god would be irrelevant to human beings.

I understand the concept of not being able to prove the negative. I object to that concept being applied to one nonsensical fiction but not to other nonsensical fictions. I object to the double standard of fitting the evidence to the conclusion in the case of god beliefs rather than following the evidence to the conclusion gods are fictional characters. And I object to the claim that 'faith based' evidence is of any different quality or nature from 'no' evidence.

[Piscivore]

Exactly. There are certain characteristics to being a swan that are essential, such that if that characteristic were removed, it would no longer be a swan. Colour is not one of them.

If you remove those characteristics from your god-concept (no matter how unconceived it is) that are essential to god-ness, it may now fit within those constraints we are already aware of (and therefore may exist), but it would no longer be the sort of god we are talking about.
Yet they are still god concepts. Why are the things that are easy to refute "essential to god-ness"? This is a specious as claiming that all psychic claimants must claim to speak with the dead- notwithstanding there are many that do not.

If I stated that unicorns are mythical horse-like creatures with a horn and you stated that your idea of a unicorn was a four-legged animal with a horn and that they weren't mythical, you haven't proven the existence of unicorns when you show me a rhinocerous. By removing the characteristics that make something a unicorn, you have also removed the characteristics that make it mythical.
If you define a unicorn to be "something mythical" then no, a rhinocerous isn't mythical. But you do not make a logical argument when you say "Unicorns are mythical creatures, suppose there is a unicorn, therefore it is mythical." It's just yet another fallacy.

But that is not really what is being said. Those same characteristics that are essential to the god concepts we are familiar with are the same characteristics that make them testable and objectionable.
That's another way of saying "just assume that the charactreristics we've already refuted are essential to god", without explaining why. You do not get to make someone else's claims for them, you just don't. Not even by appealing to "essential to the god concepts we are familiar with"- doing so is discounting the concepts of god with which you are not familiar right out of the gate and you are back to hasty generalisation.

It is because those god concepts fail testing that it is assumed they are fiction.
No argument there. It is the assumtion that they must apply to all god concepts that is fallacious. Especially since they do not.

Undefined god concepts may not have those characteristics that are testable, but then they are unlikely to be objectionable.
Imagine that. :oldroll: That's quite the pickle for an anti-theist that wants to refute all possible god concepts ad hoc, isn't it?

And in any case, plenty of defined god concepts lack those "objectionable" characteristics, as well.

The extent to which we call something a fiction is the same as the extent to which testable claims are made. Even before the idea has been conceived and transmitted, we realize that these characteristics are so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable.
Textbook petitio principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question):
The extent to which testable claims are made [about a god concept] implies that is the extent to which we call something a fiction.
Suppose testable claims are made [about a god concept].
Therefore, that is the extent to which we call something a fiction.

Your conclusion- "We realize that these characteristics are so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable" is the same as your first premise, "The extent to which we call something a fiction is the same as the extent to which testable claims are made".

That is the basis for presupposing that something we would refer to as a god concept that requires belief is also something that could be shown to be a fiction, just like we presuppose that something that we would refer to as a swan has the characteristics of a bird.
Except gods and god beliefs are not defined to be fiction, and to do otherwise is both strawman and petitio principii.

Exactly. That is my complaint. By leaving the definition of god open,
Ah, but I'm not leaving it open- it is open. There are no "essential" characteristics for "god", just like having four wheels is not an essential characteristic of "car", or colour is an essential characteristic for swans. As soon as specific claims are made, they can and are refuted. What I'm saying is that it is fallacious to assume that specific claims have anything to do with those that remain open- and that includes those unknown.

you are reworking it into something that could exist (so you can disprove Skeptigirl's assertion),
SG's assertion is fine, as long as it is recognised as an article of faith. As logic, it is invalid, as the plethora of fallacies that constitute the assertion shows. Whether a god does or could exist is really irrelevant to that.

but now that something is no longer really god.
So we add "no true Scotsman" to the list?

Or at least it isn't the sort of god we would bother calling a fiction.
Yeah, how about that? :oldroll: Yet they are still claimed to be gods of this kind.

[Dunstan]

I just want to interject and say that you militant aPotterists really scare me. In your own way, you're just as fundamentalist as the Potterists you decry; I think some of you are ready to go on real-life witchhunts. At best, you're really just preaching to the choir, and turning off the moderate and agnostic Potterists who might otherwise agree with us and be our allies.

I, for one, respect the beliefs of Potterists, even though I do not share those beliefs. Now I suppose I'll get labelled a "Potter apologist" just for showing that little bit of tolerance.

[Piscivore]

I just want to interject and say that you militant aPotterists really scare me. In your own way, you're just as fundamentalist as the Potterists you decry; I think some of you are ready to go on real-life witchhunts. At best, you're really just preaching to the choir, and turning off the moderate and agnostic Potterists who might otherwise agree with us and be our allies.

I, for one, respect the beliefs of Potterists, even though I do not share those beliefs. Now I suppose I'll get labelled a "Potter apologist" just for showing that little bit of tolerance.

:D

[Marquis de Carabas]

I could list any number of fictional characters and just as readily could list any number of fictional gods. The idea Pele, Ra, Thor, Zeus, and so on are fictional but somehow we must keep in mind one of these thousands of fictional gods might be real is a stretch.
One of these thousands, or some other one that nobody's thought up. That's the key difference. No matter how long your list of fictional characters is, you are still comparing a list of specifically defined entities against a very vaguely defined class of potential beings. A more proper analogy would be I lack a belief in wizards vs. there are no wizards. You can name any specific alleged wizard throughout history and literature, and I would state that that individual is a fraud or a fiction. If you ask me to categorically deny that any being exists which would fit some reasonable definition of the word wizard, I would respectfully abstain.

It's the same with gods.

[elipse]

who worships a god that doesn't meddle? Who would do that? There wouldn't be any point. If the god you think might exist doesn't muck around and possibly change your life, there's no reason to worship that god, because worship won't change a thing. If a god isn't being worshiped, how is it a god? How is it distinguishable as a concept? If you can't define a concept, then it's useless. What is your definition of god? Please don't say everyone gets to have a different definition of god. If you can't define a concept, it's useless.

For the record, my dictionary (the Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language), is able to define god:
god:1. The one Supreme Being, self-existant and eternal; the infinite maker, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. 2. Polytheism. A being regarded as possessing superhuman or supernatural qualities or powers, and made an object of worship or propitation; a higher intelligence supposed to control the forces of good and evil; a personification of of any of the forces of nature or of some human attribute, interest, or relation; a divinity; deity. 3. Any person or thing exalted as the chief good, or made an object of supreme devotion...

Please don't tell me your dictionary is better than mine. My point is that my dictionary, at least, can define the word god. If your definition is in conflict with my dictionary's, then please tell me what your definition of god is. Tell me how you distinguish "god" from other concepts.

[Dragoonster]

Dragoonster: I think the reason science keeps getting brought up is because of creationism and its attempt to horn in on the realm of science. I mean, really. All of us, no matter what we answered in the poll, conduct our lives the same way--with the assumption that no god is gonna meddle in our affairs. The only reason this discussion matters is when one is talking to or about believers, and even then only (to me, anyway) if they're trying to undermine the bits of science they don't like. If no one is trying to undermine science research or education, I couldn't give less of a crap if they believe in Pele, Odin, or Egg's latin-speaking cat.

Fully agree.

I guess my issue at this point stems from the poll results...a choice that is unscientific is winning over the (2nd-place) choice that admits science can't ascertain Potter or gods' nonexistence with certainty. If we must frame some of our objection to theism or theists' justifications with science, it seems to me we shouldn't be ignoring science to do so. Dismissing a scientific principle because it's inconvenient and weakens one's argument seems exactly the sort of irrationality and poor rhetoric a lot of theists engage in.

I have no idea who responded with choice #3, but if they actually value science as an objective defense against some theist's claims, I can't see why they'd pick that. If they're honest and an argument with a theist goes on veeeeery long, they'll eventually have to admit the slim possibility that the god, or Potter, exists. Why not admit that upfront, then argue out of likelihoods and/or actionable evidence, rather than false certainty?

[elipse]

Actually, now that I've brought it up, I'd love to compare definitions from different dictionaries. Does anyone have that link to the page that lists the definitions of a word from a bunch of different dictionaries?

[Tanstaafl]

I just want to interject and say that you militant aPotterists really scare me. In your own way, you're just as fundamentalist as the Potterists you decry; I think some of you are ready to go on real-life witchhunts. At best, you're really just preaching to the choir, and turning off the moderate and agnostic Potterists who might otherwise agree with us and be our allies.

I, for one, respect the beliefs of Potterists, even though I do not share those beliefs. Now I suppose I'll get labelled a "Potter apologist" just for showing that little bit of tolerance.


I appreciate the sentiment! And it's not easy for us, every time someone has a few hundred toads streaming out of their mailbox, or some snakes swimming out of the toilet, we Potterists get blamed.

But as for the militant aPotterists, well they can just yank my wand!

[Marquis de Carabas]

For the record, my dictionary (the Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language), is able to define god:
god:1. The one Supreme Being, self-existant and eternal; the infinite maker, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. 2. Polytheism. A being regarded as possessing superhuman or supernatural qualities or powers, and made an object of worship or propitation; a higher intelligence supposed to control the forces of good and evil; a personification of of any of the forces of nature or of some human attribute, interest, or relation; a divinity; deity. 3. Any person or thing exalted as the chief good, or made an object of supreme devotion...
So, your dictionary provides (at least) three different definitions of the word god. Doesn't seem so concrete to me.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, now that I've brought it up, I'd love to compare definitions from different dictionaries. Does anyone have that link to the page that lists the definitions of a word from a bunch of different dictionaries?
Onelook.com (http://onelook.com/?w=god&ls=a)

[elipse]

Dragoonster: Sorry, I have not been clear in this thread. I stated what I think is my main point over in the other poll thread, and then skipped over here and continued without remembering that they're two separate threads. Here's my origninal point:

"I have a real and true and not snarky question for Piscivore and Arthwollipot:
Do you guys, really and truly, consider the scientific uncertainty of fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns every time they come up? When reading fairy tales, do you really and truly ponder the tiny possibility that these things exist? If someone were to say to you "there are no unicorns", would you argue? Would you really and truly disagree with that statement?

It seems to me that what we're arguing really comes down to a preference in the way we present ourselves. No one here seems to be arguing that there is no scientific uncertainty about...well, everything. The only thing in question seems to be whether, having taken into account scientific uncertainty, we are comfortable saying "This exists" or "This does not exist". I am very comfortable with that. God does not exist. How certain am I? Exactly as certain as I am that unicorns, fairies, and leprcauns don't exist. Gravity exists. How certain am I? Well, as certain as one can get who's both a layman and a human with limited senses. I do not feel the need to hedge either my statement that gravity exists (to the best of my and everyone's knowledge) or that god does not exist (always willing to re-examine in light of any evidence).

I think it's important to be willing to state a position like that. Whinging about being agnostic just makes one look weak and fence-sitter-ey. I'd rather start from a position of strength, and clarify as needed, then start from a position of percieved uncertainty, and try to build up. There are a lot of things I don't know. I feel no need to have complicated caveats and points of order and such just to make it very clear I'm not omniscient. For instance: I am not, in fact, sure beyond all doubt that the earth is a sphere. I have never been to space. I have never seen the spherical earth in all its glory. I've never been to sea, even, to see this "mast on a horizon" thing people talk about. I can't do the math that might convince me. All I have is the word of people more learned than me in the area in question, as well as some pictures from space that I didn't take myself. Yet I believe it, and will state, unequivicably, that the earth is a sphere. If someone else asserted the same, I wouldn't disagree. Would you? Really? Would you start a thread about it, to discuss the difference between the statements "I believe the earth is a sphere" and "The earth is a sphere"?

I think the only reason god and belief in the same gets these threads, while the earth and belief in its corpulance doesn't, is that believers try to pin us down on the scientific uncertainty point. "You say god doesn't exist?! You can't KNOW that for SURE! Athiesm is a religion!" That's crap. It's semantic crap, and I don't think that they should be allowed (by us) to wheedle and whine us into a position of agnostisism just because they hold us to a double standard (a position that is linguistically and scientifically identical) on this one issue. NO OTHER ISSUE is required to meet this silly double standard, and we shouldn't allow this one to be debated in these terms. "

[elipse]

thanks, MdC! I'm gonna bookmark it right now.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think the only reason god and belief in the same gets these threads, while the earth and belief in its corpulance doesn't, is that believers try to pin us down on the scientific uncertainty point. "You say god doesn't exist?! You can't KNOW that for SURE! Athiesm is a religion!" That's crap. It's semantic crap, and I don't think that they should be allowed (by us) to wheedle and whine us into a position of agnostisism just because they hold us to a double standard (a position that is linguistically and scientifically identical) on this one issue. NO OTHER ISSUE is required to meet this silly double standard, and we shouldn't allow this one to be debated in these terms. "
I can't answer for everyone, of course, but this isn't a big issue for me because individual theists tend to have fairly well defined god concepts. I have no problem telling any individual theist that their god does not exist, or that their concept is so incoherent as to be worthless, whichever happens to be appropriate. I just won't make the jump from I have never come across a god concept that I believe to there are no gods.

If any theist thinks they have scored points by getting me to agree to a very nebulous yes, something might exist which could, more or less, be termed a god; I certainly can't prove beyond all doubt that it doesn't, then let them have the points. If they've sunk all the way to there, the argument's already lost. Those points are as useless as New England's touchdown yesterday.

[Blackadder]

I beilieve in Harry Potter cause I saw him on tv so it must be real.

[Piscivore]

who worships a god that doesn't meddle?
Deists, for starters. Certain pantheists.

Who would do that? There wouldn't be any point.
Is that argument from incredulity? You'll have to ask them what "the point" is.

If the god you think might exist doesn't muck around and possibly change your life, there's no reason to worship that god, because worship won't change a thing.
Is crass selfishness and gain the only possible reason to worship something? I think you are being much too shortsighted here.

If a god isn't being worshiped, how is it a god?
Any number of ways, that you answered yourself:
Being self-existant and eternal.
Being "maker, sustainer, and/or ruler of the universe" - even if unknown.
Possessing superhuman or supernatural qualities or powers.
Being a higher intelligence controlling the forces of good and evil
Being a personification of of any of the forces of nature or of some human attribute, interest, or relation.

And that's just a few. Don't make the mistake of thinking a god must be all of these, or only these, either.

How is it distinguishable as a concept?
Distinguishable from what?

If you can't define a concept, then it's useless.
Quite so.

What is your definition of god?
Whatever the claimant's is.

Please don't say everyone gets to have a different definition of god.
If you don't want me to give you the correct answer, you have already assumed your conclusion. Don't do that.

If you can't define a concept, it's useless.
I don't get to define it for them, and just because it is neither my right nor responsibility to define god for them does not mean it must be undefined.

For the record, my dictionary (the Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language), is able to define god:
god:1. The one Supreme Being, self-existant and eternal; the infinite maker, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. 2. Polytheism. A being regarded as possessing superhuman or supernatural qualities or powers, and made an object of worship or propitation; a higher intelligence supposed to control the forces of good and evil; a personification of of any of the forces of nature or of some human attribute, interest, or relation; a divinity; deity. 3. Any person or thing exalted as the chief good, or made an object of supreme devotion...
That's good enough to start with.

Please don't tell me your dictionary is better than mine.
I don't limit myself to just one. :)

My point is that my dictionary, at least, can define the word god.
Did it really, though? There's a lot of different definitions there, actually. To confuse them as a single one is equivocation, just like it is to conflate all the different senses of the word "love" into one, as in the schoolyard taunt "do you love cake?/maybe you should marry it!"

If your definition is in conflict with my dictionary's, then please tell me what your definition of god is.
That which someone claims to be god, or could fit someone's criteria for a god.

Tell me how you distinguish "god" from other concepts.
Someone calling it god.

[CFLarsen]

Swan
A swan is well-defined. We have found swans. They are white. We can say that "all swans are white", until one is found that is not. And we have found black swans.

Leprechaun
Leprechauns, however, are not so well defined. They are small persons with magical abilities, but we see the same kind of myth many other places: Imps, fairies, demons, goblins, gremlins, etc. We have not found any leprechauns.

Witch
Again, it depends on what we call a witch. If we mean the stereotypical "person purporting to be able to do magic", then witches exist. If we mean "person actually being able to do magic", then we haven't found any. Like with leprechauns, the concept of "witches" is found in many places, each with their own characteristics. The Brocken in Germany was home to witches who flew in the air, while witches elsewhere could not fly, but were able to conjure devils, or talk to animals. While we have found persons purporting to be able to do magic, we haven't found any who can.

God
Yet again, it depends on what we call a god. The Abrahamic god is all-powerful, while the Greek, Norse and Roman gods weren't. The Norse gods are special in them being mortal.


That does not mean that we know that all leprechauns, witches and gods are products of our imaginations. What one sees as a leprechaun, another could see as an imp, and a third could see as a cat in the shadows. What one sees as a witch, another can see as just an old ugly woman who dabbles in herbs. What one sees as Thor driving his chariot across the sky, another can see thunder and lightning.

There is no double standard at play here. On the contrary, it is consistent with science and critical thinking.

Whether a god is relevant to humans or not is entirely beside the point. Something can exist without us knowing about it, or being relevant to us. Did black holes not exist before we discovered them? And black holes is entirely irrelevant to me.

[Tanstaafl]

Deists, for starters. Certain pantheists.


Minor point, but I don't think Deists worship god. There really is no point in worshipping a deity that is that detached. "Believe in" does not equal "worship".

[Dragoonster]

I think the only reason god and belief in the same gets these threads, while the earth and belief in its corpulance doesn't, is that believers try to pin us down on the scientific uncertainty point. "You say god doesn't exist?! You can't KNOW that for SURE! Athiesm is a religion!" That's crap. It's semantic crap, and I don't think that they should be allowed (by us) to wheedle and whine us into a position of agnostisism just because they hold us to a double standard (a position that is linguistically and scientifically identical) on this one issue. NO OTHER ISSUE is required to meet this silly double standard, and we shouldn't allow this one to be debated in these terms. "

The thing for me (in addition to being consistent), is that admitting uncertainty matters very little. I don't think it pins an agnostic, atheist or anti-theist argument down, unless of course the atheist is actually certain god(s) don't exist. "yeah, there's a very slim possibility you're right, but here are the reasons you're probably wrong, or that your beliefs shouldn't be extended to me" doesn't overly weaken one's argument.

Wheedling for me would be to abandon uncertainty simply to score rhetorical points. I'd rather be honest than argue from a position that I don't actually believe. Atheism that ignores uncertainty isn't crap but I don't find it useful/persuasive either, at least if the argument relies on science or philosophy as nominal frameworks of finding likelihoods of truth or falsity. If this is acceptable, then we should have no problem with a theist beginning an argument with, or relying on, "God certainly exists". We shouldn't even argue that they're wrong about this. But we quite properly do, and as such should admit that we may be wrong. (if we think we are, some atheists I guess think they're correct beyond any doubt).

Also, this isn't the only issue I take this position with. Bigfoot, UFOs, conspiracy theories...I don't know none of these exist, and don't pretend I do. If I did I wouldn't be a skeptic, nor would I ever need to even hear any arguments about the subject.

