quote:You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.
These are the two questions I answered contradictorily, and so took a direct hit (but no bullets bitten). However, if I may try to weasel out of it, I misread the question about God.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
Would you agree that in 10 the choice was that belief AND rational was true
I read number 10 to say: if, after plenty of investigation, there is no evidence or argument that suggests the exsitence of an entity, not believing that it exists is a rational position to take.
I don't think that not believing that something exists requires any faith - unless there is a crap load of evidence that it does, of course.
while in 14 the choice was that belief OR rational was true?
And I read 14 to say that after investigations, for as long as there is no evidence or argument for the existence of an entity, not believing that it exists requires an act of faith as opposed to being a rational position to take.
It doesn't take faith to not believe something is true when there is no evidence to suggest it does.
That's why I figure we have different ideas on what 'faith' might mean.
It cannot be rational to not believe in the Nessie and also not rational to not believe in God.
I bit one bullet, but had no direct hits. I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.
Interesting.
I just went through with 10 false & 14 false, and then with 10 true & 14 false, both with no hits and no bullets, so it appears that the criteria is your answer to 14 alone.
In other words you think the rationality of the decision is the primary criteria, and ignore the degree of faith that is involved.
The way I see it the choice is made based on faith, not rationality: faith that evidence will continue to be negative.
It cannot be based on rationality because there is no evidence. As a result you can rationally chose either position -- you have the same degree of evidence.
Thus for the Loch Ness monster, you have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative, and it is rational to believe it does not exist based on that faith.
While for the existence of god, you still have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative, and it is still rational to believe it does not exist based on that faith.
But the choice is made based on faith, not rationality.
Question 10 asks you if it is rational to base your choice on the faith that evidence will continue to be negative:
quote:10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
Question 14 asks you whether faith OR rationality is more critical to the decision. It's not the same question:
quote:14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
There is not conflict between faith and rationality in question 10, but in question 14 you have to decide which is the critical element, faith OR rationality.
The problem as I see it is that there is an unstated premise in both questions -- the faith\belief that the evidence will continue to be negative.
This is a rational conclusion based on the premises being true.
This is a rational conclusion based on the premises being true (note - several scientific discoveries in physics have been based on this kind of faith).
The only difference between the contradictory conclusions is premise 2, therefore the critical element is the faith element - you cannot conclude the non-existence without faith that the evidence will continue to be negative.
Analogy:
Take a mixed pile of cards and turn one over at a time.
In case (A) you have turned over 99 cards with no joker and there is one card left -- can you rationally conclude there is no joker in the deck?
In case (B) you have turned over 10 cards with no joker and there are 90 cards left -- can you rationally conclude that there is no joker in the deck?
Your answer depends on your amount of faith\belief that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
I'm going to reword each of the arguments, maybe it will help. Maybe not, who knows?
quote:10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a God, it is rational to believe that God does not exist.
and
quote:14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that Nessie does not exist, Anessieism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
transforming further
quote:10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a God, it is rational to be an atheist.
If you think this is true then
quote:14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that Nessie does exist, it is rational to be an Anessiest.
And with that strange morphing hopefully you can see how I read it. To me when I say 'I don't believe X' I mean to say 'I lack the belief that x is true'. When I say 'I don't believe X exists', I mean 'I lack the belief that x exists'. When I say 'I believe X doesn't exist' I mean the same thing. That might be one of the fundamental differences in the way we read and interpret things.
In other words you think the rationality of the decision is the primary criteria, and ignore the degree of faith that is involved.
It is not my position to ignore the degree of faith, but to suggest that with any reasonable usage of the word faith, no faith is required to disbelieve in certain entities. Obviously, if there is reasonable expectation that evidence is potentially to be expected then having confidence in the lack of existence is unfounded. But if I've looked all around my house and I can't find my milk, its entirely rational to believe it is because it doesn't exist and I should go buy some, but also to retain the acceptance that maybe you just weren't looking properly, or you've had brain damage or just suffering from hysterical lactose-blindness. Hey, maybe your entire house is filled with milk, and you're a crazy old man that is constantly trying to make coffee but always thinks he's run out of milk.
It's entirely rational to both believe Nessie doesn't exist and to accept that it might, and that you would eagerly soak in the evidence should it emerge. It is also rational to believe that my computer desk exists but accept that evidence might be presented to question that belief.
We could insist in remaining agnostic about absolutely everything, but I don't think that is particularly rational
I'm going to reword each of the arguments, maybe it will help. Maybe not, who knows?
quote:10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a God, it is rational to believe that God does not exist.
quote:14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that Nessie does not exist, Anessieism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
Which are, imho, both true -- you don't know, so it is a matter of faith, faith that the evidence will continue to be negative.
