Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?

quote:

---

And how likely is it, that if there is a revealed God that has judgments for beyond this life, that he'll accept, "Well, it really seemed pretty unknowable to me, so I just did whatever I thought was best without really looking that hard to see if you had any requirements or suggestions"?

---

Why do you assume Agnostics "haven't looked hard"?

quote:

---

Being agnostic is not just being lazy and shrugging your shoulders. Being agnostic means that you use your God given talent and senses to constantly evaluate the evidence, and will not settle for a comfortable pew and spoon fed theology. The agnostic believes in expanding and learning and rejects stagnation, complacency and laziness.

---

YES! YES! YES!

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

I don't. See my post 252.

I just wanted to tell you that I find you to be a very stimulating and extremely worthwhile debate opponent and always, always enjoy any discussion the two of us engage in.(Got to take good care of our non-crazy Christians on this board, since there are so few )

That's only because time has proven me to be always accurate and never wrong.Oh, wait. I guess that was Sylas, not me. My bad.Just kidding . Thank you, and I'm glad to hear it, because I have to object to something.

quote:

---

The plural of anecdote is not data

---

In some semantic sense, I'm sure this is true. In application, however, the plural of anecdote is rarely ignored and often should not be.For this to be true, it seems to me that you'd have to establish that increasing anecdotes do not provide increasing evidence that something really happened--in every case, or at least in almost every case.It seems to me that America's Most Wanted owes all or almost all of its success in catching criminals to anecdote and eye-witness testimony. According to Wikipedia, there's been 968 people found as a result of viewer tips.While sometimes anecdote fuels anecdote, and anecdotes increase due to people's imagination, sometimes it is not so. Sometimes anecdotes increase because something is really happening.Around suspected UFO areas, reports of UFO's are normally fueled by imagination and suggestion. However, in other places multiple reports of UFO's don't prove aliens arrived, but they usually turn out to be some sort of phenomenon that lots of people actually saw.Thus, while the plural of anecdote may not constitute "data" (I don't know how best to define data for this discussion), it does constitute evidence that something happened. While the plural of anecdote often doesn't tell us what happened, it does quite often tell us that something happened.

quote:

---

For this to be true, it seems to me that you'd have to establish that increasing anecdotes do not provide increasing evidence that something really happened--in every case, or at least in almost every case.

---

I am glad you brought up UFO's.As you probably are aware, there are hundreds, probably thousands of reports of UFO sightings, abductions, visitations, attacks, and other contact between Earthlings and aliens. These increased dramatically after the Sputnik launch and the advent of science fiction films and the dawning of the "space age" of the 1950's. They continued to increase and spiked again in the "New Age" 1980's.Thousands and thousands of people are utterly convinced that they have seen, had contact with, gone away from the Earth with, or been experimented upon by space aliens. A recent Gallup poll reports that one third of Americans believe that aliens have visited Earth, which would mean that millions of people believe this.The truth is, though, there has never been any substantive evidence of outer-space aliens being the origin of any of these hundreds and hundreds of reported events.Every single one of those reports, TL, is an anecdote.Millions of believers and thousands of reports do not in any way turn those anecdotes, merely by their quantity, into trustworthy data.Do I think there is increasingly something going on that makes so very many people believe in alien visitation? Absolutely.Do I think that many of these people experience things that are unusual, strange and even unsettling? Indeed I do.Do I think it has anything at all to do with actual alien visitation? Not in the least.The plural of anecdote is not data.