Are we certain that god or Potter exist or don't exist? IMO no, but that's missing the larger point anyway. As you say, the only reason we need to argue is when their actions attempt to impede upon us. That's what the argument should be about--whether their lousy belief is enough to justify an ethical/legal position, or whether that position should apply to nontheists.

If the theist turns to non-theism as a result that's fantastic, but that shouldn't be the major point of disagreement.

[elipse]

If I call the scientific method a god, it doesn't mean it fits. If it does, for you, than the concept of god is useless. If god can be defined as a long-awaited shepherd, then we're at a standstill. The word can be defined in any way by any one just by saying it's so. This isn't true for other abstract nouns that are based on human concepts. Let's take freedom. There's a basic, if vague, definition that pins down what we mean, broadly, when we say freedom. Then, because freedom is an abstract thing, we can wiggle it into a lot of shapes- but we can't take it out of it's definition, or it's meaningless.
I'm not saying god can't be wiggled into a lot of shapes, but if you say it can be absolutely anything anyone wants it to be, it's a useless word and we shouldn't be using it anyway. God can't be synonymous with everything and still be a meaningful word.

[elipse]

The thing for me (in addition to being consistent), is that admitting uncertainty matters very little. I don't think it pins an agnostic, atheist or anti-theist argument down, unless of course the atheist is actually certain god(s) don't exist. "yeah, there's a very slim possibility you're right, but here are the reasons you're probably wrong, or that your beliefs shouldn't be extended to me" doesn't overly weaken one's argument.

It does if you're dealing with someone who wants to stick god into the gaps. The words "possibility" and "probably" can be blown out of proportion. I dunno. I'd rather start strong and clarify than start weak and build up. I don't care if you start the other way. I just don't want to be dismissed as unskeptical for chosing the opposite.

Wheedling for me would be to abandon uncertainty simply to score rhetorical points. I'd rather be honest than argue from a position that I don't actually believe. Atheism that ignores uncertainty isn't crap but I don't find it useful/persuasive either, at least if the argument relies on science or philosophy as nominal frameworks of finding likelihoods of truth or falsity. If this is acceptable, then we should have no problem with a theist beginning an argument with, or relying on, "God certainly exists". We shouldn't even argue that they're wrong about this. But we quite properly do, and as such should admit that we may be wrong. (if we think we are, some atheists I guess think they're correct beyond any doubt).

Leaving any athiests that don't accept scientific uncertainty aside, since I don't think that's what we're arguing, it's not about ignoring uncertainty. It's about not allowing that uncertaintly to make us use different and less strong language for this issue than for any other. No one hedges about saying gravity exists, or fairies don't, or I'm sitting at a computer, or I'm not in a matrix. We don't have debates over whether we are ag-matrixists or a-matrixists.

Also, this isn't the only issue I take this position with. Bigfoot, UFOs, conspiracy theories...I don't know none of these exist, and don't pretend I do. If I did I wouldn't be a skeptic, nor would I ever need to even hear any arguments about the subject.

Yes, of course, but do you frame your thoughts about them around that uncertainty? Or is the uncertainty slight enough that (effectively) you get along fine without it? Do you feel niggling doubt about telling your kid the boogeyman doens't exist? If you do, well, then, you are more precise than I. If you don't, then why does god get different treatment in terms, not of your belief, but in the expression of your belief?

Are we certain that god or Potter exist or don't exist? IMO no, but that's missing the larger point anyway. As you say, the only reason we need to argue is when their actions attempt to impede upon us. That's what the argument should be about--whether their lousy belief is enough to justify an ethical/legal position, or whether that position should apply to nontheists.

I'm with you here--the debate SHOULD be about those things. It shouldn't be between us, about the nature of the words we use in our everyday lives. The thing is, we aren't arguing about whether the uncertainty principle means we have to have a tiny bit of doubt. (At least, that's not what I'm arguing, and as far as I can tell it's not what others are arguing.) We're arguing about the words we're using to express belief (or lack thereof). It isn't possible for us to use the amount of precision (some demand in our language about god) for everything in our lives. Why does god get to pre-empt language use?
"what are you doing right now?"
"to the best of my knowledge, I'm parallel parking. May I attempt to call you back when I have finished what I percieve as parallell parking?"
vs
"I'm parking. I'll call you back in a sec'".

"will Lex Luthor make a good president?"
"I lack belief in the concept that Lex Luthor will make a good president, and although I believe that no one will ever come up with any evidence to the contrary, I am forced by intellectual honesty to admit that someone might someday come up with some evidence and I will be forced to re-examine my claim."
vs
"no."

We couldn't apply that level of precision to everything, even though everything in life deserves that level of precision just as much as god does. Given that everything deserves it and nothing* gets it, why should god get it if nothing* else does? Or, in other words,

We take it for granted that the caveats and points of order are assumed when we talk about everything except god. Why can't we assume them when we're talking about god? Why does god get to interrupt the flow of ideas and exchange in order to quibble?

*See, it's that level of precision again. Nothing is a black word, and I shouldn't have used it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If I call the scientific method a god, it doesn't mean it fits.
But it does fit, even by one of the definitions you supplied:

3. Any person or thing exalted as the chief good, or made an object of supreme devotion...

If I say the scientific method is my god and proceed to live my life exalting it as the chief good and regarding it with supreme devotion, then it is a god.

Personally, I think that's a pretty crap definition, precisely because there is so much latitude, but it's a definition you (seem to have) accepted, so why discount it now?

[elipse]

But that's a metaphorical use. Money is my god. Science is my god. The common use of these phrases is metaphorical. Those who use them do not actually believe that money or scince is god. I included it not because I felt it was relevent but because it wouldn't be honest to leave it out of the quote.
Do you disagree? Do you think the dictionary meant it literally? I agree that there might be some confusion in the way it was written, but it seems like you're nit-picking, which is really what I'm objecting to in the first place. But if you honestly think the dictionary meant it literally, I'll re-think it.

[Dunstan]

I was going to post something serious to this thread, in addition to my screed against militant aPotterists, but I find that elipse has pretty much said everything I wanted to. In pretty much no other context do we obsessively engage in hand-wringing philosophizing about the inability to be certain about anything, so gosh, what I'm about to say is only to the best of my knowledge and subject to reassessment and could be wrong.... by which time whoever you're speaking to has gone off in search of a stiff drink and more interesting conversation.

[Dragoonster]

It does if you're dealing with someone who wants to stick god into the gaps. The words "possibility" and "probably" can be blown out of proportion. I dunno. I'd rather start strong and clarify than start weak and build up. I don't care if you start the other way. I just don't want to be dismissed as unskeptical for chosing the opposite.

Yeah, most theists shift goalposts constantly, even cyclicly. But I think I disagree with Piscivore and others if I'm understanding them--all deists/theists can do this, argumentively or definitionally, and are similar if they do it at the same tempo. But if the point of contention is existence of god (or the god they update by the minute), we'll be chasing their tail forever. That's not a bad thing to do, but when it comes to real issues I'd rather argue against that output of their god-belief, rather than the god itself. And I guess more to the point, in the tail-chasing debates we still shouldn't insist that their god absolutely doesn't exist (in most cases where there's a possibility it could), we should poke holes in the evidence or logic of their version.

Leaving any athiests that don't accept scientific uncertainty aside, since I don't think that's what we're arguing, it's not about ignoring uncertainty. It's about not allowing that uncertaintly to make us use different and less strong language for this issue than for any other. No one hedges about saying gravity exists, or fairies don't, or I'm sitting at a computer, or I'm not in a matrix. We don't have debates over whether we are ag-matrixists or a-matrixists.

But if we did, we'd have to tighten up our language because we'd have to debate the damn things for centuries or millenia, not to mention multi-page internet threads.

For the bolded portion--that's exactly what a plurality of people answering this poll are doing. Skeptigirl's alternate choice of begrudgingly accepting uncertainty was there but more chose not accepting it.

Yes, of course, but do you frame your thoughts about them around that uncertainty? Or is the uncertainty slight enough that (effectively) you get along fine without it? Do you feel niggling doubt about telling your kid the boogeyman doens't exist? If you do, well, then, you are more precise than I. If you don't, then why does god get different treatment in terms, not of your belief, but in the expression of your belief?

I treat them exactly the same. I never act in life as if these things exist, because there's almost no or no evidence that they do. But if they're the subject of a serious debate with some nutjobs insisting they exist, I'd grant the possibility that they might exist to get that out of the way, since it's going to be a long-haul and my position needs to be honest and consistent.

I'm with you here--the debate SHOULD be about those things. It shouldn't be between us, about the nature of the words we use in our everyday lives. The thing is, we aren't arguing about whether the uncertainty principle means we have to have a tiny bit of doubt. (At least, that's not what I'm arguing, and as far as I can tell it's not what others are arguing.) We're arguing about the words we're using to express belief (or lack thereof). It isn't possible for us to use the amount of precision (some demand in our language about god) for everything in our lives. Why does god get to pre-empt language use?
"what are you doing right now?"
"to the best of my knowledge, I'm parallel parking. May I attempt to call you back when I have finished what I percieve as parallell parking?"
vs
"I'm parking. I'll call you back in a sec'".

"will Lex Luthor make a good president?"
"I lack belief in the concept that Lex Luthor will make a good president, and although I believe that no one will ever come up with any evidence to the contrary, I am forced by intellectual honesty to admit that someone might someday come up with some evidence and I will be forced to re-examine my claim."
vs
"no."

We couldn't apply that level of precision to everything, even though everything in life deserves that level of precision just as much as god does. Given that everything deserves it and nothing* gets it, why should god get it if nothing* else does? Or, in other words,

We take it for granted that the caveats and points of order are assumed when we talk about everything except god. Why can't we assume them when we're talking about god? Why does god get to interrupt the flow of ideas and exchange in order to quibble?

*See, it's that level of precision again. Nothing is a black word, and I shouldn't have used it.

For no other reason than the massive amounts of believers in god(s). That jumps the debate from a single conversation and self-action to one of the major influences of human society, law, government, and thought. So we should take it a lot more seriously and be precise with our assertions and language.

I might be pedantic on this. But the poll results seem pretty wacky even for a nitpicker.

ETA: well I confused the threads, thought the poll was about god and not Harry Potter in this one. It's more understandable, but I still disagree that we should be a) scientific and b) be certain Potter doesn't exist, when another choice is acting the same but accepting the slim uncertainty.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Swan
A swan is well-defined. We have found swans. They are white. We can say that "all swans are white", until one is found that is not. And we have found black swans.

Leprechaun
Leprechauns, however, are not so well defined. They are small persons with magical abilities, but we see the same kind of myth many other places: Imps, fairies, demons, goblins, gremlins, etc. We have not found any leprechauns.

Witch
Again, it depends on what we call a witch. If we mean the stereotypical "person purporting to be able to do magic", then witches exist. If we mean "person actually being able to do magic", then we haven't found any. Like with leprechauns, the concept of "witches" is found in many places, each with their own characteristics. The Brocken in Germany was home to witches who flew in the air, while witches elsewhere could not fly, but were able to conjure devils, or talk to animals. While we have found persons purporting to be able to do magic, we haven't found any who can.

God
Yet again, it depends on what we call a god. The Abrahamic god is all-powerful, while the Greek, Norse and Roman gods weren't. The Norse gods are special in them being mortal.


That does not mean that we know that all leprechauns, witches and gods are products of our imaginations. What one sees as a leprechaun, another could see as an imp, and a third could see as a cat in the shadows. What one sees as a witch, another can see as just an old ugly woman who dabbles in herbs. What one sees as Thor driving his chariot across the sky, another can see thunder and lightning.You are simply claiming here that interpretation does, can or may = reality. That is a totally different argument.

As for the swans, do you expect to ever find one that is not a bird?

There is no double standard at play here. On the contrary, it is consistent with science and critical thinking.

Whether a god is relevant to humans or not is entirely beside the point. Something can exist without us knowing about it, or being relevant to us. Did black holes not exist before we discovered them? And black holes is entirely irrelevant to me.Did we have thousands of examples of fictional black holes and come to the conclusion black holes were fictional based on an entire history of black hole fiction before actual black holes were found?

How many swans need you examine to determine all swans are birds? How many fictional gods does it take to conclude gods are fictional entities?

And denying there is a double standard for god beliefs and leprechaun beliefs doesn't make the double standard go away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
I might be pedantic on this. But the poll results seem pretty wacky even for a nitpicker.

ETA: well I confused the threads, thought the poll was about god and not Harry Potter in this one. It's more understandable, but I still disagree that we should be a) scientific and b) be certain Potter doesn't exist, when another choice is acting the same but accepting the slim uncertainty.Doesn't matter, the poll results remain wacky. They point out the pedantic use of 'the inability of science to prove the negative' is not being applied here to god beliefs and Harry Potter beliefs equally. It demonstrates my point.

[Piscivore]

Minor point, but I don't think Deists worship god. There really is no point in worshipping a deity that is that detached. "Believe in" does not equal "worship".

Yes, you are correct.

We don't have debates over whether we are ag-matrixists or a-matrixists.

Not to step on Dragoonster's toes, but we have had, in fact. Whenever someone wanted to present it as an option. IIRC, such was the basic tenent of Hammy's philosophy, wasn't it? Anybody?

[fls]

Yet they are still god concepts. Why are the things that are easy to refute "essential to god-ness"?

I don't think they are. I think that the word gets used to refer to things that happen to have been refuted.

This is a specious as claiming that all psychic claimants must claim to speak with the dead- notwithstanding there are many that do not.

But I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that many psychics claim to speak to the dead, and that those specific claims can be addressed.

If you define a unicorn to be "something mythical" then no, a rhinocerous isn't mythical. But you do not make a logical argument when you say "Unicorns are mythical creatures, suppose there is a unicorn, therefore it is mythical." It's just yet another fallacy.

I worded that poorly. I did not mean that unicorn was defined as something mythical. I meant that the thing we think of as a unicorn has not been observed to exist on the earth.

That's another way of saying "just assume that the charactreristics we've already refuted are essential to god", without explaining why.

I not saying that. I talking about the way that the word gets used. It gets used to refer to characteristics we've already refuted.

You do not get to make someone else's claims for them, you just don't.

I agree. I'm trying to use the word as it gets used generally.

Not even by appealing to "essential to the god concepts we are familiar with"- doing so is discounting the concepts of god with which you are not familiar right out of the gate and you are back to hasty generalisation.

But this goes back to the questions you've never answered. What is wrong with using the word as it is generally used, with talking about the concepts of god that are mostly encountered? Is it not reasonable to think that if someone says that god does not exist, or that god has been made up by humans, that they are talking about the god that most everyone else is talking about? Especially when we go on to specify which of those characteristics are the most concerning? Why is it hasty generalization to look at how the word gets used when it comes to god, but it's not hasty generalization to say that a black animal without feathers is not a black swan?

No argument there. It is the assumtion that they must apply to all god concepts that is fallacious. Especially since they do not.

But who is making that assumption?

Imagine that. :oldroll: That's quite the pickle for an anti-theist that wants to refute all possible god concepts ad hoc, isn't it?

And in any case, plenty of defined god concepts lack those "objectionable" characteristics, as well.

So why would you think that anyone was referring to them when they say that gods are fiction? For example, the deist god is a well-established concept. But since it lacks any revelatory component beyond revealing the laws of nature, there isn't any particular fictional narrative to address. The made-up part is attributing the 'setting in motion' of the universe to a deity. And even you agree that that idea can be rejected on the basis of parsimony.

Textbook petitio principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question):
The extent to which testable claims are made [about a god concept] implies that is the extent to which we call something a fiction.
Suppose testable claims are made [about a god concept].
Therefore, that is the extent to which we call something a fiction.

What is confusing about that? The extent to which a claim is proven is the extent to which there is evidence for that claim. If no claims are made, no evidence is necessary. If claims are made, then they can be shown to be false. We call something a fiction if the claims are shown to be false. We don't have anything in particular to say when no claims are made.

Your conclusion- "We realize that these characteristics are so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable" is the same as your first premise, "The extent to which we call something a fiction is the same as the extent to which testable claims are made".

Yes. Saying the same thing in different ways is one of the techniques I try when I see that someone does not understand what I am trying to say.

Except gods and god beliefs are not defined to be fiction, and to do otherwise is both strawman and petitio principii.

Which is exactly why gods and god beliefs are not defined to be fiction. They have merely been observed to be fiction.

Ah, but I'm not leaving it open- it is open. There are no "essential" characteristics for "god", just like having four wheels is not an essential characteristic of "car", or colour is an essential characteristic for swans. As soon as specific claims are made, they can and are refuted. What I'm saying is that it is fallacious to assume that specific claims have anything to do with those that remain open- and that includes those unknown.

Did you not say earlier that something that wasn't a bird would not be a swan? Why can some words have essential characteristics, but others cannot? Surely you are willing to consider that the thing sitting in the middle of my kitchen with a flat circular surface supported in a position parallel to the floor by four posts is not a car?

SG's assertion is fine, as long as it is recognised as an article of faith. As logic, it is invalid, as the plethora of fallacies that constitute the assertion shows. Whether a god does or could exist is really irrelevant to that.

So we add "no true Scotsman" to the list?

As soon as you explain to me where you are drawing the line. If we can agree that words have some meaning assigned to them, how do you decide to apply or deny meaning to one of those words in a way that is different from the rest? If someone wants to call an elephant living on the African savannah a Scotsman, why is it a fallacy for me to suggest that perhaps that isn't what I was referring to when I said that no true Scotsman would loll about in the sun naked.

Yeah, how about that? :oldroll: Yet they are still claimed to be gods of this kind.

Can you give me an example of a god, for which no non-trivial claims are made, that it could be assumed Skeptigirl was denying with her statement that god beliefs are fictions?

Linda

[Dragoonster]

Doesn't matter, the poll results remain wacky. They point out the pedantic use of 'the inability of science to prove the negative' is not being applied here to god beliefs and Harry Potter beliefs equally. It demonstrates my point.

Actually on comparing the polls there's only a 4% difference in the "certain" choice. This is one case where Planet X option may also be skewing things, as well as more specific choices in the Potter case.

But I do agree with your point, there are surely people who treat Potterism differently than Theism, who give theism more intellectual credence where it doesn't deserve it. I was more alarmed at the rejection of a scientific principle in both cases, but sorry if I went OT.

[elipse]

Dragoonster:

Hey, no worries. I think a lot of people think that I and others are arguing for a rejection of scientific uncertainty. It gives me a chance to make my point more clear.

Every conversation with someone who is a theist is going to be different. Talking to my mother about her belief in god is going to necessarily be different than talking to a creationist stranger online. I'm not advocating the same approach in every situation. Nor am I advocating holding fast to an untrue position. I am saying that if I say "there is no god" and then clarify that, it's no less a backing off of my original position than to say "there is gravity" and then clarify. The boogeyman deserves exactly as much "benefit of the doubt", if you will, as god does. We don't talk in reservations and equivocations when we talk about the boogeyman, and I don't think we should feel the need to do so about god. There's no boogeyman. There's no god. If someone asks, I can clarify either of those positions. They are no different. Scientific uncertainty should not be a linguistic fetter.
A basic rule of writing is that simple bold statements are stronger than long latinate equivocations. (It's a rule that I should apply more often to my writing :))I would prefer to have the option to state my views about god in sharp bold phrases, as I might state my views about anything else, rather than always having to hedge for fear that my skeptic's card will be revoked. I'm not telling anyone else that they must talk like I do, or should talk like I do. I'm just tired of "everyone's an agnostic, really" and "militant athiest" arguements.