It is not irrational (ergo it is rational) to base conclusions on absence of evidence and what you believe the ultimate outcome will be, but you are still stuck on needing to assume that element of faith\belief is true to make the conclusion. If your belief about the ultimate outcome is different then you will come to a different conclusion that is just as rational (ie not irrational, not held in spite of contradictory evidence).
The purpose of the game was to use the same logic and precepts to come to decisions, regardless of how extreme those positions are (ie rape is justified by firm convictions of faith). Thus it should not matter to the structure how confident you are in your faith that the evidence for the existence of {X} will continue to be negative.
transforming further
Which gets us away from the way question 14 is fundamentally different from question 10, and what you end up with is a different question again.
It's entirely rational to both believe Nessie doesn't exist and to accept that it might, and that you would eagerly soak in the evidence should it emerge. It is also rational to believe that my computer desk exists but accept that evidence might be presented to question that belief.
We could insist in remaining agnostic about absolutely everything, but I don't think that is particularly rational.
It is not my position to ignore the degree of faith, but to suggest that with any reasonable usage of the word faith, no faith is required to disbelieve in certain entities.
So you can think of no scientific discoveries where evidence was found only after many many years of persistent looking and coming up empty?
Hit 1 - Said "false" for 7 and "true" for 15. Hit 2 - Said "false" for 7 and "true" for 17.
I took a bullet, but only because the system is defining all justifications equally.
Specifically, I agreed that "it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction."
But, I disagreed that a rapist who believes god told him to rape was justified. It claims this is a contradiction, but only if we assume that all beliefs can be justified this way, and I don't think they can. Some beliefs are justifiable without external evidence. Some are not. For example, beliefs about socially constructed models can only be justified by inner conviction for that is their place of origin.
I took a hit on this pair, but my responses were the opposite of yours.
I disagreed that "it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction." To agree would be to be like a creationist who believes that "the great flood" happened, despite the worldly evidence to the contrary. You seemed to have restricted things to considerations of morality. If such is to be the constraint, then I would have had your position.
Concerning the rapist - I agreed that the rapist was justified in believing he was doing God's will. To me, such a belief is independent of any belief of morality or immorality. The rapist may well have believed that God's will was for him to do something that he personally found to be immoral.
My other his was on 17) "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.", to which I replied "true". I had earlier replied "false" to 7) "It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions."
Many people believe in God without any evidence one way or the other. I have no problem with that. For #7 I again bring up "the great flood". I don't think an "inner conviction" justifies a belief that is contrary to the external ("real world") evidence or lack of evidence.
Belief in God in not a matter of worldly evidence; Belief in "the flood" is a matter of worldly evidence.
Boy, it's hard to coherently discuss this stuff. But the bottom line is, I'm not buying their reasonings for the "hits".
I seem to recall saying that lack of evidence for God justifies atheism, and also saying that lack of evidence does not dis-justify belief in God. It would seem that should have set off bells.
Moose
Added by edit - OK, here's a copy/paste of their evaluation:
quote:Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 15.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!
****************
Direct Hit 2
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
Which are, imho, both true -- you don't know, so it is a matter of faith, faith that the evidence will continue to be negative.
We could around and around. But no, this is not what I am saying when I say "I believe x does not exist". I am not saying that I have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. In fact, I accept that some things which I currently do not believe exist, will probably one day be shown to exist.
The purpose of the game was to use the same logic and precepts to come to decisions, regardless of how extreme those positions are (ie rape is justified by firm convictions of faith). Thus it should not matter to the structure how confident you are in your faith that the evidence for the existence of {X} will continue to be negative.
I agree with your understanding of the purpose of the game. I did rather well at it I don't have a problem with the two questions, and it's interesting to have seen your take on it - maybe you'll understand why I see no problem. I have no faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. Faith doesn't come into it. Thus my belief is not based on faith. I have, I believe, a well founded confidence that the evidence for Nessie will continue to be in the absent category.
Which gets us away from the way question 14 is fundamentally different from question 10, and what you end up with is a different question again.
Yes, I know what you think. I don't think this is the case. We are viewing the questions in a different manner - and this is interesting. I'm just trying to help you understand how I am reading the statements. I see the two questions as asking the same things in a different way, evidently you see a difference between the two.
So you can think of no scientific discoveries where evidence was found only after many many years of persistent looking and coming up empty?