To complete your description, you not only mean that something happened, but that there is a cause/effect relationship. In other words and by way of example, the claim isn't merely that your nephew regained his sight, but that prayer was responsible for your nephew regaining his sight.But realize that all the observations and experiences of things like ghosts, UFOs, spoon bending, clairvoyance and so forth, if interpreted using your approach, would mean that something happened and that, where appropriate, there was a cause/effect. What is the proper way to objectively establish if things like these really happen?The answer is the scientific method using appropriately designed sets of experiments and/or observations. The task for you is to make clear why the way we approach objective study of such things is inappropriate for your own claims concerning prayer and God.--Percy

Percy,Thank you for your clear reply. This whole discussion has been very hard for me, as I feel so often that something other than what I said is being answered. However, you started with an assertion that really helps. Disagreement is a lot easier for me if we're at least talking about the same thing. While this is an appropriate answer to my overall proposition, because I did indeed say that there was at least evidence for a cause/effect relationship in my nephew's case, because of repeated answer to prayer and other experiences, it doesn't really answer my objection to schraf's "the plural of anecdote is not data." I don't know what you mean by inserting "where appropriate" there. In this case, I was only arguing that anecdotes, especially in the plural, can help establish that something happened...only. I don't want to argue that cause/effect is established by anecdotes.If you'll remember, Crash suggested that maybe some of our experiences could be attributed to the power of community rather than the power of some faith my particular community holds to. I did not object to this in any way.When you suggested that a study on the longevity of those holding to faith in God would apply, I went and looked at some. In fact, the references I found said that religious people do live longer (and it's being discussed in another thread). If I was just jumping to cause/effect relationships, I could have declared my triumph with the references I found, but of course I didn't, because it was obvious that the specific religious groups mentioned (SDA, LDS, Amish, Hutterite) have nutrition and health practices that science already knows will make you live longer.Even in the case of my nephew, I did not argue that cause/effect was proven. I said only that my choice of faith (and Collins') was not based on "no evidence." You're welcome to say that even if I have 100 extremely unlikely experiences in a row seemingly in answer to prayer that cause/effect is not thus proven. It would sure be implied, but if an alternative possibility for cause/effect was postulated, you'd find me discussing it openly. I don't think I object to this. In reference to one prayer study, I said it didn't apply, because it doesn't. In reference to putting together a prayer study like it that did apply, I said that I don't think God would let himself be tested like that. You and others have said that's a copout, so ok, that's where that's left, because I don't think God would let himself be tested like that.However, I do not object to the scientific method being applied to any claims I or anyone else makes. I'm making it difficult, I know, but I can't help that. I didn't make up any new thing to believe as a result of suggestions to conduct studies. It just is difficult.

I never suggested that outer-space aliens were the origin of these events. I suggested that plural anecdotes, in many situations, are evidence that something happened, and if that something is unusual, then all of us tend to want to investigate it. So do I, and since all I said is that anecdotes are the evidence that something unusual, strange, and even unsettling is going on, then it appears we agree. So we agree here, too. And here, I object to where this might be applied, because it seems to me y'all were prone to applying it too freely.

One problem that exists in Miracles is that the only real difference between a Miracle and some other event is attribution. Those of us who believe in miracles attribute them to GOD.There is nothing that restricts GOD from using very prosaic means to accomplish Her desired end. It can be as common as aspirin or as unexplained as Enlightenment.The one thing about Miracles that can be said is that they are NOT ubiquitous.In Luke 4:21-32 we have an account of Jesus speaking in the synagogue at Nazareth. He points to two traditional tales that would have been known to the audience, one involving a widow in Sidon, the other the curing of Naaman the Syrian.He goes on to say that there were many starving widows during the period of the first incident and many lepers at the time of the second.Miracles are by definition, non-scientific and beyond confirmation. They are not subject to test or verification.If GOD so wishes, He is perfectly capable of influencing a doctor to go one step further, preform one more test, prescribe one specific medication that leads to some given outcome.When the instance is examined, all that will be found is absolutely normal, nothing supernatural, nothing extraordinary, yet the instance may still be a miracle.A miracle can also be as inexplicable as sudden remission of a disease or survival from an event that should have killed the person.The objection often raised to that position is that it is then impossible to tell a miracle from any other event. In the first case all seems easily explained by science, in the second it could be assigned to chance or simply "unknown".Those are valid points yet also irrelevant.Miracles exist in the reality of the individual. They could well be confirmation bias, or simply fantasy. They could also be true miracles. The reason science is an inappropriate method for study is that science assumes repeatability and consistency. Neither of those apply to miracles.Miracles are the result of an act of will of GOD.While man can petition GOD, it is GOD that responds and Her response is outside human control. Miracles are not part of the natural world, they are supernatural by definition.Edited by jar, : appalin spallinEdited by jar, : still can't spall