[Piscivore]

I don't think they are. I think that the word gets used to refer to things that happen to have been refuted.
Indeed so. And yet to then assume that the ones that are not refuted by the same evidence are nevertheless refuted because they share the same label is equivocation.

But I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that many psychics claim to speak to the dead, and that those specific claims can be addressed.
Great. Then why is it a double standard to ask that god beliefs be considered only for their own claims, instead of having to answer for all the baggage of the already refuted ones they do not?

I worded that poorly. I did not mean that unicorn was defined as something mythical. I meant that the thing we think of as a unicorn has not been observed to exist on the earth.
Fair enough. but then again we are back to needing specifics. Is it horse-like, or deer like (As in The Last Unicorn, or a number of medieval sources)? Is it a purely magical being, or a basically mundane animal with an unusual anatomical feature? Does it speak or is it dumb? Does it really prefer the company of virgins, or will it be indifferent as to sexual experience? Could it be a mutant variety of goat in a remote region?

Could it really be just a bad description of a rhinocerous that has been misunderstood and mythologised down through the ages?

I'm not saying that. I talking about the way that the word gets used. It gets used to refer to characteristics we've already refuted.
And it gets used to refer to characteristics that have not. The one has no logical or evidentiary bearing on the other.

I agree. I'm trying to use the word as it gets used generally.
Which is my point- using the word generally does not imply anything about what is also so named specifically.

But this goes back to the questions you've never answered. What is wrong with using the word as it is generally used, with talking about the concepts of god that are mostly encountered?
Nothing, as long as the general usage is not equivocated with specific usages. Which difference SG clearly still cannot or does not want to comprehend.

Is it not reasonable to think that if someone says that god does not exist, or that god has been made up by humans, that they are talking about the god that most everyone else is talking about? Especially when we go on to specify which of those characteristics are the most concerning?
If we are speaking specifically about a certain god the characteristics of which are agreed upon, nothing. The problem comes, as in the case of the argument presented, when assuming that those specific characteristics that apply to only certain members of the class apply generally to all members of the class.

Why is it hasty generalization to look at how the word gets used when it comes to god,
Because any time you mistake a specific member for the class with the whole class, it is hasty generalisation. The same as saying "cars have four wheels". If one were to say "All air-cooled Volkswagens have four wheels", that is correct. But it does not follow from that "cars have four wheels". If one were to say "this god is fictional", "some gods are fictional" or even "most gods are fictional", there's nothing wrong with that. But is does not thereby follow that "gods are fictional" can be thus assumed, and thereby used as proof that they are.

...but it's not hasty generalization to say that a black animal without feathers is not a black swan?
It is- a swan could be plucked. A swan could be born without feathers. A swan could lose its feathers to accident, or disease.

But who is making that assumption?
Anyone who claims that because some gods are fictional, "gods are fictional".

So why would you think that anyone was referring to them when they say that gods are fiction? For example, the deist god is a well-established concept. But since it lacks any revelatory component beyond revealing the laws of nature, there isn't any particular fictional narrative to address. The made-up part is attributing the 'setting in motion' of the universe to a deity.
SG, in another thread asserted specifically that her assumption that "gods are fiction" applied equally to the deist god, or indeed any god.

And even you agree that that idea can be rejected on the basis of parsimony.
On parsimony, yes. On SG's specious, fallcy-ridden "logic", not so much.

What is confusing about that? The extent to which a claim is proven is the extent to which there is evidence for that claim. If no claims are made, no evidence is necessary. If claims are made, then they can be shown to be false. We call something a fiction if the claims are shown to be false. We don't have anything in particular to say when no claims are made.
...Or when nothing is known about them. Which was my point. Nevertheless, according to SG, all gods are proven fiction.

Yes. Saying the same thing in different ways is one of the techniques I try when I see that someone does not understand what I am trying to say.
My apologies then, I misread that as a syllogism.

Which is exactly why gods and god beliefs are not defined to be fiction. They Some/most have merely been observed to be fiction.
Fixed that.

Did you not say earlier that something that wasn't a bird would not be a swan? Why can some words have essential characteristics, but others cannot? Surely you are willing to consider that the thing sitting in the middle of my kitchen with a flat circular surface supported in a position parallel to the floor by four posts is not a car?
Fine, what are the "essential" characteristics of the class "god"?

As soon as you explain to me where you are drawing the line.
I'm sorry, you drew the line by deciding some gods aren't "really" gods. I use the definitions the ones who assert/propose/believe in it it use.

If we can agree that words have some meaning assigned to them, how do you decide to apply or deny meaning to one of those words in a way that is different from the rest? Mutual agreement. As long as I and the person with whom I'm speaking agree on the meaning, we can call god a
snozzwanger, or a table a car. Words are descriptive, not proscriptive. The dictionary only outlines common agreement, it does not dictate characteristics. With such a nebulously defined word such as "god", it's essential to have that agreement.

If someone wants to call an elephant living on the African savannah a Scotsman, why is it a fallacy for me to suggest that perhaps that isn't what I was referring to when I said that no true Scotsman would loll about in the sun naked.because that's not what's happening here. You are again confusing a specific subset of "god" with the general term of "god". Elephants are a specifc, and Scotsman are a different specific. To correct your analogy, your fallacy is calling an elephant "no true mammal" because it is not a Scotsman.

Can you give me an example of a god, for which no non-trivial claims are made, that it could be assumed Skeptigirl was denying with her statement that god beliefs are fictions?
Panentheism.
Any of the various apophatic concepts of god.
The Dao.
All the ones she and I know nothing about, either because they are lost, never shared, or not yet conceived.

[Piscivore]

I'm going to be busy from here on in running the next mafia game. This has been a blast, everybody.

[Dragoonster]

Dragoonster:

Hey, no worries. I think a lot of people think that I and others are arguing for a rejection of scientific uncertainty. It gives me a chance to make my point more clear.

Every conversation with someone who is a theist is going to be different. Talking to my mother about her belief in god is going to necessarily be different than talking to a creationist stranger online. I'm not advocating the same approach in every situation. Nor am I advocating holding fast to an untrue position. I am saying that if I say "there is no god" and then clarify that, it's no less a backing off of my original position than to say "there is gravity" and then clarify. The boogeyman deserves exactly as much "benefit of the doubt", if you will, as god does. We don't talk in reservations and equivocations when we talk about the boogeyman, and I don't think we should feel the need to do so about god. There's no boogeyman. There's no god. If someone asks, I can clarify either of those positions. They are no different. Scientific uncertainty should not be a linguistic fetter.
A basic rule of writing is that simple bold statements are stronger than long latinate equivocations. (It's a rule that I should apply more often to my writing :))I would prefer to have the option to state my views about god in sharp bold phrases, as I might state my views about anything else, rather than always having to hedge for fear that my skeptic's card will be revoked. I'm not telling anyone else that they must talk like I do, or should talk like I do. I'm just tired of "everyone's an agnostic, really" and "militant athiest" arguements.

I suffer from overlengthy writing too, but so far find it better to overqualify than leave things in doubt. Still gotta work on my problem with repeating the same thing over and over but just in slightly different ways. :o

I can empathize with your being tired of those arguments, as I'm also (sometimes, though not lately) tired of being called a wishy-washy, fence-sitting, indecisive agnostic. Or even an apologist for theism just because I'm not strong enough in declaring a god-belief certainly false. Insistence of absolutism, even for the sake of argument strikes a nerve because of that and probably makes me overreact.

Certainly is nice that both of us are free to discuss this though. Thanks for the good conversation.

[fls]

Indeed so. And yet to then assume that the ones that are not refuted by the same evidence are nevertheless refuted because they share the same label is equivocation.

I don't understand how the same evidence can refute one but not the other.

Great. Then why is it a double standard to ask that god beliefs be considered only for their own claims, instead of having to answer for all the baggage of the already refuted ones they do not?

I think that what we are talking about are shared claims - that it's reasonable to apply the same standards and come to the same conclusions about those claims held in common. For example, our knowledge about the shape and location of the earth allows us to dismiss the idea that it is situated upon the back of a turtle. This also means that, even before it is told to us, it also does not sit on the back of an elephant.

Fair enough. but then again we are back to needing specifics. Is it horse-like, or deer like (As in The Last Unicorn, or a number of medieval sources)? Is it a purely magical being, or a basically mundane animal with an unusual anatomical feature? Does it speak or is it dumb? Does it really prefer the company of virgins, or will it be indifferent as to sexual experience? Could it be a mutant variety of goat in a remote region?

I think that if a creature was discovered with any of those characteristics, it would reasonably be considered a unicorn, don't you? Except maybe the goat, as it would depend on whether circumstances would reasonably have led to it being the source of misunderstanding and mythology.

And it gets used to refer to characteristics that have not. The one has no logical or evidentiary bearing on the other.

Which is my point- using the word generally does not imply anything about what is also so named specifically.

Nothing, as long as the general usage is not equivocated with specific usages. Which difference SG clearly still cannot or does not want to comprehend.

If we are speaking specifically about a certain god the characteristics of which are agreed upon, nothing. The problem comes, as in the case of the argument presented, when assuming that those specific characteristics that apply to only certain members of the class apply generally to all members of the class.

Because any time you mistake a specific member for the class with the whole class, it is hasty generalisation. The same as saying "cars have four wheels". If one were to say "All air-cooled Volkswagens have four wheels", that is correct. But it does not follow from that "cars have four wheels". If one were to say "this god is fictional", "some gods are fictional" or even "most gods are fictional", there's nothing wrong with that. But is does not thereby follow that "gods are fictional" can be thus assumed, and thereby used as proof that they are.

I see it differently. I see a group of various things which could reasonably be considered cars, and that as you move away from those characteristics, it starts to become unreasonable to call it a car. There may be general agreement that a motorized vehicle designed to enclose at least one passenger is a car, even if it has three wheels. If I then claim that cars are a stable (as in won't tip-over when stopped) way to transport people and bulky items without much effort, you may start to provide me with exceptions to the idea (race cars with very little spare storage space), non-motorized transportation, etc. But if you find something that tips over when stopped, is propelled by the passenger, and has very little space for the transportation of bulky items, you may be inclined to call it a bicycle instead.

If your god concept no longer shares any characteristics with those things that are generally considered god concepts, is there not some point where it would be reasonable to call it something else?

It is- a swan could be plucked. A swan could be born without feathers. A swan could lose its feathers to accident, or disease.

Let me rephrase it then. Why is it not a hasty generalization to say that a black animal that is not a bird is not a black swan?

Anyone who claims that because some gods are fictional, "gods are fictional".

But we don't know that some gods are fictional. All we know is that we haven't yet found an exception to the gods are fictional statement. And we could hold out hope for an exception if there was some way to exclude known fictions. And there is - we can exclude interventionist and capricious agents. But that leaves us with something that is indistinguishable from no god. Personally, I'm not going to quibble when someone chooses to shorten "all gods who intervene in a capricious manner or that are indistinguishable from no god are fictional" to "all gods are fictional", because it's not unreasonable to call a god that is indistinguishable from no god a fiction as well. It's just that it's a fiction for a different reason.

SG, in another thread asserted specifically that her assumption that "gods are fiction" applied equally to the deist god, or indeed any god.

Right. As I pointed out to her previously, and as I mentioned above, they may be all reasonably be called fictions, but they are different kinds of fictions. Why this supposedly matters, I do not know.

Fine, what are the "essential" characteristics of the class "god"?

A supernatural agent(s) whose approval is to be sought. A unifying force or idea involving the creation and maintenance of the universe.

I'm sorry, you drew the line by deciding some gods aren't "really" gods. I use the definitions the ones who assert/propose/believe in it it use.

Mutual agreement. As long as I and the person with whom I'm speaking agree on the meaning, we can call god a
snozzwanger, or a table a car. Words are descriptive, not proscriptive. The dictionary only outlines common agreement, it does not dictate characteristics. With such a nebulously defined word such as "god", it's essential to have that agreement.

I still don't understand, as I'm not deciding or proscribing anything. I am attempting to describe how I see the word being used. What I see is that excluding those things that make god a fiction (either it intervenes in a way that has been shown to be false or it intervenes in a way that is indistinguishable from no god), leaves you with something you wouldn't find common agreement on.

because that's not what's happening here. You are again confusing a specific subset of "god" with the general term of "god". Elephants are a specifc, and Scotsman are a different specific. As you can see To correct your analogy, your fallacy is calling an elephant "no true mammal" because it is not a Scotsman.

I think I am simply doing something different from what you want me to do.

Panentheism.
Any of the various apophatic concepts of god.
The Dao.

How are they distinguished from no god?

Linda

[CFLarsen]

Since swans are defined as a bird, naturally we won't find one that isn't a bird. If it isn't a bird, it certainly isn't a swan. However - we might find something that people thought was a swan, but turned out to be something other than a swan, or even a bird.

Swans are defined as birds, but there isn't a single definition of a specific god that fit all gods. Some gods interact with the universe, others do not. Some gods are immortal, some are not. And so on. That is why we cannot treat one god claim as if it were representative of all god claims.

It is equivalent to the Million Dollar Challenge: Randi doesn't dismiss future dowsers just because he has tested one before and found the evidence lacking.

To dismiss God claims because of one God claim probably being fictional is even worse: That is the same as dismissing all future claimants, regardless of what they claim to be able to do, just because one dowser was tested and found unable to make it work.

We have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be false. Likewise, we have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be something else. And, we have thousands of examples of something we thought was X, but turned out to be Y.

Summarily dismissing arguments that there is no double standard may be the root of the problem: The tell-tale sign that the argument is really about turning science into dogma.

[Egg]

...I am saying that if I say "there is no god" and then clarify that, it's no less a backing off of my original position than to say "there is gravity" and then clarify. The boogeyman deserves exactly as much "benefit of the doubt", if you will, as god does. We don't talk in reservations and equivocations when we talk about the boogeyman, and I don't think we should feel the need to do so about god. There's no boogeyman. There's no god. If someone asks, I can clarify either of those positions. They are no different. Scientific uncertainty should not be a linguistic fetter.
A basic rule of writing is that simple bold statements are stronger than long latinate equivocations. (It's a rule that I should apply more often to my writing :))I would prefer to have the option to state my views about god in sharp bold phrases, as I might state my views about anything else, rather than always having to hedge for fear that my skeptic's card will be revoked. I'm not telling anyone else that they must talk like I do, or should talk like I do. I'm just tired of "everyone's an agnostic, really" and "militant athiest" arguements.
I was under the impression that the common "I lack belief" approach to the God question was a matter of putting yourself in a stronger position to argue rather than giving a weak statement. "I lack belief" instead "I believe there is no God" allows the arguer to play the burden of proof card on the believer.

In a way, I admire your approach. I think it's pretty much fair enough to argue that the semantics would suggest that of course it's just your opinion or belief, so it is not necessary to add the extra language. However, there does tend to be a general understanding that there is a difference between saying you believe something and making an assertion, and as such it would be no surprise that your approach may put believers' backs up and to be fair it does shift the burden of proof firmly onto you. If you're happy to defend your position, more power to you.

[fls]

I presume this is lobbed in my general direction, since it refers to swans and birds. :)

Since swans are defined as a bird, naturally we won't find one that isn't a bird. If it isn't a bird, it certainly isn't a swan. However - we might find something that people thought was a swan, but turned out to be something other than a swan, or even a bird.

I agree.

Swans are defined as birds, but there isn't a single definition of a specific god that fit all gods. Some gods interact with the universe, others do not. Some gods are immortal, some are not. And so on. That is why we cannot treat one god claim as if it were representative of all god claims.

I agree. I think it is reasonable to consider it a collection of claims. I don't expect it to be different when it comes to those problems we seem to encounter whenever we attempt to form categories (something that is different enough from other swans that we start to wonder whether it should even be called a swan, birds that lack a characteristic shared by other birds or bird characteristics that are shared by other categories, etc.)

It is equivalent to the Million Dollar Challenge: Randi doesn't dismiss future dowsers just because he has tested one before and found the evidence lacking.

Exactly. His statements that:

"The bottom line is that they all fail, when properly and fairly tested. There are no exceptions."

are not assumed to apply to unknown claims about dowsing.

To dismiss God claims because of one God claim probably being fictional is even worse: That is the same as dismissing all future claimants, regardless of what they claim to be able to do, just because one dowser was tested and found unable to make it work.

I agree.

We have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be false. Likewise, we have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be something else. And, we have thousands of examples of something we thought was X, but turned out to be Y.

I agree, although you probably mean something a bit different by scientific theory than I do, as I can only think of a handful that were false. I'm sure we'd agree if the discussion were based on specifics, though.

Summarily dismissing arguments that there is no double standard may be the root of the problem: The tell-tale sign that the argument is really about turning science into dogma.

Ah. While I also agree with that statement, I'm not confident that the issue of double standards has really been addressed. I keep trying to clarify my concerns in the hopes that they will be addressed. You have my full co-operation in this matter; I really wish to understand this.

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since swans are defined as a bird, naturally we won't find one that isn't a bird. If it isn't a bird, it certainly isn't a swan. However - we might find something that people thought was a swan, but turned out to be something other than a swan, or even a bird.Again you argue interpretation of the evidence as if that was reality. Reality exists. Interpretation is a separate issue. If you want to argue against my interpretation of the evidence that gods are fictional characters and there is no evidence to the contrary, then fine. But claiming gods might exist based merely on the principle one cannot prove they do not exist when all the evidence refutes that is a different matter.

Swans are defined as birds, but there isn't a single definition of a specific god that fit all gods. Some gods interact with the universe, others do not. Some gods are immortal, some are not. And so on. That is why we cannot treat one god claim as if it were representative of all god claims.The claim gods are 'anything' is a useless definition.

It is equivalent to the Million Dollar Challenge: Randi doesn't dismiss future dowsers just because he has tested one before and found the evidence lacking. This is irrelevant.

To dismiss God claims because of one God claim probably being fictional is even worse: That is the same as dismissing all future claimants, regardless of what they claim to be able to do, just because one dowser was tested and found unable to make it work.This is a straw man. I do not dismiss god claims because of "one God claim probably being fictional". I dismiss them because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are fictional characters manufactured by human imagination.

We have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be false. Likewise, we have thousands of examples of scientific theories that turned out to be something else. And, we have thousands of examples of something we thought was X, but turned out to be Y.Again, irrelevant.

Summarily dismissing arguments that there is no double standard may be the root of the problem: The tell-tale sign that the argument is really about turning science into dogma.This is odd since I see the claim, one cannot prove there are no gods, to be the dogmatic position. One cannot prove there are no [insert any nonsensical claim or fictional character or situation here] is dogmatic. It applies a principle of the scientific process in an absurd and clearly dogmatic way.

[CFLarsen]

Naturally, our interpretation of the evidence is what we see as reality. What else can we do? Nobody can claim to know reality, unless it is some form of interpretation of reality or another.

There is no difference between saying "the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion" and "the opposite is probably false". "Overwhelmingly" does not mean "absolute".

That is why it is highly relevant to point to where we have been wrong in science. We were wrong about Dalton's atomic model, and we are - probably - going to be wrong about Bohr's, too.