What would give you that impression after I said "It's entirely rational to both believe Nessie doesn't exist and to accept that it might, and that you would eagerly soak in the evidence should it emerge. It is also rational to believe that my computer desk exists but accept that evidence might be presented to question that belief."? (emphasis added this time round)
My beliefs might be wrong and I accept that - that's part of not having faith.
If I didn't believe in X-rays, I'd be forced to reevaluate my position after their discovery and after evidence of their existence became apparent. My belief would have once been wrong and I would have learned something - it's the best possible thing that can happen!
quote:I couldn't agree to that because it allowed one to believe something that is contradicted by evidence.
As a general rule, I'd agree with that, but there are times when things have no evidence and yet there is tantalizing suggestions for such. In some sense, it's what drives science: You have to believe six impossible things before breakfast in order to figure out how to show which one is actually possible.
Now, one might say that that is evidence, but I make a distinction between evidence that definitively justifies a stance and evidence that only suggest things.
quote:The question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.
But in that case the question is either a tautology (who are we to contradict what he says he believes...if he believes god told him, then he believes god told him) or a non sequitur (just what is being questioned: The belief? That it's god's will?)
The site makes a point of saying that it isn't perfect. It's trying to be pithy and distinct and its dealing with things that are very hard to reduce to such.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:You seemed to have restricted things to considerations of morality. If such is to be the constraint, then I would have had your position.
Well, I used morality as an example, but the larger category I mentioned was socially constructed models. Things like economic policy, governmental systems, how to do a tea ceremony, these are all things for which you can have a "firm, inner conviction" and be justified about it because the entire reason these things exist is because of those "firm, inner convictions." How does one make a "rational" decision regarding which is better...the Klingon or the Japanese tea ceremony?
A global flood, however, is not a socially constructed model. It's a physical act. My point is that there is a difference between $ (there exists) and " (for all). There exists a concept for which "firm, inner convictions" are sufficient to justify. But not all concepts can be justified this way.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Question 6: Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
I answered true
Question 13: It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
I answered true
You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:
Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is a natural process that requires no magic, no supernatural powers, or 'faith'. There may be no certain proof, as they say, but there is no certain proof in any theory. The existence of God is not a mere theory, its a magical claim of a being with supernatural powers. Such claims require more than just 'evidence', I want certain, irrevocable proof that she exists.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
Hmm, I wish I could take that answer back. Now that I think twice about the question, it is irrational to think the Loch Ness monster exists. I, for one, do not believe the Loch Ness monster exists, but I had difficulty abandoning the argument to ignorance. Moreover, can the analogy be stretched to God(s)?
The Loch Ness monster was (is) believed to reside in Loch Ness, an area "extending approximately 37km". If there exists any supernatural entity which we can call God, would we be complacent to look in an area that stretches 37km, and determine that if God were very likely real, that they would reside in a 37km area?
I understand both have been looked for repeatedly, and no independently constructed, verifiable data has surfaced, but the analogy still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Haha, indeed. It was logically consistent but strange, for, again, I just had a hard time betraying the argument to ignorance. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, never have, from what I can remember, but, as I said in my previous post, I felt the analogy from the Loch Ness Monster to God(s) wasn't very applicable.
I guess this fallacy has its own shades of gray. Under certain circumstances, it's not very reasonable.
I see the two questions as asking the same things in a different way, evidently you see a difference between the two.
Yes, can you show me where in question 10 you have to choose between rational and belief? It's rather blatant in question 14.
I have no faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. Faith doesn't come into it. Thus my belief is not based on faith. I have, I believe, a well founded confidence that the evidence for Nessie will continue to be in the absent category.
This is equivocating. Using different words to say the same thing: it is still belief.
This is like the cards I mentioned earlier in Message 20
quote:Analogy:
Take a mixed pile of cards and turn one over at a time.
In case (A) you have turned over 99 cards with no joker and there is one card left -- can you rationally conclude there is no joker in the deck?
In case (B) you have turned over 10 cards with no joker and there are 90 cards left -- can you rationally conclude that there is no joker in the deck?
Your answer depends on your amount of faith\belief that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
Make that the confidence you have that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
It is still what you believe will happen. The amount of confidence doesn't change the fact that it is what you believe will happen.
I don't have a problem with the two questions, and it's interesting to have seen your take on it - maybe you'll understand why I see no problem. I have no faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. Faith doesn't come into it. Thus my belief is not based on faith. I have, I believe, a well founded confidence that the evidence for Nessie will continue to be in the absent category.
™ Version 4.2