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We're not always looking for causes. Sometimes we're just looking for scientific evidence of a phenomena. For example, UFOs are a purported phenomena. In the case of the interpretation that UFOs are alien spacecraft, we're still just seeking evidence of the phenomena. We're not up to the point of asking for the cause of alien spacecraft appearing on our planet because we haven't yet established that there *are* alien spacecraft on our planet. But in the case of spoon bending, the effect isn't in dispute. We can see the spoon bending. And so since the phenomena has been established we now look for the cause. One hypothesis is that the mentalist' mental effort bent the spoon. The generally accepted hypothesis is that it is a relatively simple magician's trick. That's all I meant by seeking causes "where appropriate". You can't seek a cause of something that hasn't actually been observed yet.Just a small additional comment about the UFO case: when one assumes they are natural phenomena, then it is always appropriate to seek causes, and it isn't uncommon for plausible natural explanations of causes to be identified. You're forgetting that this is anecdotal and completely unobjective. Were you doing a study that involved cataloging temperature and air pressure against date and time, then your study is objective and scientific. Presumably human bias and subjectivity is not a factor in reading thermometers, barometers, calendars and clocks. But it is completely unscientific and totally anecdotal to set yourself up as the sole judge of everything where subjectivity is everywhere. Here's just a short list of factors where your subjectivity and biases completely influence the outcome:

• What constitutes a prayer? For example, "Gee, it didn't rain today, and I said to myself just yesterday, 'I sure hope it doesn't rain tomorrow,' but was that a prayer? Okay, I'll count it as a prayer. Chalk one up for prayer."
  ​
• What constitutes an answer to a prayer? For example, your nephew doesn't completely recover, he only regains 50% of his sight. Is that a prayer answered? Yes? Then how about regaining 40% of his sight? Is that a prayer answered? And so on.
  ​
• You prayed for money, but instead someone granted relief from a debt. Was your prayer answered?
  ​
• Someone tells you a story about their prayers being answered. Does that count in your study?

In order to perform an objective scientific study you have to define *all* the criteria, anticipate all the potential ambiguities, and eliminate all subjectivity by removing yourself from knowledge about which events have been prayed for and which haven't.If you don't do this then the information you gather is merely anecdotal and not data at all. It's useless for establishing anything.--Percy

It was the "relatively simple" that caught my attention. Awesome, I'd love to pull a spoon bending trick on my kids.So I looked up spoon bending on the internet. A LOT of people claim to have done it. My favorite report was this one.Do you know anything about this kind of thing? I'm going to try it, but I don't think I'm up to having a party with people shouting at spoons. That's not what I found. When I was in college, before I was a Christian (I was a new ager, but I don't think it was called New Age then, or at least I didn't know it was), I laid in my bed one night and concentrated on pulling one of my posters off the wall mentally. I did self-hypnosis, which I had done regularly for at least months, maybe more, and then dwelt on the poster coming off the wall.There was a rustle of paper from the wall where the poster was, and I was instantly terrified. It was a strong, urgent terror. I curled up under my blankets, covering even my head, and eventually went to sleep that way.When I woke up in the morning, the poster was hanging by one of its bottom corners. It scared me so badly that I never tried anything like that again.I'm not offering an explanation. That's what happened, though.Edited by truthlover, : Give source of second quote box

quote:

---

So do I, and since all I said is that anecdotes are the evidence that something unusual, strange, and even unsettling is going on, then it appears we agree.