We could be wrong. Even about gods. To say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking.

[fls]

That is why it is highly relevant to point to where we have been wrong in science. We were wrong about Dalton's atomic model, and we are - probably - going to be wrong about Bohr's, too.

We could be wrong. Even about gods. To say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking.

This is the assumption that I do not understand. If we say that Bohr's model of the atom is our current best explanation for a set of observations and use it to further our understanding, you don't assume that we are excluding the possibility that it may undergo modification as our knowledge progresses, or even that it may be discarded for a better explanation. Physics discussions here proceed on the basis of whether the evidence supports the specific idea as the best explanation, rather than on the basis of whether it's dogmatic to have a 'best explanation' in the first place.

Yet, if we say that 'gods are a product of human beliefs' is our current best explanation for a set of observations and use it to further our understanding, you assume that we are excluding the possibility that it may undergo modification as our knowledge progresses, or even that it may be discarded for a better explanation. Discussions proceed not on the basis of whether the evidence supports this idea as the best explanation for what we've observed, but on the basis of whether it's dogmatic to provide this explanation in the first place. You seem to assume that the very act of providing this explanation includes the statement "we could never be wrong about this". Otherwise your last sentence makes no sense, because at no point has anyone ever said this.

Why do you make that assumption?

Linda

[CFLarsen]

I don't assume that we are excluding the possibility that our current understanding of what gods are may undergo modification as our knowledge progresses.

Quite contrary: I am saying that it most likely will undergo modification, as new evidence inevitably will pop up. Anything we believe to be true today, based on scientific discoveries, is almost certain to be wrong, one way or another, in the future: Not because of A suddenly is equal to B (where it was different in the past), but because, as we dig deeper, we discover C, which we haven't even dreamed of yet.

Hey - turns out light has speed! And there is an upper limit! Nothing can travel faster than light!!

Well, I'll be...!!

[fls]

I don't assume that we are excluding the possibility that our current understanding of what gods are may undergo modification as our knowledge progresses.

Quite contrary: I am saying that it most likely will undergo modification, as new evidence inevitably will pop up.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you why you assumed that Skeptigirl excludes the possibility merely by stating a well-established theory? Why was it necessary for you to say:

"We could be wrong. Even about gods. To say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking."

even though nobody, including Skeptigirl, said otherwise.

Linda

[Mojo]

OK, I know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_45188.htm

A leaflet, for the Harborough Asthma and Eczema Clinic for Kids, was headlined "A breath of fresh air - for asthma and eczema sufferers".

The leaflet included two testimonials. The first, from "S Potter, Market Harborough", stated "Harry's face was sore and angry, so the doctor prescribed hydrocortisone cream and emollient. Before I took the prescription to the chemist I tried Julia's homeopathic remedies. A week afterwards, Harry's eczema had cleared up. His face has been totally clear ever since."

...

4. The ASA challenged whether the testimonials were genuine and whether they could be supported with independent evidence of their accuracy.

...

4. Archway House were unable to provide any substantiation on this point.

[gentlehorse]

Yet, if we say that 'gods are a product of human beliefs' is our current best explanation for a set of observations and use it to further our understanding, you assume that we are excluding the possibility that it may undergo modification as our knowledge progresses, or even that it may be discarded for a better explanation. Discussions proceed not on the basis of whether the evidence supports this idea as the best explanation for what we've observed, but on the basis of whether it's dogmatic to provide this explanation in the first place. You seem to assume that the very act of providing this explanation includes the statement "we could never be wrong about this".


Bold mine--

I asked you why you assumed that Skeptigirl excludes the possibility merely by stating a well-established theory? Why was it necessary for you to say:

"We could be wrong. Even about gods. To say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking."

even though nobody, including Skeptigirl, said otherwise.

Linda,

I may have misread Skeptigirl. It seems to me that, based on a preponderance of evidence, that is exactly what she is saying. "There are no gods. " Period-- End of report--

Skeptigirl,

Am I misreading you?

[fls]

Linda,

I may have misread Skeptigirl. It seems to me that, based on a preponderance of evidence, that is exactly what she is saying. "There are no gods. " Period-- End of report--

Skeptigirl,

Am I misreading you?

Does that mean I can expect to see you in the homeopathy threads beating me about the head for saying that there are no effects from homeopathic remedies other than those we see from placebo? :)

Linda

[fls]

Linda,

I may have misread Skeptigirl. It seems to me that, based on a preponderance of evidence, that is exactly what she is saying. "There are no gods. " Period-- End of report--

Now I'm curious (since you seem to be taking exception to that statement). Do you think that there is evidence for which god is a necessary explanation? And if so, what is that evidence?

Linda

[gentlehorse]

Now I'm curious (since you seem to be taking exception to that statement). Do you think that there is evidence for which god is a necessary explanation? And if so, what is that evidence?

Linda

Nope. In fact, I'd be inclined to agree with skeptigirl, assuming that I'm reading her correctly, except that I'd add "based on our current understanding of the universe."

Does that mean I can expect to see you in the homeopathy threads beating me about the head for saying that there are no effects from homeopathic remedies other than those we see from placebo?

Moi? Beat you over the head? Perish the thought.

If, however, someone else were to attempt to beat you over the head, I would be surprised to find that your defense of your position included blanket statement about all homeopathic remedies and the words/implication "we could never be wrong about this".

[fls]

Nope. In fact, I'd be inclined to agree with skeptigirl, assuming that I'm reading her correctly, except that I'd add "based on our current understanding of the universe."

Good thing you added that. I thought you meant, "based on our understanding of the universe on June 12, 2091."

Moi? Beat you over the head? Perish the thought.

If, however, someone else were to attempt to beat you over the head, I would be surprised to find that your defense of your position included blanket statement about all homeopathic remedies and the words/implication "we could never be wrong about this".

It pretty much does, though, since we look at what it would take to be wrong about this (rather than absolute statements).

Linda

[gentlehorse]

Good thing you added that. I thought you meant, "based on our understanding of the universe on June 12, 2091."

:D

It pretty much does, though, since we look at what it would take to be wrong about this (rather than absolute statements).

Linda

"It pretty much does" = "It does" ?

[The Drain]

Not very many people mention the fact we do have evidence god beliefs were made up time and time again in the course of human history. There are archaeological descriptions of the initiation of fictional god beliefs such as the Cargo Cults of modern times. .

I know about the Cargo Cult - but do you have any other easily available examples of the evidence that god beliefs were repeatedly made up?

I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely interested as I'd always presumed that the story of any individual god had come from "time immemorial" which usually means it was an oral tradition before being written down.

[fls]

"It pretty much does" = "It does" ?

Yes. Is there something confusing about what I said?

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know about the Cargo Cult - but do you have any other easily available examples of the evidence that god beliefs were repeatedly made up?

I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely interested as I'd always presumed that the story of any individual god had come from "time immemorial" which usually means it was an oral tradition before being written down.
Pele
Zeus
Thor
and so on (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm).

There are 100 gods listed in that link just up to the letter 'k'. And I doubt the list is inclusive.

Are you suggesting this is not evidence of made up god beliefs? Are you suggesting Pele and Zeus actually exist? These god beliefs contradict each other and cannot all be true. Yet they have consistent features from culture to culture while at the same time they are inconsistent enough to exclude the possibility they all represent the same god. Those consistent features are, explaining and trying to influence natural phenomena, (which we now know by sytematic scientific observation are not controlled by gods but have identifiable physical explanations and causes), and, providing humans with the wishful belief in life after death.

There is not a single bit of evidence any of these beliefs originated because humans interacted with real gods.

Or perhaps you'd like to make a case that the mere fact these beliefs are ancient supports the conclusion we cannot say they are fiction?

The Cargo Cult is an example where the theory god beliefs are fictional was tested and the result of the test supported that conclusion.

[CFLarsen]

It isn't a question of whether all god beliefs are really about the same god or not.

The question is, can we exclude the possibility that any god is real?

As in: "Uh-nuh, there are no gods, and nor will we ever find evidence of any god."

[Beerina]

...[T]he reason we don't look for evidence of Hogwarts is that we've got J.K. over there saying explicitly- and getting paid for- making it up, we've got lawsuits wherein she has argued her ownership of the Hogwarts idea based on the fact that she made it up, No mysterious Scottish castles for which we cannot account, and very, very few (if any) people claiming that Hogwarts actually exists as written in Scotland somewhere.

That's exactly like the thousands of different claims of god.


Fixed it for you.

[Piscivore]

Fixed it for you.

Really? You know the name of the person who wrote the Tibetan book of the dead? You've got a copy of the lawsuit wherein Muhammed sued the Ba'hai for infringement? There isn't anyone who really believes in Jesus as lord, the're all just really big fans?

Astounding.

[fls]

Really? You know the name of the person who wrote the Tibetan book of the dead? You've got a copy of the lawsuit wherein Muhammed sued the Ba'hai for infringement? There isn't anyone who really believes in Jesus as lord, the're all just really big fans?

Astounding.

That implies that the only way we discover that something is made up (deliberate or otherwise) is if someone formally admits to it.

Linda

[gentlehorse]

Yes. Is there something confusing about what I said?

Linda

Yes, but that's no reflection on you. I thought you might be inclined to leave the door open a little for the potential for a small effect (i.e. that you wouldn't exclude anything unnecessarily).

My mistake--

[Piscivore]

That implies that the only way we discover that something is made up (deliberate or otherwise) is if someone formally admits to it.

Linda

I think rather it implies that "exactly" used thus means "the same in all ways", and therefore further implies beerina's "correction" false.

[fls]

Yes, but that's no reflection on you. I thought you might be inclined to leave the door open a little for the potential for a small effect (i.e. that you wouldn't exclude anything unnecessarily).

My mistake--

That's actually a good example of the equivocation that is going on between the philosophy and the practice of science in this thread (and others, of course). Since the underlying philosophy recognizes that all conclusions are provisional, essentially nothing can be excluded. Yet if we acted on this assumption, we would be unable to proceed with the practice of science. A solution is to build this limitation into how we consider and weigh evidence, so that our knowledge is relative, rather than absolute. For example, when considering a new idea, we may find that in order for it to be true, a vast amount of knowledge must be wrong, but in order for it to be false, little or no knowledge must be wrong. This gives us a way to build upon those things that are likely to be true and discard those things that are likely to be false. The problem is that this method has been so wildly successful that the underlying nature of our knowledge is obscured.

When we talk about the extent to which an idea is well-established or an idea has been excluded, it's all relative. As far as I'm concerned, it's reasonable to talk in terms of proof and evidence as long as we are specific and consistent. If we are comfortable proceding as though the idea of the four humours has been excluded, then we are also comfortable proceding as though the idea of homeopathy has been excluded, since the relative extent to which it has been excluded exceeds many other ideas (including the four humours) that are considered false. What I don't consider reasonable is using wildly inconsistent standards depending upon the subject, or equivocating by referring to a philosophical principle when talking about the practice of science.

I did realize that your knee-jerk reaction would be to insult me (sometimes I hope for a surprise :)). But if we are to proceed as though it has been established that the heart serves as a pump to circulate the blood in the body, then it is reasonable for us to proceed as though it has been established that homeopathy has no specific effects. I am happy to change the language that I use to convey these relative weights, but the request doesn't seem sincere if it only arises when the topic is controversial for socio-political reasons.

Linda

[gentlehorse]

Linda,

I apologize for insulting you. I have a lot of respect for your ideas and your ability to put them into words. That said, I'll bow out of this thread.

[jeremyp]

Of course it's true!


The book takes place in real-life England, mentioning other real contemporary countries such as China, Hungary and Norway.
The book gives an accurate narrative on life in said country.
The book portrays the main characters as imperfect.
The book received a totally unexpected reception, instantly becoming exceptionally popular and captivating readers everywhere.
Witchcraft, as well as the creatures in the book series - trolls, dragons, etc., are backed up by other sources independent of the HP series.
Technology depicted in the book - cars, TV's, street lights, etc. are from real-life.
It's a great way of teaching our children morals, helping many to lead better lives.
It's the oldest fantasy book in existence.

[/certain Christians]
You forgot one:

several of Harry's followers sacrificed their lives. Why would they do that if he wasn't real?

[fls]

Linda,

I apologize for insulting you. I have a lot of respect for your ideas and your ability to put them into words. That said, I'll bow out of this thread.

Don't bow out on my account. I put in a smiley to indicate that it doesn't bother me. I just wanted to draw attention to the lengths we go to in order to avoid offending believers. :)

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
When we talk about the extent to which an idea is well-established or an idea has been excluded, it's all relative. As far as I'm concerned, it's reasonable to talk in terms of proof and evidence as long as we are specific and consistent. If we are comfortable proceding as though the idea of the four humours has been excluded, then we are also comfortable proceding as though the idea of homeopathy has been excluded, since the relative extent to which it has been excluded exceeds many other ideas (including the four humours) that are considered false. What I don't consider reasonable is using wildly inconsistent standards depending upon the subject, or equivocating by referring to a philosophical principle when talking about the practice of science.....So well said. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

It isn't a question of whether all god beliefs are really about the same god or not.

The question is, can we exclude the possibility that any god is real?

As in: "Uh-nuh, there are no gods, and nor will we ever find evidence of any god."I don't believe a single post in this thread makes the prediction we will never in the future uncover something for which we are currently unaware.

[CFLarsen]

I don't believe a single post in this thread is an example of double standards.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not the posts I am talking about, Claus. The double standard is best described in Linda's postIf we are comfortable proceding as though the idea of the four humours has been excluded, then we are also comfortable proceding as though the idea of homeopathy has been excluded, since the relative extent to which it has been excluded exceeds many other ideas (including the four humours) that are considered false. What I don't consider reasonable is using wildly inconsistent standards depending upon the subject, or equivocating by referring to a philosophical principle when talking about the practice of science.....

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps if we were presented with some evidence of this double standard: Names, quotes, etc.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, you are missing the point. I can't help you. Maybe someone else can.

[CFLarsen]

When claims of a double standard is made, it is very much to the point to ask for evidence of this double standard.

[Dragoonster]

That's actually a good example of the equivocation that is going on between the philosophy and the practice of science in this thread (and others, of course). Since the underlying philosophy recognizes that all conclusions are provisional, essentially nothing can be excluded. Yet if we acted on this assumption, we would be unable to proceed with the practice of science. A solution is to build this limitation into how we consider and weigh evidence, so that our knowledge is relative, rather than absolute. For example, when considering a new idea, we may find that in order for it to be true, a vast amount of knowledge must be wrong, but in order for it to be false, little or no knowledge must be wrong. This gives us a way to build upon those things that are likely to be true and discard those things that are likely to be false. The problem is that this method has been so wildly successful that the underlying nature of our knowledge is obscured.

Good points.

When we talk about the extent to which an idea is well-established or an idea has been excluded, it's all relative. As far as I'm concerned, it's reasonable to talk in terms of proof and evidence as long as we are specific and consistent. If we are comfortable proceding as though the idea of the four humours has been excluded, then we are also comfortable proceding as though the idea of homeopathy has been excluded, since the relative extent to which it has been excluded exceeds many other ideas (including the four humours) that are considered false. What I don't consider reasonable is using wildly inconsistent standards depending upon the subject, or equivocating by referring to a philosophical principle when talking about the practice of science.

Who here is doing this? My guess is that the (general) difference in treatment is quantitative, not qualitative. It may seem that folks are giving religious crap more credence than Potter crap, but perhaps only because religious, or Biblical threads, claimants, or arguments outnumber Harry Potter versions by millions. I've never cared to even find out what homeopathy is, so have no opinion on that.

Also, the poll choices add to the confusion between science and philosophy. My best take on them is:

1st choice: definition of weak atheism or agnosticism
2nd: Scientific principle trumps "common sense"
3rd: definition of strong atheism
4th: the scientific uncertainty principle

As we can only pick one of these, we're forced to weigh the values of scientific and philosophic positions against each other. IMO philosophy "trumps" science, so I went with choice #1. Hence that's what I'd been trying to argue. The choices in the God poll were IIRC a definition of atheism and agnosticism, no science involved. Since the polls were different the discussion may have gone down different roads, leading to a perceived different treatment of the two issues.

[fls]

Who here is doing this? My guess is that the (general) difference in treatment is quantitative, not qualitative. It may seem that folks are giving religious crap more credence than Potter crap, but perhaps only because religious, or Biblical threads, claimants, or arguments outnumber Harry Potter versions by millions.

I can give some specific examples of the difference in treatment.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4119041#post4119041) Piscivore states "Are you presuming that all god beliefs are known to us here?" He repeated this idea in several other posts. But when talking about the state of knowledge in non-controversial subjects, personal ignorance does not serve as a justification for whether or not something is established. No one has seriously offered up the idea that it is reasonable to consider that Harry Potter may be real because they haven't yet read the book(s) or seen the movie(s).

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4124461#post4124461) Claus states that "[w]e could be wrong...[t]o say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking." Yet this condemnation doesn't arise when talking about other discredited ideas, such as the luminiferous ether or the four humours, even it equally applies.

I've never cared to even find out what homeopathy is, so have no opinion on that.

But I doubt that you're suggesting your ignorance of the topic is meant to serve as a substitute for others' knowledge of the topic.

Also, the poll choices add to the confusion between science and philosophy.

I do agree that it isn't clear from the poll what distinction is being made. Trying to give it the form of gentlehorse's poll and trying to use the Rowling's Harry Potter example made it a bit confusing.

My best take on them is:

1st choice: definition of weak atheism or agnosticism
2nd: Scientific principle trumps "common sense"
3rd: definition of strong atheism
4th: the scientific uncertainty principle

As we can only pick one of these, we're forced to weigh the values of scientific and philosophic positions against each other. IMO philosophy "trumps" science, so I went with choice #1. Hence that's what I'd been trying to argue. The choices in the God poll were IIRC a definition of atheism and agnosticism, no science involved. Since the polls were different the discussion may have gone down different roads, leading to a perceived different treatment of the two issues.

I see them as four different choices in how we convey conclusions we have reached through a scientific approach - a different balance between whether we emphasize the provisional nature of the conclusions or whether we emphasize the extent to which it would be difficult to be wrong about those conclusions (i.e. the strength of those conclusions).

We all seem to agree that we haven't yet been presented with evidence for which god is a necessary explanation (I have asked that question (or something similar) several times and people seem comfortable giving an unqualified 'yes'). So it is recognized that support for gods comes from belief/faith. Questions 1 and 3 both emphasize the extent to which it would be difficult to be wrong about these conclusions, but question 3 more strongly conveys the recognition that there is no support for gods beyond belief. And I agree that that is the main difference between what people generally call agnosticism and atheism. Question 4 balances the emphasis between the the two considerations. I'm not sure about question 2, but I think it's meant to emphasize the provisional nature of scientific conclusions (scientific principle) without considering the strength of those conclusions (common sense).

So when it comes to religious beliefs, what are your priorities when it comes to conveying the message?

Linda

[CFLarsen]

I cannot recall participating in discussions about the luminiferous ether or the four humours.

[Beth]

My apologies in advance. I have little time to post these days, particularly outside of the weekends, so I doubt I'll be able to respond in much depth. OTOH, I've discussed this with SG in the past in some detail, so perhaps that isn't necessary.

Evidence, for the most part and for most human beings, consists of the reports of other human beings. I've never been to Africa, but I believe it exists. None of us have ever met Shakespeare, but we believe he existed and wrote many great works of literature. When it comes to scientific evidence, we must rely on others to gather and interpret the evidence for us as none of us can do it all for ourselves.

Evidence for the generic god, whether Chistian, Muslim, Jewish or Deist, consists of the testimonials of countless other human beings. This is not so very different from the beliefs that most of us regarding other things and very different from believing in Harry Potter and Hogwarts which have no one - absolutely no one - claiming that they actually exist. And it is also very different from the evidence for Zeus, Pele, etc. While they once had countless testimonials from living human beings, they no longer do. Thus, it is quite reasonable for modern humans to treat them differently from those gods that are currently worshipped by millions.

Yes, there is no physical evidence for any sort of god, which makes it much more doubtful than such things as Africa and Shakespeare. I cite those merely of examples of how we come to believe in things. I've never seen any evidence for either other than pictures (which can be faked) and testimonials of other people that have seen the physical evidence. As another example of things most of us believe in without solid physical evidence, consider black holes. Few of us actually understand and comprehend the arcane mathematics that take us from the observations that humans have made to the supposition of the existance of black holes. We simply trust those that have and that their calculations are correct. There are numerous smart people who have done the calculations and they agree that black holes are the correct conclusion. And there are a few who dispute the conclusion.

Likewise, there are numerous smart people who all agree that god exists. And there a few who dispute the conclusion. Is it really so unreasonable to take a rather different stance on the question of the existance of god than one does on the question of the existance of Harry Potter? It doesn't seem at all a double standard to me, but rather a reasonable and intelligent response to two vastly different sets of evidence.

[fls]

I cannot recall participating in discussions about the luminiferous ether or the four humours.

I can't either, although I probably don't read most of your posts (I'm not singling you out, it's just that I end up reading only a small portion of the posts at the JREF forum). It's a thought experiment in order to clarify the distinction I am making. Would you feel obliged to point out that it is dogmatic to state that it is no longer useful to give these ideas serious consideration?

Linda

[CFLarsen]

I can hardly be blamed for what I haven't said in discussions I haven't participated in.

It certainly isn't evidence of double standard on my behalf.

[fls]

My apologies in advance. I have little time to post these days, particularly outside of the weekends, so I doubt I'll be able to respond in much depth. OTOH, I've discussed this with SG in the past in some detail, so perhaps that isn't necessary.

Evidence, for the most part and for most human beings, consists of the reports of other human beings. I've never been to Africa, but I believe it exists. None of us have ever met Shakespeare, but we believe he existed and wrote many great works of literature. When it comes to scientific evidence, we must rely on others to gather and interpret the evidence for us as none of us can do it all for ourselves.

Evidence for the generic god, whether Chistian, Muslim, Jewish or Deist, consists of the testimonials of countless other human beings. This is not so very different from the beliefs that most of us regarding other things and very different from believing in Harry Potter and Hogwarts which have no one - absolutely no one - claiming that they actually exist. And it is also very different from the evidence for Zeus, Pele, etc. While they once had countless testimonials from living human beings, they no longer do. Thus, it is quite reasonable for modern humans to treat them differently from those gods that are currently worshipped by millions.

Yes, there is no physical evidence for any sort of god, which makes it much more doubtful than such things as Africa and Shakespeare. I cite those merely of examples of how we come to believe in things. I've never seen any evidence for either other than pictures (which can be faked) and testimonials of other people that have seen the physical evidence. As another example of things most of us believe in without solid physical evidence, consider black holes. Few of us actually understand and comprehend the arcane mathematics that take us from the observations that humans have made to the supposition of the existance of black holes. We simply trust those that have and that their calculations are correct. There are numerous smart people who have done the calculations and they agree that black holes are the correct conclusion. And there are a few who dispute the conclusion.

Likewise, there are numerous smart people who all agree that god exists. And there a few who dispute the conclusion. Is it really so unreasonable to take a rather different stance on the question of the existance of god than one does on the question of the existance of Harry Potter? It doesn't seem at all a double standard to me, but rather a reasonable and intelligent response to two vastly different sets of evidence.

All the testimonials in the world will not make your computer work.

Linda

[fls]

I can hardly be blamed for what I haven't said in discussions I haven't participated in.

It certainly isn't evidence of double standard on my behalf.

What is your answer to the question I asked?

Linda

[fls]

I can hardly be blamed for what I haven't said in discussions I haven't participated in.

It certainly isn't evidence of double standard on my behalf.

To elaborate on this a bit.

I am saying that if you are willing to do Y here, you should also be willing to do Y there. If you are not, it is evidence of a double standard. If you are, then the results make little sense. Neither of those outcomes are to be recommended.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

Where do I give more credence to religious beliefs than to Harry Potter?

Can I see some examples? Not something I didn't say in discussions I didn't participate in - absence of evidence is not evidence - but concrete evidence that I give more credence to religious beliefs than other beliefs.

[fls]

Where do I give more credence to religious beliefs than to Harry Potter?

Can I see some examples? Not something I didn't say in discussions I didn't participate in - absence of evidence is not evidence - but concrete evidence that I give more credence to religious beliefs than other beliefs.

I am reluctant to draw a conclusion on your behalf - you are in a better position to know where you stand than I - so I leave it up to you to figure out which result best describes your position.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

You do realise this way of thinking implies we would have to show every possible homoeopathic remedy did not work before we could honestly say "homoeopathy does not work"?

This is not an efficient or productive way to discover new information.

"God does not exist" is an inference based on studying a sample of the (practically infinite) population of God beliefs and finding them to be less likely than alternate explanations, or simply irrelevant to the physical universe (i.e. the one you and I are in).

[Dragoonster]

I can give some specific examples of the difference in treatment.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4119041#post4119041) Piscivore states "Are you presuming that all god beliefs are known to us here?" He repeated this idea in several other posts. But when talking about the state of knowledge in non-controversial subjects, personal ignorance does not serve as a justification for whether or not something is established. No one has seriously offered up the idea that it is reasonable to consider that Harry Potter may be real because they haven't yet read the book(s) or seen the movie(s).

If that's a component of the different-gods argument, I'd agree. The same allowance should be given to both Potterism and Theism, or not given to either. Personally I think it shouldn't apply to either, as very few humans believe in exactly the same myth, and each one should be evaluated separately (in practice, each sub-belief is).

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4124461#post4124461) Claus states that "[w]e could be wrong...[t]o say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking." Yet this condemnation doesn't arise when talking about other discredited ideas, such as the luminiferous ether or the four humours, even it equally applies.

[just assuming this characterization or example isn't under dispute...]

Good point, but perhaps the quality of the the approach is tainted by the lack of quantity. I don't know of any people who still believe ether or the humours are still a reasonable or correct explanation, so arguments involving them tend to use them as examples rather than actual current beliefs. Objectively they still could (very slim chance) be valid, but it's not necessary to dwell on that if no one believes they are.

But yeah--the "discredit" level should be independent of the number of serious adherents. Sometimes I do get the sense I'm going about it opposite what I should; as in, the less evidential the claim, the deeper I go into philosophy in order to still maintain the possibility it's true. Maybe because some atheists or anti-theists are insistent that we do refute it 100%, and my response is an attempt to disavow the basis of my arguments from theirs.

But I doubt that you're suggesting your ignorance of the topic is meant to serve as a substitute for others' knowledge of the topic.

Nope, was trying to explain why I used religion in my response rather than the recently discussed homeopathy.

I do agree that it isn't clear from the poll what distinction is being made. Trying to give it the form of gentlehorse's poll and trying to use the Rowling's Harry Potter example made it a bit confusing.

I see them as four different choices in how we convey conclusions we have reached through a scientific approach - a different balance between whether we emphasize the provisional nature of the conclusions or whether we emphasize the extent to which it would be difficult to be wrong about those conclusions (i.e. the strength of those conclusions).

We all seem to agree that we haven't yet been presented with evidence for which god is a necessary explanation (I have asked that question (or something similar) several times and people seem comfortable giving an unqualified 'yes'). So it is recognized that support for gods comes from belief/faith. Questions 1 and 3 both emphasize the extent to which it would be difficult to be wrong about these conclusions, but question 3 more strongly conveys the recognition that there is no support for gods beyond belief. And I agree that that is the main difference between what people generally call agnosticism and atheism. Question 4 balances the emphasis between the the two considerations. I'm not sure about question 2, but I think it's meant to emphasize the provisional nature of scientific conclusions (scientific principle) without considering the strength of those conclusions (common sense).

Okay. My first instinct in religious discussions, or any discussions where someone is advocating for or against a definite truth, is to weigh it philosophically. Being a contrarian against certainty, my instinct was to view the poll from that perspective, not a weighing of likelihoods or evidence as in a scientific conclusion, with the terms related to that. I think I understand the intent better now though.

So when it comes to religious beliefs, what are your priorities when it comes to conveying the message?

(not quite sure what message you mean?)

I guess there are three main contexts, and I only find one really important...

Philosophy arguments--somewhat important for neophytes but also somewhat useless for veterans of lengthy debates. Each position requires more than mere and general belief to affect others, they're fairly neutral by themselves. If a theist doesn't act on a belief in divine proselytizing, he won't affect others. If an atheist doesn't act against such a theist, he won't affect others. My position--agnosticism, it would take a leap of logic or a leap of faith for me to abandon my comfortable fence, so such arguments are more thought experiments than persuaders.

Scientific arguments--sort of hard to tell because bias from both sides inundate the otherwise neutral science with leading conclusions, or intentionally or unintentionally mix science with soft-sociology or hard philosophy (imo). As to this thread, somewhat useful in pointing out these biases. As to specific theistic claims, very useful in testing and concluding that their evidence sucks. My position--science is useful in assigning values via likelihoods of truth/falsity from the evidence, but not so useful in reaching any conclusions that we can point to whenever any new religious or religion-based claim comes up. It's a scalpel, whereas philosophy is a chainsaw.

Social arguments--by far the most important imo. I could care less what another person believes as long as they don't try to affect me via their beliefs. In this context a lousy religion is as bad as a lousy areligious moral system; a good religion is as worthy as a good areligious moral system. The point for me of arguing the above, aside from a completely sober analysis, is to lessen the effects of theist dogma, or any other dogma that comes from flawed beliefs or values. My position--I'm a social liberal, my main concerns with religion have to do with their stances against abortion/drugs/freedoms, against some scientific-social progress, and as a tool to use to besmirch anyone not of their religions. In this context I also have a problem with other fascists who may not be religious at all.

I guess a last context or tactic would be egoistic practicality or "realpolitik"--I could abuse all of the above with the goal of winning more to my personal system, even if my system is bad philosophy, bad science, or bad for society. I do try to be objective though.

Confusion comes when all of the above are mixed willy-nilly, and we're left trying to dissect the intent, the value, or the consistency of various arguments.

[Skeptic Ginger]

When claims of a double standard is made, it is very much to the point to ask for evidence of this double standard.
It has been presented ad nauseum. You and many others use a double standard when addressing the possibility of gods. You discuss homeopathy, for example, as if it has been disproved while claiming gods cannot be disproved.

You change the definition of gods until you have one that cannot be falsified despite the fact this definition as Linda so wisely pointed out is no longer describing the essence of gods. You claim there is no 'essence' to the definition of god. Yet you would unlikely apply that process of altering a definition to anything else but certainly not to everything else.

A clear double standard in both cases.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can hardly be blamed for what I haven't said in discussions I haven't participated in.

It certainly isn't evidence of double standard on my behalf.You repeatedly define a god that cannot be tested for. You fail to acknowledge that such a definition no longer contains the essence of the definition of a god.

If the god doesn't interact with the Universe, we should have no knowledge of the presence of such a god. One of the essential components of god beliefs is that the believer is aware of said god. These two facts are split in your discussion of potential gods. On one side of the cognitive dissonance the god is described as not interacting with the Universe. But this is never connected to the other side of the cognitive dissonance, belief in such a god requires interacting with a human being thus the god by definition is interacting with the Universe.

I have read many things you have posted and I don't recall you consistently applying anything like this twisting of the definition of any subject except that of 'gods' to reach a potentially unfalsifiable position on the subject at hand.

I realize you believe you do not apply a double standard to the potential to test for gods. There is no need for you to repeat your position that it is legitimate to define a god in any way imaginable. I simply disagree with that position.

I have said to you repeatedly such an argument is mere semantics. We both agree there is a scientific principle one cannot prove the absence of something in the Universe because there is always the potential for new discoveries in the future and because proving such a negative requires testing a potentially infinite set of possibilities. This is an argument for a scientific principle, not an argument for the potential for gods to exist.

It would not be an issue if the principle of agnosticism were applied equally to any and everything one could possibly imagine ,yet for which there was no evidence and only a nonsensical potential one would, in the future, find such a thing. If that were the case then the Harry Potter poll should have more closely matched the god poll. But it didn't and that is the double standard I am talking about.


Harry Potter is known fiction. But so are gods. Has there ever been any evidence a single god belief was not fiction? No. Are there thousands of god beliefs that are known fiction? Yes. On many other topics such as homeopathy, the four humours, or Harry Potter, you do not find widespread equivocation nor a defense of the need for equivocation. That is a double standard.

Paying lip service to the scientific principle of not proving the negative is a semantics argument when applied to Harry Potter. Yet the same principle is applied to the potential for gods as if it were more than a semantics argument. People even go to great lengths to change the essence of the definition of gods in order to raise the argument beyond semantics of the scientific process to a level of actually defending the position there might be gods. The same people which have no hesitation stating with relative certainty, Harry Potter is a fictional character, can't see the same level of certainly is possible regarding the fictional nature of gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The question is, can we exclude the possibility that any god is real?

...You are correct but it is an argument merely in the semantics of describing a scientific principle (which, BTW, I do believe we all agree on pretty much).

Can you exclude the possibility that any homeopathic concoction would demonstrate the quality of "memory" in water?

Do we state this caveat every time we discuss homeopathy? If someone says homeopathy is bunk and water does not have a molecular memory do some skeptics get ruffled feathers and point out such a conclusion is inconsistent with the scientific principle, we cannot test every homeopathic concoction as you could always make a new one?

[Skeptic Ginger]

My apologies in advance. I have little time to post these days, particularly outside of the weekends, so I doubt I'll be able to respond in much depth. OTOH, I've discussed this with SG in the past in some detail, so perhaps that isn't necessary....Just to summarize my position in this debate which Beth and I have had, my position is that the evidence and the conclusion are two different things. The experience leading to god beliefs is only evidence of an experience, assuming you've established that the experience occurred. The conclusion that such an experience originates from a real god is not evidence that conclusion is correct.

I was surprised to find a number of skeptics arguing the concept of 'conclusion' and the concept of 'evidence' were either one in the same, or connected in the definition of the word, 'evidence'.

My brain does not categorize 'evidence' and 'conclusion' in this way. My brain processes the word 'evidence' as a thing which is the actual thing in the Universe. By that concept, it represents the actual reality. The conclusion we draw from our perception of that evidence may or may not be correct. We try to get as close to correct as we can via the scientific process. But one cannot simply declare a conclusion and state that therefore there is evidence for something. There is evidence, yes. But what that evidence is evidence of, is subject to validation.

One can easily give examples demonstrating this principle. A schizophrenic who hears voices may conclude he/she is hearing a person outside the schizophrenic's head. That is not evidence someone is indeed talking. It is evidence the schizophrenic is hearing voices (assuming that can be verified). But the conclusion the voices are real and outside the person's head is not evidence there are people talking.

An optical illusion may make a color appear unequal in the shadow and out of the shadow in two squares on a checkerboard. That is not evidence the two squares are different colors. It is evidence the two colors are interpreted differently by the brain which adds a calculation based on other cues in the image. The conclusion is not evidence. The evidence exists before the conclusion and remains unchanged after the conclusion. This demonstrates the evidence and the conclusion are two different things.


;) You can see Beth and I went into this discussion to quite some extent.

[Beth]

All the testimonials in the world will not make your computer work.

Linda

Er, yes. And all the computer's in the world working don't provide physical evidence of Shakespeare, Africa or black holes. So?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I guess there are three main contexts, and I only find one really important...

Philosophy arguments--somewhat important for neophytes but also somewhat useless for veterans of lengthy debates. Each position requires more than mere and general belief to affect others, they're fairly neutral by themselves. If a theist doesn't act on a belief in divine proselytizing, he won't affect others. If an atheist doesn't act against such a theist, he won't affect others. My position--agnosticism, it would take a leap of logic or a leap of faith for me to abandon my comfortable fence, so such arguments are more thought experiments than persuaders. So the harm from irrational thought or the benefit from rational thought, the main reason behind JREF if I may over simplify it, does not apply to god beliefs? Not enough anyway, for you to take a stand?

...Scientific arguments--sort of hard to tell because bias from both sides inundate the otherwise neutral science with leading conclusions, or intentionally or unintentionally mix science with soft-sociology or hard philosophy (imo). As to this thread, somewhat useful in pointing out these biases. As to specific theistic claims, very useful in testing and concluding that their evidence sucks. My position--science is useful in assigning values via likelihoods of truth/falsity from the evidence, but not so useful in reaching any conclusions that we can point to whenever any new religious or religion-based claim comes up. It's a scalpel, whereas philosophy is a chainsaw.All the god beliefs commonly referred to as "myths" and the fact no god beliefs have ever been found to be true provides you no evidence to conclude all god beliefs are more than likely myths? You really think the evidence is equivocal?

...Social arguments--by far the most important imo. I could care less what another person believes as long as they don't try to affect me via their beliefs. In this context a lousy religion is as bad as a lousy areligious moral system; a good religion is as worthy as a good areligious moral system. The point for me of arguing the above, aside from a completely sober analysis, is to lessen the effects of theist dogma, or any other dogma that comes from flawed beliefs or values. My position--I'm a social liberal, my main concerns with religion have to do with their stances against abortion/drugs/freedoms, against some scientific-social progress, and as a tool to use to besmirch anyone not of their religions. In this context I also have a problem with other fascists who may not be religious at all. ...There are social benefits and harms from some religious beliefs as there are without such beliefs. My issue is with addressing rational thinking. It is hard to promote rational thinking while exempting the most pervasive irrational thinking in humankind.

[Beth]

A nice summation SG. Thanks.

Just to summarize my position in this debate which Beth and I have had, my position is that the evidence and the conclusion are two different things. The experience leading to god beliefs is only evidence of an experience, assuming you've established that the experience occurred. The conclusion that such an experience originates from a real god is not evidence that conclusion is correct.

I was surprised to find a number of skeptics arguing the concept of 'conclusion' and the concept of 'evidence' were either one in the same, or connected in the definition of the word, 'evidence'.

Yes, I (and some others) feel that because humans beings are utterly tied to their sensory perceptions, the perception of evidence and the conclusions we draw from our perceptions cannot be distinguished from the claimed "separate reality" of the evidence itself.

Interestingly, I have have since read of some recent quantum physic experiments conducted which demonstrate quite conclusively that the very basic building blocks of our material world, specifically photons, do not possess definite properties prior to actually making an observation of them. I think this supports my conclusion that evidence has no "separate reality" from the perception of evidence. :D


;) You can see Beth and I went into this discussion to quite some extent.
So we did. It was fun, but I'm afraid I shan't be able to get into it in such depth again. :)

[Beth]

So the harm from irrational thought or the benefit from rational thought, the main reason behind JREF if I may over simplify it, does not apply to god beliefs?