---

No, this is not quite what I am saying.All I am saying is that these anecdotes exist.Anecdotes may reflect any sort of reality, or they may not reflect reality in the least, or they may be a mix of accurate perception and grave misinterpretations of reality (The latter probably being the most common).What I meant to get across was that people do experience things, and we call their reports of those things anecdotes.Anecdotes do not have to reflect reality. They don't represent causation, nor even correlation. They are just individual reports.Even when we have thousands and thousands of anecdotes, it doesn't give us any more confidence that aliens are probing the nether regions and abducting people, buzzing towns, or making pretty patterns in wheatfields.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that aliens are doing any of those things.If this were a different topic, I might be suggesting that there are pretty patterns in wheat fields that are doggone mysterious. Chances are, I'd be right. That has to be established before we can have arguments over why there's patterns in wheat fields.Like I said before, I think in steps. I'm generally only arguing one step at a time. I'm only arguing that anecdote can be evidence that something is happening. In this case, that something unusual or out of the ordinary is happening.I keep responding, because it's not really fair for y'all to argue that anecdotes can't prove causation. It's almost like a straw man, because I haven't argued that anecdotes prove causation. I can't even talk about causation to y'all, because you won't allow that anecdotes can even prove something happened.All I'm saying is that in some cases, anecdotes really prove something happened. There really are crop circles. There really was a civilization that created immense diagrams/pictures that can only be seen from the air. Those anecdotes are accurate.The source, the topic, etc. all have to be considered, but in some cases multiple anecdotes are pretty strong evidence for "x," because either you know the people, the stories make sense, it's the kind of thing that multiple people don't mistake, etc.If you disagree with that, at least disagree with that. I haven't argued and am not suggesting that anecdotes prove causation.

I would never have guessed this issue would be so complicated to explain.Your examples differ and have to be treated separately. You mention crop circles but say nothing about them. Observation of huge, immobile formations is not particularly susceptible to human subjectivity and bias, which is what we're talking about here. Even if they hadn't been the object of scientific study (crop circles have been debunked as the creation of people), I doubt you'd find anyone who questioned their existence.But though you don't say so, you probably mention crop circles because of the possibility of an unearthly origin. That's a strictly anecdotal conclusion. It has no evidence at all. And it wasn't anecdotal studies of crop circles that revealed their true origin. In fact, writing credulous books about crop circles is a minor industry.It was scientific study that debunked crop circles, and it also helped very much that over the years various people and groups have come forward saying, "We did these particular ones." There's even a British group that is available for hire to create crop circles. But I imagine it's a lot of fun to create a crop circle and cause a stir, and I don't see any reason why it would ever stop.Concerning the Peruvian Nazca lines, in this case you state the current scientific conclusion that an ancient little-known civilization created them, so I'm not sure why you mention this as anecdotal. Perhaps you're saying that even in the absence of scientific study it is obvious that they were created by a civilization, and that anecdotal data is sufficient to reach this conclusion. I agree. People are pretty good at being able to tell the difference between something that has happened naturally (a hill) and something that hasn't (a pyramid).What the Peruvian Nazca lines have in common with crop circles is their attribution to alien visitations, but this is a completely anecdotal conclusion with no credible supporting evidence, and I'm going to assume you weren't going there.But what's really wrong with these examples is that they're not the type of things that are particularly subject to human subjectivity and bias, which is the subject of this discussion. I think your point is that many anecdotal observations are very useful, and you're correct. We all live our lives this way. We don't require scientific studies of the approaching dark clouds before we start closing the car windows and putting away the lawn tools.But observation is not infallible, as witness the many sightings of UFOs, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Many conclude, "All these sightings, there just has to be something to it." But things that exist leave physical evidence.Clearly there's a declining scale for what anecdotal observation is capable of reliably reporting, and near the bottom of that scale must reside the effects of prayer. Few things could be more subjective. That's why they have to be double blind in order to have any meaning. When you set yourself up as experimenter, subject and evaluator you're just making about every mistake in the book.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.