I don't think that irrational thinking is necessarily harmful. In fact, it appears that it may well be necessary to our social or emotional well-being. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015110228.htm

God beliefs don't seem inherently harmful to me. Some are, certainly, but I think we humans would be better served by identifing what makes some irrational beliefs harmful and trying to eliminate those specifically rather than assuming that irrational thinking is harmful in and of itself and trying to eliminate/reduce it without paying attention to when it is harmful and when it is not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find it like ignoring the elephant in the room. Discard that magical thinking but don't worry about magical god beliefs.

I don't think that link applies to the idea of teaching critical thinking. We need to study why we don't think critically, but with the goal of changing that fact. So results showing how people fail to think critically doesn't make the case for it being some deep seated human need. Rather, it makes the case for it being an evolutionary outcome that might be better if it were recognized and overcome.

From the article:Previous studies have shown that our response to a problem depends on how the problem is posed – the so called "framing effect". A surgeon who tells a patient that there is an 80% chance of surviving an operation is more likely to gain consent than one who tells the patient there is a 20% chance of dying, even though statistically these mean the same thing.Yes but that provides the surgeon with the knowledge to either influence or not influence the patient's decision. The patient, OTOH, would be better off recognizing how the framing was affecting his perception of the decision.

[Beth]

I find it like ignoring the elephant in the room. Discard that magical thinking but don't worry about magical god beliefs.

I don't think that link applies to the idea of teaching critical thinking. No, it applies to rational thinking, which is what you were talking about earlier. Rational versus irrational thinking is not the same as critical versus uncritical thinking. Critical thinking may include irrational components because it includes making subjective value judgments. Value judgments are not necessarily rational.

We need to study why we don't think critically, but with the goal of changing that fact. So results showing how people fail to think critically doesn't make the case for it being some deep seated human need. I agree with your first sentence here, but the second doesn't apply to the article I linked to. Their results were about rational thinking not critical thinking. I think they show that irrational thinking has some value to it too and both are needed, as they put it, "in living rich and full lives."

[Dragoonster]

So the harm from irrational thought or the benefit from rational thought, the main reason behind JREF if I may over simplify it, does not apply to god beliefs? Not enough anyway, for you to take a stand?

A philosophical stand, that isn't logical or that I don't believe is true? No. I think strong atheism and strong theism are irrational, and agnosticism is rational, so go with the rational. I could care less about whether that's perceived as weak for not "taking a stand". Or what that leads to. It is what it is.

btw, there are very few philosophical positions I take a stand on. Sometimes none, depending on whether I'm consciously reverifying them or how pedantic I happen to be that day.

All the god beliefs commonly referred to as "myths" and the fact no god beliefs have ever been found to be true provides you no evidence to conclude all god beliefs are more than likely myths? You really think the evidence is equivocal?

I am allowing for a lot of equivocation; and will try to keep your objections in mind. But I'm very nitpicky on a lot of subjects. Rest assured, if I'm being a weenie on this, I'm also a weenie on global warming, clutch hitting in baseball, and high glucose corn syrup, among others. Guess I'm a militant agnostic/hyper-skeptic.

But I also care much, much more about pointing out (what I think may be) flawed rationality than I do typical irrationality. Rationality is our strength, and it has to be iron-tight if it's going to be the primary method of changing irrational people's minds. If we're going to soil our rationality with bias in order to better argue, we'll be corrupted by dogma much as theists are.

Not that I think you're doing this much, but perhaps a bit.

There are social benefits and harms from some religious beliefs as there are without such beliefs. My issue is with addressing rational thinking. It is hard to promote rational thinking while exempting the most pervasive irrational thinking in humankind.

Sure is, but I don't think I'm doing that. I'm fine with calling extant faiths and beliefs irrational and arguing that no one should live by them. It's just uncomfortable when I perceive science and philosophy as subjectively applied tools for the sake of rhetoric. We may view that the same way, but think the other is the one being subjective or not weighing things properly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A philosophical stand, that isn't logical or that I don't believe is true? No. I think strong atheism and strong theism are irrational, and agnosticism is rational, so go with the rational. I could care less about whether that's perceived as weak for not "taking a stand". Or what that leads to. It is what it is.

btw, there are very few philosophical positions I take a stand on. Sometimes none, depending on whether I'm consciously reverifying them or how pedantic I happen to be that day.That's too bad. Because god beliefs are so obviously magical thinking.

I am allowing for a lot of equivocation; and will try to keep your objections in mind. But I'm very nitpicky on a lot of subjects. Rest assured, if I'm being a weenie on this, I'm also a weenie on global warming, clutch hitting in baseball, and high glucose corn syrup, among others. Guess I'm a militant agnostic/hyper-skeptic.

But I also care much, much more about pointing out (what I think may be) flawed rationality than I do typical irrationality. Rationality is our strength, and it has to be iron-tight if it's going to be the primary method of changing irrational people's minds. If we're going to soil our rationality with bias in order to better argue, we'll be corrupted by dogma much as theists are.

Not that I think you're doing this much, but perhaps a bit.No worries. I am more than confident the evidence is on my side.


Sure is, but I don't think I'm doing that. I'm fine with calling extant faiths and beliefs irrational and arguing that no one should live by them. It's just uncomfortable when I perceive science and philosophy as subjectively applied tools for the sake of rhetoric. We may view that the same way, but think the other is the one being subjective or not weighing things properly.You are dismissing the evidence that god beliefs are beliefs in fictional beings. Think about it. Other than the fact so many people believe in gods, what other evidence is there that god beliefs originate from human interaction with actual gods?

Compare that to the hundreds of god beliefs that have been determined to be confirmed myths.

[CFLarsen]

It isn't, and can never be, semantics to point out one of the most important principles in science: Always look for all possibilities; never think that we have finally reached a level of absolute knowledge.

The concept of conclusion is based on the concept of evidence: We reach a conclusion based on the evidence. Since evidence is never absolutely final, because new evidence always comes along, the conclusions we reach will always be provisional.

It's that simple.

If we don't open up for the possibility when we discuss e.g. homeopathy, then why even bother to argue that it doesn't work? Why even bother investigate new claims? We already know neither homeopathy, dowsing, healing, astrology etc don't work.

Because someone, somewhere, could have discovered something new. Heck, scientists do this all the time.

If someone came along with a new homeopathic remedy, should it be tested, yes or no?

A plain, simple question.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If someone came along with a new homeopathic remedy, should it be tested, yes or no?

A plain, simple question.

Yes, but only after all the other possible treatments with a greater estimated likelihood of being effective have been tested, which in practice turns the 'Yes' into a 'No'.

[CFLarsen]

It isn't a question of testing if a disease can be cured, but if a specific remedy works.

Should such a homeopathic remedy be tested, yes or no?

[fls]

If that's a component of the different-gods argument, I'd agree. The same allowance should be given to both Potterism and Theism, or not given to either. Personally I think it shouldn't apply to either, as very few humans believe in exactly the same myth, and each one should be evaluated separately (in practice, each sub-belief is).

This idea has been raised several times now, and I think I need an example in order to understand it. You and Piscivore are saying that the specifics are relevant - god myths can have a set of specific characteristics (either known or unknown) that would make them both useful and not false. As far as I can see, while the specific characteristics of god myths vary, they do not vary in a way that would allow them to be both useful and not false. I haven't had any comment on my prior statement that gods are supernatural agents from which approval is sought. If this is acceptable, it suggests to me that you and Piscivore are thinking of characteristics which would allow something to be considered supernatural (after all, there are lots of ways something could be supernatural - eternal, changeless, immaterial, etc.) in a way that was also useful and not false. Can you give me an example of one or more of these characteristics?

Good point, but perhaps the quality of the the approach is tainted by the lack of quantity. I don't know of any people who still believe ether or the humours are still a reasonable or correct explanation, so arguments involving them tend to use them as examples rather than actual current beliefs. Objectively they still could (very slim chance) be valid, but it's not necessary to dwell on that if no one believes they are.

I think that's the reason. I think that it has very little to do with the actual argument and very much to do with whether the circumstances are such that you might offend some non-insignificant amount or kind of people.

(not quite sure what message you mean?)

Something like, "given that you don't believe in gods, how would you convey your thoughts on worldviews containing gods?"

I guess there are three main contexts, and I only find one really important...

Philosophy arguments--somewhat important for neophytes but also somewhat useless for veterans of lengthy debates. Each position requires more than mere and general belief to affect others, they're fairly neutral by themselves. If a theist doesn't act on a belief in divine proselytizing, he won't affect others. If an atheist doesn't act against such a theist, he won't affect others. My position--agnosticism, it would take a leap of logic or a leap of faith for me to abandon my comfortable fence, so such arguments are more thought experiments than persuaders.

Scientific arguments--sort of hard to tell because bias from both sides inundate the otherwise neutral science with leading conclusions, or intentionally or unintentionally mix science with soft-sociology or hard philosophy (imo). As to this thread, somewhat useful in pointing out these biases. As to specific theistic claims, very useful in testing and concluding that their evidence sucks. My position--science is useful in assigning values via likelihoods of truth/falsity from the evidence, but not so useful in reaching any conclusions that we can point to whenever any new religious or religion-based claim comes up. It's a scalpel, whereas philosophy is a chainsaw.

Social arguments--by far the most important imo. I could care less what another person believes as long as they don't try to affect me via their beliefs. In this context a lousy religion is as bad as a lousy areligious moral system; a good religion is as worthy as a good areligious moral system. The point for me of arguing the above, aside from a completely sober analysis, is to lessen the effects of theist dogma, or any other dogma that comes from flawed beliefs or values. My position--I'm a social liberal, my main concerns with religion have to do with their stances against abortion/drugs/freedoms, against some scientific-social progress, and as a tool to use to besmirch anyone not of their religions. In this context I also have a problem with other fascists who may not be religious at all.

I think that's a good summary of the form these discussions take. And I agree that the value generally comes from social considerations, since as far as I can tell, there isn't really any disagreement on the philosophical and scientific fronts (despite the strenuous attempts of some to convince us otherwise).

Confusion comes when all of the above are mixed willy-nilly, and we're left trying to dissect the intent, the value, or the consistency of various arguments.

I agree.

My main complaint is that by attempting to take a social distinction and turn it instead into a scientific or philosophical distinction, people are forced into spouting nonsense. Claus, you and Piscivore must attribute characteristics to atheism (certainty, "we can never be wrong", it necessarily refers to the unknown rather than just the known, etc.) that are unnecessary in order to distinguish viewpoints that seem otherwise to be pretty much the same as yours. Beth is forced into pretending that she sincerely believes that her computer only works because others told her it will and that her husband and daughter do not exist except as consequences of her desire to observe them. Others pretend that calling gods the Creator of the Big Bang or Love or the Manipulator of Good and Evil is in any way useful. If we simply recognized a social argument as a social argument, we wouldn't have to come up with these artificial and contrived methods for arguing amongst ourselves.

Linda

[fls]

Er, yes. And all the computer's in the world working don't provide physical evidence of Shakespeare, Africa or black holes. So?

You implied that our knowledge is based on testimonial, so that there was no way to judge the value of an idea or the state of our knowledge except through those methods by which we judge testimonials - placing everything on a level playing field. But we do have a way of independently evaluating our knowledge that is not based on testimonial. We test things in a way that would not work if the idea was false. The reason that we know our ideas about the natural world have value (that there is a place called Africa or black holes exist) independent of any testimonials to that effect, is because computers wouldn't work unless the scientific method worked. This contradicts your supposition that evidence is report-based, since you would be unable to achieve the same results if that's all there was to it.

Linda

[fls]

Yes, I (and some others) feel that because humans beings are utterly tied to their sensory perceptions, the perception of evidence and the conclusions we draw from our perceptions cannot be distinguished from the claimed "separate reality" of the evidence itself.

Considering that two eye witnesses will not agree on the specific details of the appearance of a single perpetrator, the idea that the exquisite agreement of measurements on the order of ten parts in a billion with the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics can occur solely on the basis of consensus demonstrates the utter meaninglessness of this line of reasoning.

Interestingly, I have have since read of some recent quantum physic experiments conducted which demonstrate quite conclusively that the very basic building blocks of our material world, specifically photons, do not possess definite properties prior to actually making an observation of them. I think this supports my conclusion that evidence has no "separate reality" from the perception of evidence. :D

The relevant point is that there are definite properties associated with matter, regardless of when those properties can be determined.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

I haven't said we can never be wrong. I have argued the exact opposite.

[Beth]

Beth is forced into pretending that she sincerely believes that her computer only works because others told her it will and that her husband and daughter do not exist except as consequences of her desire to observe them. No, not at all what I was trying to communicate. I must apologize. Clearly I have expressed myself quite badly if that what you inferred from my previous comments.
You implied that our knowledge is based on testimonial Much of it, yes. But not all of it. Do you disagree?
so that there was no way to judge the value of an idea or the state of our knowledge except through those methods by which we judge testimonials - placing everything on a level playing field. No, that is not the conclusion I was trying to communicate. My point is that because so very much of our knowledge is based on the testimony of others it is not unreasonable that humans beings accept testimonial evidence as being legimate evidence. That doesn't mean that everything is on a level playing field or that we can't judge the reliability of different testimonials differently based on various criteria. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't unreasonable for others to assess the tilt of the playing field differently than you do because of the nature of testimonial evidence and the fact that we all judge it's reliability a bit differently.

But we do have a way of independently evaluating our knowledge that is not based on testimonial. We test things in a way that would not work if the idea was false. Certainly we can. But no one person can test everything. We must, to a very large extent in modern society, rely on what others have done and their reports of the results. That's testimonial evidence and that's my point. For example, scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals are a form of testimonal evidence. When you accept their results, you are trusting that the people who wrote and those who reviewed the papers are being honest and accurate in reporting their experiences and that their assessments of the results are reliable. The probability is high that they are, but as history shows, it is not 100% certain.

The reason that we know our ideas about the natural world have value (that there is a place called Africa or black holes exist) independent of any testimonials to that effect, is because computers wouldn't work unless the scientific method worked. This contradicts your supposition that evidence is report-based, since you would be unable to achieve the same results if that's all there was to it. Er no. That computers work may, to you, be evidence that Africa exists, but I suspect that computers would work if Africa did not exist. I also believe that Africa exists and that so did Shakespeare. I simply recognize that the evidence I have that my computer works and that the scientific method works is of of an entirely different sort. I have direct personal experience with both my computer and the scientific method. On the other hand, the evidence I have that Africa exists or that Shakespeare once lived is of the indirect testimonial sort. It is not unreasonable for me to accept such evidence as legimate. Neither is it unreasonable for people to accept that god exists based on the testimonial and historical evidence of others. It's also not unreasonable to reject that evidence as unreliable, so I don't have any problem with those who choose atheism. I simply feel it's an area where certainty cannot be obtained. Depending on the weight one chooses to place on the various testimonial evidence available, one can accept either conclusion. Or not. What I don't buy is that the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is atheism.

Considering that two eye witnesses will not agree on the specific details of the appearance of a single perpetrator, the idea that the exquisite agreement of measurements on the order of ten parts in a billion with the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics can occur solely on the basis of consensus demonstrates the utter meaninglessness of this line of reasoning. I have never run a Quantum electrodynamics experiment myself. I have not built and calibrated the equipment that is required to get such accurate measurement results myself. I must rely on the testimony of others who have done so as I have neither the means nor the ability to test such things for myself. I believe them when they claim their measurements give them such accuracy. I see no reason to assume they are conspiring to decieve me. The corroboration of different independent groups to the same conclusion bolsters that opinion.

Likewise, I see no reason to believe that the multitudes of people who have witnessed for their god are conspiring to deceive the rest of us. And the corroboration of different independent groups to the same conclusions can bolster than opinion. They may be mistaken, but it neither irrational nor unreasonable for people to choose to believe what they testify to is true. At least, I don't find it any more irrational nor unreasonable than it is for people to choose to believe in Africa, Shakespeare, or black holes. When a person lacks direct personal experience, they much choose what to believe based on what others testify they have experienced. There are many ways to assess the reliability of other's testimony, but in the end we must each decide for ourselves who we trust to be accurate and honest in their testimony and reliable in their conclusions; whether it be clergymen or scientists, both or neither. In addition, many people who believe in god feel they have direct personal experience of the existance of god. In that case, their belief is more akin to my belief that my computer works than my belief in Africa.


The relevant point is that there are definite properties associated with matter, regardless of when those properties can be determined.

Linda Er, no. The relevant point is that there are NOT definite properties associated with the fundamental building blocks of matter beforel those properties are observed.

[fls]

I haven't said we can never be wrong. I have argued the exact opposite.

You have suggested that others have said that, though.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

Whatever others have said has naught to do with what I have said.

[fls]

No, not at all what I was trying to communicate. I must apologize. Clearly I have expressed myself quite badly if that what you inferred from my previous comments.
Much of it, yes. But not all of it. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I think very little of it is based on testimonial. The vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false.

No, that is not the conclusion I was trying to communicate. My point is that because so very much of our knowledge is based on the testimony of others it is not unreasonable that humans beings accept testimonial evidence as being legimate evidence.

I agree that much of our awareness of knowledge is based on the testimony of others, which is why people tend to accept testimonial evidence as legitimate. But what is obscured in all this is that the legitimacy does not come about because of that testimony.

That doesn't mean that everything is on a level playing field or that we can't judge the reliability of different testimonials differently based on various criteria. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't unreasonable for others to assess the tilt of the playing field differently than you do because of the nature of testimonial evidence and the fact that we all judge it's reliability a bit differently.

Certainly we can. But no one person can test everything. We must, to a very large extent in modern society, rely on what others have done and their reports of the results. That's testimonial evidence and that's my point. For example, scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals are a form of testimonal evidence. When you accept their results, you are trusting that the people who wrote and those who reviewed the papers are being honest and accurate in reporting their experiences and that their assessments of the results are reliable. The probability is high that they are, but as history shows, it is not 100% certain.

But the reports in journals are not evidence of their legitimacy. They are found to be legitimate because we can use that knowledge to do things that wouldn't work if they were not legitimate - build an increasingly detailed body of knowledge, make technology that performs as expected, influence outcomes that could not be obtained if they were solely the result of sensory perceptions, etc. We know it's not 100% certain because not all of it works. If it were mostly a matter of testimony that can be weighed and considered to be reliable or not, we wouldn't be able to discover this.

Er no. That computers work may, to you, be evidence that Africa exists, but I suspect that computers would work if Africa did not exist.

You have misunderstood the comparison. We are able to discover whether Africa exists without any dependence upon the reliability of testimonials, just like we are able to discover the properties of electromagnetic radiation without any dependence upon the reliability of testimonials.

I also believe that Africa exists and that so did Shakespeare. I simply recognize that the evidence I have that my computer works and that the scientific method works is of of an entirely different sort. I have direct personal experience with both my computer and the scientific method. On the other hand, the evidence I have that Africa exists or that Shakespeare once lived is of the indirect testimonial sort. It is not unreasonable for me to accept such evidence as legimate.
Neither is it unreasonable for people to accept that god exists based on the testimonial and historical evidence of others. It's also not unreasonable to reject that evidence as unreliable, so I don't have any problem with those who choose atheism. I simply feel it's an area where certainty cannot be obtained. Depending on the weight one chooses to place on the various testimonial evidence available, one can accept either conclusion. Or not. What I don't buy is that the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is atheism.

And that is a good description of why depending upon the reliability of testimonial evidence, and focusing on the weighing of that testimony, serves us poorly as a way to build knowledge.

I have never run a Quantum electrodynamics experiment myself. I have not built and calibrated the equipment that is required to get such accurate measurement results myself. I must rely on the testimony of others who have done so as I have neither the means nor the ability to test such things for myself. I believe them when they claim their measurements give them such accuracy. I see no reason to assume they are conspiring to decieve me. The corroboration of different independent groups to the same conclusion bolsters that opinion.

And all of that has almost nothing to do with our body of knowledge about light, or why we consider QED a useful theory. As I said earlier, all the testimonials in the world, considered by all to be reliable, wouldn't be able to make your computer work unless QED was legitimate.

Likewise, I see no reason to believe that the multitudes of people who have witnessed for their god are conspiring to deceive the rest of us. And the corroboration of different independent groups to the same conclusions can bolster than opinion. They may be mistaken, but it neither irrational nor unreasonable for people to choose to believe what they testify to is true. At least, I don't find it any more irrational nor unreasonable than it is for people to choose to believe in Africa, Shakespeare, or black holes.

The big difference is that none of that depends on gods existing. There isn't anything that wouldn't work if god myths were false.

When a person lacks direct personal experience, they much choose what to believe based on what others testify they have experienced. There are many ways to assess the reliability of other's testimony, but in the end we must each decide for ourselves who we trust to be accurate and honest in their testimony and reliable in their conclusions; whether it be clergymen or scientists, both or neither. In addition, many people who believe in god feel they have direct personal experience of the existance of god. In that case, their belief is more akin to my belief that my computer works than my belief in Africa.

I think you have captured quite nicely the disconnect between what people believe and what things are likely to be true. If one dismisses the source for the vast majority of our knowledge, it leaves the appearance that weighing personal experience and testimony can lead us to legitimate conclusions - something that most people are comfortable accepting.

Er, no. The relevant point is that there are NOT definite properties associated with the fundamental building blocks of matter beforel those properties are observed.

Let me try this again.

We understand the properties of matter in increasingly exquisite detail regardless of whether or not those properties can be said to be present before it becomes necessary to know* what they are.

Linda

*By "know" I really just mean any sort of interaction that depends upon a specific property. There is no need for consciousness.

[fls]

Whatever others have said has naught to do with what I have said.

So you admit that your claim that others have said "we can never be wrong about this" has nothing to do with whether or not others have actually said this?

I find this admission surprising, but thank you for confirming what I said.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

If people want to criticize what I have said, it would be nice if they would point out where I said it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

It isn't a question of testing if a disease can be cured, but if a specific remedy works.

Yes, I realise that. My point was we have sufficient evidence to conclude with high confidence that any remedy produced following homoeopathic principles is going to be no better than a placebo administered under similar conditions. The tiny amount of uncertainty left is swamped by that for the effectiveness of countless other non-homoeopathic treatments, thus the rational choice of which treatment to test never in practice would come to anything based on homoeopathy.

Should such a homeopathic remedy be tested, yes or no?

No.

[CFLarsen]

Should JREF stop testing homeopathic claims? Which other supernatural/paranormal claims should JREF also stop testing?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Should JREF stop testing homeopathic claims?

For all the good it does, yes.

Which other supernatural/paranormal claims should JREF also stop testing?

Any that have failed repeatedly (pick a number) and have no new (extraordinary) evidence to make reconsidering them worthwhile.

[CFLarsen]

The solution is to shut down JREF, then. There's nothing to test, there's nothing to discuss.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrright.

[stilicho]

OK, so be honest. I'd like to compare this poll to the one in the thread Gentlehorse started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496) asking he same question about god beliefs.

"I lack a belief in Rowling's Harry Potter" vs "there is no Rowling's Harry Potter"

I wanted to separate out the semantics argument from the actual rational in coming to one's conclusions here. The point is do you treat god beliefs equally with other known fictions or do you apply the principle of scientific uncertainty differently?

Instead, you ought to pose the question thusly (only in terms of theories of existence):

"I lack a belief in skeptigirl" vs "there is no skeptigirl".

Both of those statements are strongly supported by the evidence. Unfortunately that's not what you expected because your equivalence with the other poll is a false dichotomy. You are playing a rudimentary game in which you seek to confuse the existence of a fiction with questions of faith.

That is, presuming "skeptigirl" exists. If I post something and "skeptigirl" doesn't answer, then haven't I proved you don't exist in any form whatsoever? (And, as with the Ark of the Covenant and burning bushes and so forth, it appears that "skeptigirl" only speaks through posts on JREF. How mystical!)

[fls]

If people want to criticize what I have said, it would be nice if they would point out where I said it.

Ah, now I understand why you answered my question using Private Messaging.

When you said, "We could be wrong. Even about gods. To say otherwise is the epitome of dogmatic thinking."

And I said, "nobody, including Skeptigirl, said otherwise."

I can't quote your alleged response of "Yes, she did:" without revealing the contents of a Private Message and violating forum etiquette, leaving you free to deny you said any such thing.

I don't think I expected that from you.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

Whatever others have said has naught to do with what I have said.

[Darth Rotor]

who worships a god that doesn't meddle? Who would do that?
Conan the Barbarian, in his worship of Crom.
There wouldn't be any point.
Tell Conan.
If the god you think might exist doesn't muck around and possibly change your life, there's no reason to worship that god, because worship won't change a thing.
No reason for you, but not everyone approaches a deity in that way you insist on approaching one.
If a god isn't being worshiped, how is it a god? How is it distinguishable as a concept?
I see. From what you have written here, your criterion for a god is solely "that it is worshipped."

Is that it? Is that all you can come up with?
If you can't define a concept, it's useless.
Your above definition is rather useless, by way of laziness.

Your appeal to dictionary at least offers us a bit more meat.
Please don't tell me your dictionary is better than mine.
Mine's bigger than yours. :p

DR

[Dragoonster]

This idea has been raised several times now, and I think I need an example in order to understand it. You and Piscivore are saying that the specifics are relevant - god myths can have a set of specific characteristics (either known or unknown) that would make them both useful and not false. As far as I can see, while the specific characteristics of god myths vary, they do not vary in a way that would allow them to be both useful and not false. I haven't had any comment on my prior statement that gods are supernatural agents from which approval is sought. If this is acceptable, it suggests to me that you and Piscivore are thinking of characteristics which would allow something to be considered supernatural (after all, there are lots of ways something could be supernatural - eternal, changeless, immaterial, etc.) in a way that was also useful and not false. Can you give me an example of one or more of these characteristics?

The point I was trying to make is that god-beliefs aren't Universal (instead each adherent interprets uniquely), and applying all previous failures to new ones is supported by evidence (in the broad, general sense), but not supported enough to reach a certain conclusion of any unprecedented claim previous to testing. The bias against past failure should affect what science chooses to test, but not conclusions prior to the test. I've been assuming this thread isn't merely about past failures though.

If a scientist views religious claims as analogous to say, geocentrism, it would take quite a hefty claim (superficially viewed prior to testing) to warrant a test. That's fine. All I'm saying is that we don't dismiss all claims upfront, and/or if we do, allow that one we dismissed may have actually been valid. Can't invalidate without testing, at least scientifically.

Scientists have to choose what to test. If they choose (or don't choose) Potter, homeopathy, and theism tests equally from whatever calculus or influence they use (assuming each has the same history of failure), then they aren't showing preference. And neither are we. It seems like we're all on agreement on this, but some posts keep making me wonder if we aren't.

I don't have any examples because the supernatural component has never passed a test. Doesn't mean it never will.

My main complaint is that by attempting to take a social distinction and turn it instead into a scientific or philosophical distinction, people are forced into spouting nonsense. Claus, you and Piscivore must attribute characteristics to atheism (certainty, "we can never be wrong", it necessarily refers to the unknown rather than just the known, etc.) that are unnecessary in order to distinguish viewpoints that seem otherwise to be pretty much the same as yours.

The scientific/philosophical part should be fairly simple. But it ends up not being simple, and in these cases the "pretty much" can be an important difference. Also, some characteristics for some arguments/beliefs are innate, not attributed, imo.

I take the most popular answer in the poll to mean philosophic or scientific certainty, not social certainty. And what I think are obvious scientific principles that any atheist/theist/agnostic should support are being labelled "semantics" and dismissed as useless for the sake of practicality. So, I'm searching for why these things occur, where the bias is, what I've missed or am ignorant about, and what the proper approach should be.

Beth is forced into pretending that she sincerely believes that her computer only works because others told her it will and that her husband and daughter do not exist except as consequences of her desire to observe them. Others pretend that calling gods the Creator of the Big Bang or Love or the Manipulator of Good and Evil is in any way useful. If we simply recognized a social argument as a social argument, we wouldn't have to come up with these artificial and contrived methods for arguing amongst ourselves.

Perhaps you assume they're contrived because you disagree with them? Beth's experientialism or solipsism could be what her reasoning has led her to truly believe is the only sure method of finding truth. Or she may value different types of truth differently than you. Or yeah, she may be missing a flaw in her reasoning. Strong atheists, though I find their beliefs or knowledge irrational, may not merely be pretending that they're certain god(s) don't exist. Neither may theists, who I also think are irrational.

Quirky beliefs may honestly and legitimately arise from a reasoning process that the believer thinks is valid. Not all cases are where a reasoning process arises from the quirky belief. And not all disagreements are contrived. <---referring to the context of this discussion.

ETA: btw, I have thought about this differently via your responses...in case it seems I'm just stomping through things without considering it. Skeptigirl's main point is certainly valid for many people, my disagreements are more with the periphery, context, or other smaller, more pedantic things. And a defense of my hopefully equal treatment of Potter vs. God-beliefs.

[Beth]

Much of it, yes. But not all of it. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I think very little of it is based on testimonial. The vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false. And how do you know that this is a true statement? Your claim that “vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false” is itself a claim that can only be based on the testimony of others because no single human can verify it for him or herself. So even your disagreement is, to me, supportive of my belief that most of our knowledge is based on the testimony of others. I will admit that, in truth though, I can only speak for myself.

The vast majority of my knowledge is based on the testimony of others. I’m a fairly intelligent and well educated individual. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that most humans in modern society are relying on the testimony of others rather than having traveled to all continents of the world to verify through personal experience that they all exist or that they have studied the computations and made the observations for themselves that result in a conclusion that black holes exist. Nor is it unreasonable to conclude that none of them have met Shakespeare for themselves. It is only through the testimony of other that I conclude that Africa, Shakespeare and black holes actually exist.

Tell me, are you claiming that you have verified the existance of black holes for yourself, or do you beleive they exist because of the testimony of others that have done the observations and computations?

Certainly we can. But no one person can test everything. We must, to a very large extent in modern society, rely on what others have done and their reports of the results. That's testimonial evidence and that's my point. For example, scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals are a form of testimonal evidence. When you accept their results, you are trusting that the people who wrote and those who reviewed the papers are being honest and accurate in reporting their experiences and that their assessments of the results are reliable. The probability is high that they are, but as history shows, it is not 100% certain.

But the reports in journals are not evidence of their legitimacy. They are found to be legitimate because we can use that knowledge to do things that wouldn't work if they were not legitimate - build an increasingly detailed body of knowledge, make technology that performs as expected, influence outcomes that could not be obtained if they were solely the result of sensory perceptions, etc. And how do we learn that? Again, we must rely on the testimony of others for that knowledge.

We are able to discover whether Africa exists without any dependence upon the reliability of testimonials, just like we are able to discover the properties of electromagnetic radiation without any dependence upon the reliability of testimonials. Certainly it’s possible to verify such things independently. My point is that few people actually do. Most of us rely on the testimony of others rather than sailing to Africa to verify for ourselves or conducting our own experiments to determine the properties of electromagnetic radiation have been accurate described in textbooks. Instead, we rely on the testimony of others who have done so. Further, more and more scientific knowledge can only be verified with extensive work and expensive equipment. A great deal of it cannot be verified through the personal experience of a single individual and thus, we must rely on the testimony of others.

I also believe that Africa exists and that so did Shakespeare. I simply recognize that the evidence I have that my computer works and that the scientific method works is of of an entirely different sort. I have direct personal experience with both my computer and the scientific method. On the other hand, the evidence I have that Africa exists or that Shakespeare once lived is of the indirect testimonial sort. It is not unreasonable for me to accept such evidence as legimate.
Neither is it unreasonable for people to accept that god exists based on the testimonial and historical evidence of others. It's also not unreasonable to reject that evidence as unreliable, so I don't have any problem with those who choose atheism. I simply feel it's an area where certainty cannot be obtained. Depending on the weight one chooses to place on the various testimonial evidence available, one can accept either conclusion. Or not. What I don't buy is that the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is atheism.

And that is a good description of why depending upon the reliability of testimonial evidence, and focusing on the weighing of that testimony, serves us poorly as a way to build knowledge. I’m sorry, but IMO if you are not willing to rely on testimonial evidence, you have very little hope of building further knowledge in our society.

I have never run a Quantum electrodynamics experiment myself. I have not built and calibrated the equipment that is required to get such accurate measurement results myself. I must rely on the testimony of others who have done so as I have neither the means nor the ability to test such things for myself. I believe them when they claim their measurements give them such accuracy. I see no reason to assume they are conspiring to decieve me. The corroboration of different independent groups to the same conclusion bolsters that opinion.

And all of that has almost nothing to do with our body of knowledge about light, or why we consider QED a useful theory. As I said earlier, all the testimonials in the world, considered by all to be reliable, wouldn't be able to make your computer work unless QED was legitimate. I’m not disputing that point. I’m saying that your claim that my computer only works if QED is legitimate is a form of testimonial knowledge to me. I cannot verify it for myself. I do not understand enough about either QED or computers to know that it is true. Nor do I have the time and inclination to do so. Further, I sincerely doubt that you have verified it for yourself as you work in the medical field, not physics or computer science.

Linda, I'm sorry, but I'm out of time to work on this response, so I'll stop here. It's probably too long as it is anyway. If I've cut anything you consider crucial, please repost and I'll try to get to it sometime later. Thanks for the enjoyable conversation this week-end.

B

[fls]

The point I was trying to make is that god-beliefs aren't Universal (instead each adherent interprets uniquely), and applying all previous failures to new ones is supported by evidence (in the broad, general sense), but not supported enough to reach a certain conclusion of any unprecedented claim previous to testing. The bias against past failure should affect what science chooses to test, but not conclusions prior to the test. I've been assuming this thread isn't merely about past failures though.

Ah, the solution is obvious then. One merely needs to make the God of Abraham a 'she' instead of a 'he' and the bible can become true again as the skeptics are sent back to square one. You may have just proven that the feminists were right after all. :)

I'm not sure why you'd assume this thread isn't merely about past failures, though.

If a scientist views religious claims as analogous to say, geocentrism, it would take quite a hefty claim (superficially viewed prior to testing) to warrant a test. That's fine. All I'm saying is that we don't dismiss all claims upfront, and/or if we do, allow that one we dismissed may have actually been valid. Can't invalidate without testing, at least scientifically.

Scientists have to choose what to test. If they choose (or don't choose) Potter, homeopathy, and theism tests equally from whatever calculus or influence they use (assuming each has the same history of failure), then they aren't showing preference. And neither are we. It seems like we're all on agreement on this, but some posts keep making me wonder if we aren't.

I don't have any examples because the supernatural component has never passed a test. Doesn't mean it never will.

Obviously, if a supernatural component had ever passed a test, we wouldn't be having this conversation, so I wasn't expecting an actual example. I thought that you may have come up with some ideas on your own as part of your willingness to consider this a plausible stance.

The scientific/philosophical part should be fairly simple. But it ends up not being simple, and in these cases the "pretty much" can be an important difference. Also, some characteristics for some arguments/beliefs are innate, not attributed, imo.

I don't understand what that last bit means.

I take the most popular answer in the poll to mean philosophic or scientific certainty, not social certainty. And what I think are obvious scientific principles that any atheist/theist/agnostic should support are being labelled "semantics" and dismissed as useless for the sake of practicality. So, I'm searching for why these things occur, where the bias is, what I've missed or am ignorant about, and what the proper approach should be.

I take the most popular answer to be about social certainty (people who are comfortable verbalizing (at least here) the stance that we all seem to share). I think the obvious scientific principles are being dismissed as useless for the sake of practicality because there isn't disagreement on those principles, only on why some people feel the need to bring up those principles in this particular conversation.

Perhaps you assume they're contrived because you disagree with them?

I think they're contrived because I see agreement where y'all see disagreement.

Beth's experientialism or solipsism could be what her reasoning has led her to truly believe is the only sure method of finding truth. Or she may value different types of truth differently than you.

That is a possibility. She may actually believe those things I attributed to her as a consequence of her words. I hope not, but I'm often surprised by Beth.

Or yeah, she may be missing a flaw in her reasoning. Strong atheists, though I find their beliefs or knowledge irrational, may not merely be pretending that they're certain god(s) don't exist. Neither may theists, who I also think are irrational.

Quirky beliefs may honestly and legitimately arise from a reasoning process that the believer thinks is valid. Not all cases are where a reasoning process arises from the quirky belief. And not all disagreements are contrived. <---referring to the context of this discussion.

I agree. Which is why I try to understand others' positions by asking them to elaborate. But my bias is to assume that I would agree with someone if given enough information/explanation, and clearly some people start by assuming disagreement. This probably explains (at least partly) why I find it hard to understand what the fuss is about sometimes.

ETA: btw, I have thought about this differently via your responses...in case it seems I'm just stomping through things without considering it. Skeptigirl's main point is certainly valid for many people, my disagreements are more with the periphery, context, or other smaller, more pedantic things. And a defense of my hopefully equal treatment of Potter vs. God-beliefs.

Yeah, I think that contributes to the problem. Once one takes a 'position' one feels obliged to find a defense for it. :)

Linda

[fls]

And how do you know that this is a true statement?

Because I can study a subject in depth and be exposed to detailed information, I can use telephones/computers/cars/TV's, I can survive a once deadly illness.

Your claim that “vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false” is itself a claim that can only be based on the testimony of others because no single human can verify it for him or herself.

I agree that any particular individual can remain blithely unaware of the nature of our body of knowledge, and even how we know which of it is legitimate. But it's possible for an individual to verify that the scientific method allows us to discover legitimate information in a way that testimony can not, regardless of whether or not they personally choose to remain ignorant.

So even your disagreement is, to me, supportive of my belief that most of our knowledge is based on the testimony of others. I will admit that, in truth though, I can only speak for myself.

The vast majority of my knowledge is based on the testimony of others. I’m a fairly intelligent and well educated individual. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that most humans in modern society are relying on the testimony of others rather than having traveled to all continents of the world to verify through personal experience that they all exist or that they have studied the computations and made the observations for themselves that result in a conclusion that black holes exist. Nor is it unreasonable to conclude that none of them have met Shakespeare for themselves. It is only through the testimony of other that I conclude that Africa, Shakespeare and black holes actually exist.

As I said before, I agree that we become aware of this information largely through various forms of testimony (I assume you are including things like readings books). I am talking about the veracity of that information. We can determine the veracity of that information independent of whether or not you trust the source of that testimony. That most people feel more comfortable determining the veracity based on the source of the testimony does not mean that it is the only way to determine veracity, or that it's the best way. In fact, it explains our tendency to be irrational - to have beliefs that are contradicted by evidence, to be inconsistent in our risk-assessment, to readily accept misinformation and suspect good quality information - if there is more than one way to assess information and we happen to choose the less useful method.

We wouldn't see irrational behaviour, we wouldn't have working technology, we wouldn't have exquisitely detailed knowledge, if all we had was information based on testimony. That we have all those things contradicts your supposition.

Tell me, are you claiming that you have verified the existance of black holes for yourself, or do you beleive they exist because of the testimony of others that have done the observations and computations?

And how do we learn that? Again, we must rely on the testimony of others for that knowledge.

Certainly it’s possible to verify such things independently. My point is that few people actually do. Most of us rely on the testimony of others rather than sailing to Africa to verify for ourselves or conducting our own experiments to determine the properties of electromagnetic radiation have been accurate described in textbooks. Instead, we rely on the testimony of others who have done so. Further, more and more scientific knowledge can only be verified with extensive work and expensive equipment. A great deal of it cannot be verified through the personal experience of a single individual and thus, we must rely on the testimony of others.

Again, you are talking about becoming aware of that knowledge, not about whether or not you know that information is legitimate.

I’m sorry, but IMO if you are not willing to rely on testimonial evidence, you have very little hope of building further knowledge in our society.

And yet, when testimonial evidence ruled the day, we thought that illness was caused by an inbalance of the four humours, and the earth was a few thousand years old. Once we started to determine the veracity of our ideas and observations, independent of testimony, we got electricity and effective medicines. I happen to like the knowledge that we got through the scientific method better than that which we got through testimony.

I’m not disputing that point. I’m saying that your claim that my computer only works if QED is legitimate is a form of testimonial knowledge to me. I cannot verify it for myself. I do not understand enough about either QED or computers to know that it is true. Nor do I have the time and inclination to do so. Further, I sincerely doubt that you have verified it for yourself as you work in the medical field, not physics or computer science.

Regardless of whether or not you want to understand how computers work, you do agree that they do work, do you not?

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

The solution is to shut down JREF, then. There's nothing to test, there's nothing to discuss.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrright.

:confused:

By putting claims which have failed repeatedly to the bottom of the list it gives people with different claims a chance to win the million. It also increases the coverage of woo the JREF tests.

[Beth]

Linda,

Thanks for a most interesting conversation. I find myself too fascinated to drop it now.

And how do you know that this is a true statement?

Because I can study a subject in depth and be exposed to detailed information, I can use telephones/computers/cars/TV's, I can survive a once deadly illness.

None of this corroborates your statement that “The vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false.” Religious believers have claimed they know that god exists because grass grows, rain falls, and flowers bloom. Your argument for the veracity of your knowledge is of the same form. Why should I consider your argument valid and the other not?

you are talking about becoming aware of that knowledge, not about whether or not you know that information is legitimate. The knowledge that information is legitimate is itself a form of knowledge. We become aware of that knowledge in the same ways we become aware of any knowledge – either through the testimony of others or through our own personal experiences. Those are the only two routes available to us. (Unless you accept the divine inspiration route :D I’m assuming you do not. )

And yet, when testimonial evidence ruled the day, we thought that illness was caused by an inbalance of the four humours, and the earth was a few thousand years old. Once we started to determine the veracity of our ideas and observations, independent of testimony, we got electricity and effective medicines. I happen to like the knowledge that we got through the scientific method better than that which we got through testimony.

The knowledge we have obtained through the scientific method IS testimonial evidence. I have no disagreement that the scientific method works. I agree it is an excellent way to verify knowledge. But the scientific method depends upon the valid testimony of different people. A very important part of it is the corroboration of the testimonies of different people who arrive at the same conclusion. If these people have arrived at the same conclusion via different routes of logic and deduction based on independent sources of evidence, we can consider the conclusion even more robust and hence more likely to be true. That makes perfect sense to me. But I cannot help but notice that testimonial evidence is required. It is, in fact, an inherent and necessary part of using the scientific method.

In essence, I do not that feel that testimonial evidence can be rejected as invalid without rejecting the scientific method as well. That’s the point I’m trying to get across. Thus, if you reject religious belief on the basis of ‘testimonial evidence is not a valid source for knowledge’, then much of our scientific evidence could be (and sometimes is!) rejected on that basis by believers.

Thus, the argument made in this forum against testimonial knowledge is too broad and sweeping. It must be refined in order to be convincing. Why should the testimonial evidence regarding the existence of black holes be considered valid and trustworthy while the testimonial evidence for the existence of god should not?

I also notice that you have neglected to answer my question – which I’m asked repeatedly – have you verified the existence of black holes for yourself, or do you believe they exist because of the testimony of others that have done the observations and computations?

I would very much like to hear your answer to this question.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Thus, the argument made in this forum against testimonial knowledge is too broad and sweeping. It must be refined in order to be convincing. Why should the testimonial evidence regarding the existence of black holes be considered valid and trustworthy while the testimonial evidence for the existence of god should not?

<snip>

Because no one cares if a scientific model is real or not. All that matters is if it is useful. By useful I mean it has explanatory power which is consistent with other bodies of knowledge. In this regard Gods are not useful.

[fls]

Linda,

Thanks for a most interesting conversation. I find myself too fascinated to drop it now.

None of this corroborates your statement that “The vast majority of it is based on ideas that would not work if prior testimonials were false.” Religious believers have claimed they know that god exists because grass grows, rain falls, and flowers bloom. Your argument for the veracity of your knowledge is of the same form. Why should I consider your argument valid and the other not?

The difference is that grass would grow, rain would fall, and flowers would bloom if god did not exist. On the other hand, a person would not survive a particular previously deadly illness if the germ theory and the understanding of the action of antibiotics were false.

On the one hand you are receiving testimony about information whose veracity cannot be established independently and on the other hand you are receiving testimony about information whose veracity can be established. That is the difference.

I think we simply tend to refer to the former as testimony (as that's all it is) and the latter by some other name, such as information or scientific theory. I think it is possible to call both 'testimony', but they are different enough, in ways that matter, that calling them by the same name because they are the same in a way that doesn't matter, leads to confusion rather than understanding.

The knowledge that information is legitimate is itself a form of knowledge. We become aware of that knowledge in the same ways we become aware of any knowledge – either through the testimony of others or through our own personal experiences. Those are the only two routes available to us. (Unless you accept the divine inspiration route :D I’m assuming you do not. )

The knowledge we have obtained through the scientific method IS testimonial evidence. I have no disagreement that the scientific method works. I agree it is an excellent way to verify knowledge. But the scientific method depends upon the valid testimony of different people. A very important part of it is the corroboration of the testimonies of different people who arrive at the same conclusion. If these people have arrived at the same conclusion via different routes of logic and deduction based on independent sources of evidence, we can consider the conclusion even more robust and hence more likely to be true. That makes perfect sense to me. But I cannot help but notice that testimonial evidence is required. It is, in fact, an inherent and necessary part of using the scientific method.

In essence, I do not that feel that testimonial evidence can be rejected as invalid without rejecting the scientific method as well. That’s the point I’m trying to get across. Thus, if you reject religious belief on the basis of ‘testimonial evidence is not a valid source for knowledge’, then much of our scientific evidence could be (and sometimes is!) rejected on that basis by believers.

I think that's a good example of how calling them both testimony allows people to assume they share characteristics that they don't. I understand the basis on which you want to call scientific information testimony and I agree that it's not wrong on that basis, and that that serves as a source for irrational beliefs.

Thus, the argument made in this forum against testimonial knowledge is too broad and sweeping. It must be refined in order to be convincing. Why should the testimonial evidence regarding the existence of black holes be considered valid and trustworthy while the testimonial evidence for the existence of god should not?

It has been useful for you to point this out, and it clears up some stuff which has puzzled me. Referring to "testimony about information whose veracity cannot be established" and "testimony about information whose veracity can be established" would serve to refine the argument. If you could suggest a short-hand way to refer to these two forms of testimony, that would reduce the amount of typing. :) Clearly 'testimony' and 'scientific theory' won't be acceptable to you.

I also notice that you have neglected to answer my question – which I’m asked repeatedly – have you verified the existence of black holes for yourself, or do you believe they exist because of the testimony of others that have done the observations and computations?

I would very much like to hear your answer to this question.

Ah, I didn't think to answer it since it's clearly a red herring, so my answer wouldn't be particularly useful. I have not done the observations and calculations myself in regards to black holes. I could provide a partial list of those things I have personally verified myself, but I'm not sure what value that could possibly have to you.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

It isn't a question of putting claims at the bottom of some list. It is a question of testing each claim on its own merit.

How is it skeptical to blame one psychic for the failure of another?

How to rate each claim? Which comes first, the ability to talk to ghosts, or the ability to find water?

Based on what criteria?

[Ivor the Engineer]

It isn't a question of putting claims at the bottom of some list. It is a question of testing each claim on its own merit.

How is it skeptical to blame one psychic for the failure of another?

No blame, just prior information being used to estimate the probability of success. I.e. Zero out of <insert large number here> previous people claiming similar or identical abilities have been successful.

How to rate each claim? Which comes first, the ability to talk to ghosts, or the ability to find water?

Personally, if that was the only choice, I'd go with the finding water claimant.

Based on what criteria?

Water exists and the potential utility of being able to find it in a novel way is greater than conversing with dead people.

[CFLarsen]

Abducted and killed children also exist. So, why not psychics?

They have the exact same success rate as dowsers.

[westprog]

The solution is to shut down JREF, then. There's nothing to test, there's nothing to discuss.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrright.

There's a pragmatic approach to be taken in terms of testing. It simply isn't possible or appropriate to test every claim. Indeed, it would be absurd to do so.

The British government (IIRC) just released some of the communications they have received relating to UFO's. One letter claimed to be from an alien from Planet Amazon. She included a drawing of herself which looked like a human woman, only better looking. BG decided not to investigate further. I think that was an appropriate response.

[westprog]

The difference is that grass would grow, rain would fall, and flowers would bloom if god did not exist.


That's to presuppose the answer. If you believe in a model of the universe which includes God, then certainly flowers would not grow without him. If you believe in a model where he does not exist, then clearly his presence is not necessary.

[fls]

That's to presuppose the answer. If you believe in a model of the universe which includes God, then certainly flowers would not grow without him. If you believe in a model where he does not exist, then clearly his presence is not necessary.

Yes. It was mentioned earlier (I don't blame you for not reading through the entire thread :)) that we were assuming parsimony (plus necessity, sufficiency and usefulness).

Linda

[CFLarsen]

It isn't a question of whether there are resources or not. It's about the principle of whether something should be tested or not.

[westprog]

Yes. It was mentioned earlier (I don't blame you for not reading through the entire thread :))


Very generous of you. It's a mark of The Thread From Hell that new people jump in and say the same things over and over again, to be rebutted again.

that we were assuming parsimony (plus necessity, sufficiency and usefulness).

Linda

I will hang around a bit and see what people are actually saying and then comment.

[westprog]

It isn't a question of whether there are resources or not. It's about the principle of whether something should be tested or not.

It depends what you mean by "should". If we don't consider resources, then there's no reason not to test everything, including the things we just tested in case we got it wrong. If resources are an issue, which they always are in practice, then we have to prioritise.

[Beth]

The difference is that grass would grow, rain would fall, and flowers would bloom if god did not exist. On the other hand, a person would not survive a particular previously deadly illness if the germ theory and the understanding of the action of antibiotics were false. I'm sorry, but clearly I'm not making my point clearly. In both cases the argument runs like this:

I believe that A is true because otherwise B would be false. Neither gives the necessary support (not possible in a post of this nature) to prove their case. You either accept that the connection exists or you don't. The arguments have the same structure, which was my point.


On the one hand you are receiving testimony about information whose veracity cannot be established independently and on the other hand you are receiving testimony about information whose veracity can be established. That is the difference.

This is much closer to a valid difference. However, the existance of god will be testified to by far more people than will testify to the existance of black holes. It isn't simply independent verification, but IMO also convergence of the details of the independent verification, which leads us into the intangible versus tangible problem. No one claims that justice does not exist simply because everyone has a different idea of what justice is and when/whether it has been experienced by oneself or others. 'God' is very much an amorphous concept that is far more akin to other intangibles like 'justice' than it is to tangible objects like germs. I think black holes make a fairly good comparison because it is not possible for us to know for certain that they exist (yet!). We can only say that if certain basic assumptions about our material world are correct, our best and brightest minds who have studied the physics of them in detail, mostly agree that they should exist

I think we simply tend to refer to the former as testimony (as that's all it is) and the latter by some other name, such as information or scientific theory. I think it is possible to call both 'testimony', but they are different enough, in ways that matter, that calling them by the same name because they are the same in a way that doesn't matter, leads to confusion rather than understanding.

I think that's a good example of how calling them both testimony allows people to assume they share characteristics that they don't. Whereas I think that calling them both testimony reminds the denizens of this forum how much of what we assume we know is based on what others have told us. It makes it easier to understand why so many people would believe in god when you realize how much of what you believe in also rests on the assumed veracity of others.


It has been useful for you to point this out, and it clears up some stuff which has puzzled me. I'm glad this conversation has been useful to you! :)


Referring to "testimony about information whose veracity cannot be established" and "testimony about information whose veracity can be established" would serve to refine the argument. It would, but I don't think that the two categories are as clear cut as you may. For example, where would you place "black holes"? We can verify the observations and arguments that lead to the conclusion that such things exist. We cannot verify that they actually do or do not exist. Likewise, we can verify the observations and arguments that lead to the conclusion that god does or does not exist. We cannot verify that god actually does or does not exist.

Ah, I didn't think to answer it since it's clearly a red herring, so my answer wouldn't be particularly useful. I have not done the observations and calculations myself in regards to black holes. I could provide a partial list of those things I have personally verified myself, but I'm not sure what value that could possibly have to you.

Not a red herring; I'm trying to make a very specific point. You don't know that black holes exist. No one actually does. If you have studied them for yourself, what you have done is believe in those who believe in the existance of black holes and therefore, you have accepted their belief as your own. That's fine. That's also what people who believe in god do. They aren't any less rational for doing so than you are for believing in black holes.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Why do people treat belief in god differently than other beliefs that are considered silly or irrational on this forum. It's because the majority of what we know and believe comes from other people rather than our own experiences. When the majority of the population believes in something, whether it be god, justice, or black holes, it's not foolish or irrational to believe that the majority are right.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think there would be different reactions to the following two announcements:

1) Stephen Hawking giving a detailed mathematical explanation of the universe which does not require the existence of black holes.

2) The Pope broadcasting around the world that God is a figment of human imagination, and from now on the only reason to go to church is to have a nice sing-song and admire the craftsmanship of the buildings.

[fls]

I'm sorry, but clearly I'm not making my point clearly. In both cases the argument runs like this:

I believe that A is true because otherwise B would be false. Neither gives the necessary support (not possible in a post of this nature) to prove their case. You either accept that the connection exists or you don't. The arguments have the same structure, which was my point.

I understood your point. What I specifically mentioned, which you continue to leave out of your response, is that you also have direct experience of the connection independent of the arguments. We can both say something that sounds the same. The difference is that you and I have direct experience of the things that make my argument not false, whereas you and I cannot have direct experience of the things that make your argument not false. There is an external element to my argument, independent of the nature of a post, that allows it to be true in a way that your argument can never be.

This is much closer to a valid difference. However, the existance of god will be testified to by far more people than will testify to the existance of black holes. It isn't simply independent verification, but IMO also convergence of the details of the independent verification, which leads us into the intangible versus tangible problem. No one claims that justice does not exist simply because everyone has a different idea of what justice is and when/whether it has been experienced by oneself or others. 'God' is very much an amorphous concept that is far more akin to other intangibles like 'justice' than it is to tangible objects like germs. I think black holes make a fairly good comparison because it is not possible for us to know for certain that they exist (yet!). We can only say that if certain basic assumptions about our material world are correct, our best and brightest minds who have studied the physics of them in detail, mostly agree that they should exist

Yes, you are evaluating information solely on the basis of how you evaluate testimony. And I agree that many people are more comfortable evaluating information that way. However, it does not provide independent confirmation of the veracity of that information and has proven to be quite an unreliable method.

Whereas I think that calling them both testimony reminds the denizens of this forum how much of what we assume we know is based on what others have told us. It makes it easier to understand why so many people would believe in god when you realize how much of what you believe in also rests on the assumed veracity of others.

I think that demonstrates why we are talking past each other. When we talk about scientific information, the relevant characteristic is that the information can be verified independent of the testimony, and so that is what science-minded people tend to emphasize, rather than the means of communication. When you talk about information, you seem to have a different goal, so you emphasize the means by which that information is communicated, with little or no attention paid to the veracity of that information independent of who or what is providing the testimony because you treat it as the same thing.

I'm glad this conversation has been useful to you! :)

It would, but I don't think that the two categories are as clear cut as you may. For example, where would you place "black holes"? We can verify the observations and arguments that lead to the conclusion that such things exist. We cannot verify that they actually do or do not exist. Likewise, we can verify the observations and arguments that lead to the conclusion that god does or does not exist. We cannot verify that god actually does or does not exist.

The difference is that "black holes" were proposed in order to provide a necessary, sufficient, and useful explanation for a set of observations that were otherwise poorly explained. The flow was from information to conclusion. In the prescientific era, religion served a similar function, but now the god explanations (which have never been necessary, sufficient or useful, but rather just convenient) have been superseded by much better explanations. People do still try to find ways to make gods necessary - to find observations that would otherwise be unexplained - but the exercise has become increasingly contrived and still fails on the issue of sufficiency and usefulness. The flow is from conclusion to information.

Not a red herring; I'm trying to make a very specific point. You don't know that black holes exist. No one actually does. If you have studied them for yourself, what you have done is believe in those who believe in the existance of black holes and therefore, you have accepted their belief as your own. That's fine. That's also what people who believe in god do. They aren't any less rational for doing so than you are for believing in black holes.

It's a red herring because you should have chosen something that I have direct experience with, because I place more weight on the process of verification than I place on the testimony about the results of that verification. I see now that in a way it wasn't a red herring, because you do not see those two different things as two different things.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Why do people treat belief in god differently than other beliefs that are considered silly or irrational on this forum. It's because the majority of what we know and believe comes from other people rather than our own experiences. When the majority of the population believes in something, whether it be god, justice, or black holes, it's not foolish or irrational to believe that the majority are right.

And that is the other goal that I referred to earlier. Because of your desire to justify the idea that the majority can be right and that it is not irrational or foolish to believe this, because this is the method that you personally prefer, you wish to ignore or at least de-emphasize the major difference between the two forms of information - a difference that speaks directly to whether or not something can be known to be right. And while one way that we learn about that veracity is through the use of testimony, I have given several examples of how we can directly, personally know about that veracity in ways that do not involve testimony.

Linda

[EGarrett]

I am certain there is no Harry Potter.

This is the correct use of the word "certain." The only time it is incorrect is if complete nonsense that violates reason and logic must be accounted for...in which case the word certain can never be used.