Pseudoskepticism and logic

I think this is a False Dichotomy. The god could be a real entity with some of the concept being a product of the human mind.And actually, although this is a little absurd and extraneous to my argument, perhaps the human mind can produce real entities But, what I was trying to get at in the other thread was that when you use this dicotomy with the fact that some of the specifics of the concept have been shown to be a product of the human mind, you are not showing that the concept is not a real entity. Do you see how my argument remains undestroyed even with a "no" here?

Irrelevant. The possibility that any specific god concept could be entirely a product of the human mind alone remains untouched. Do you doubt the human capacity to invent gods? Do I need to go through the pointless exerceise of inventing a host of mutually exclusive gods? (of which by definition only one could have been divinely inspired and thus unwitttingly "revealed" rather than invented by me). "The concept"? What concept CS? What do you mean? How can you believe in something if you don't know what it is you are believing in? Isn't this just nonsensical? You seem as athestic as me (possibly more so) about pretty much every god concept that has actually been defined in these discussions. If you are instead advocating some notion of a wholly undefined immaterial "something" then that is as meaningless as ICANT's notion of indefinable physical "nothingness". These are just meaningless collections of words. Sigh. Again. That isn't what I am saying. It isn't about having disproven that anything exists. It is about weighing up the evidence for the competing possibilities. Is it possible that any given god concept actually exists? Yes. Is it objectively evidenced? No. Is it possible that any given god concept is a human invention? Yes. Is the capacity for human invention objectively evidenced? Yes. Do the math and voilla we have a degree of objectively evidenced "probably human invention" rational atheism with regard to any given god concept. My position in a simplistic nutshel. Which argument? That belief in something completely undefined is rationally justified? I don't see how you can believe in "something" if you don't know what it is you believe in. Can you explain this to me?

I apologise for the overly aggressive spirit of my last post. I am having a bad day. Having just read it I think it was overly antagonistic.And you are stil free to call me whatever you want BTW

Its relevent because your two possibilites are neither the only two, nor exclusive. Whatever particular god concept you are discussing that has specifics that have been shown to be the product of human invention. I know what I believe in... And what I'm saying is that the possibilities aren't really competing. That argument could be used on anything that hasn't been objectively evidenced...I just saw a bird outside. yeah? well, the possibility that you just made that up outweighs it actually existing because I didn't see the bird too. You're not doubting that you could make up a bird, are you?The flaw is in comparing probabilities that don't affect each other. The objectively evidenced capacity for human invention and the possibility of a god concept being invented don't have anything to do with the possibility of a god concept actually existing. That you have a False Dichotomy, not two mutally exclusive positions, and that the possibilities for the positions you outline are unrelated. No, I don't know what you're typing about there.

Okay, so now we stop playing word games and use describe instead.Does this change you answer, and if so to what?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, I almost have to admire your obsession with avoiding topics. Amusingly, this is irrelevant to the topic AND it has been refuted by Catholic Scientist (Message 106): Because the reality was poorly understood at best. This is your problem in general - you think you can divide the world into neat pieces with clear delineations. Most of my posts dealing with you have dealt with your failure to see nuances and a spectrum of differences rather than dichotomies. Curiously, this thread is NOT about providing evidence to substantiate a positive claim, but the EQUAL burden to provide evidence if you have a negative claim.The possibility that no god is real is a completely objectively unevidenced claim. Once again we see you claiming that your position is based on actual factual objective evidence. Interestingly, you back-peddled furiously in Message 178:

quote:

---

Point taken. But I think the quoted statement does come up short of saying "there is objective evidence that God/gods do not exist", which is what I was looking for.

​

I, nor anyone else I have seen here, would make that statement.

​

The place to debate this further is back in the source topic. I will review that topic further and decide if I wish to pursue the point further. Others way like to do likewise.

​

There is no objective evidence in favour of any given god. There is objective evidence in favour of the mutually exclusive possibility that any given god concept is a human invention.

​

Unless RAZD is actually denying that there is objective evidence in favour of the possibility that any given god concept could be a human invention then I don't understand what his point is.

​

I have asked him this question but he won't answer it. Message 91

---

So do you have objective evidence for your atheist position that gods do not exist or do you not have evidence?If you have evidence where is it?I don't need to answer any of your irrelevant and badgering questions for one simple reason Straggler: this topic is about YOU providing evidence for YOUR position. Curiously, I can be agnostic leaning to atheist on the issue of the IPU because of the actual documentation of it being made up. The fact that I can be a 5 on this issue means that no evidence is required as I am open to the possibility that they exist. I can be mostly agnostic on the issue because it has absolutely no bearing on my life at this time.Likewise I can be totally agnostic to every single idea that I have not heard or read, without any qualms about how it affects my life.The problem is that you are a 6, not a 5. The problem is that you CLAIM to have objective evidence, but all you have done is snidely allude to it, you have not presented any case studies that document it with empirical data. Fascinatingly you have asked if I accept or reject your evidence, in spite of the fact that you have not presented any empirical data to be evaluated. Is that the way YOU do science, Straggler?I say you are a pseudoskeptic, a phaque, a fraud (not a leap for me, I'll admit, based on my experience with you and your several misrepresentations of my positions), because you keep promising evidence and failing to deliver. You can consider this a chance to prove me wrong: where's the evidence that actually supports your negative position? Message 1

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]

​

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

---

color bold and underline added for emphasis.If you don't think this burden applies to you than you cannot be more than a 5 on the Dawkins scale.Many atheists here (including you) are fond of saying that it isn't a matter of the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but that you see no reason to believe in gods.I ask you then why are you not equally unimpressed with the lack of evidence for the negative position: why don't you seen no reason to reject possibilities of god/s by the same logic.Why are you a 6 and not a 5?If it is because you have evidence that supports the negative hypothesis then let's see it.If you are content to be a pseudoskeptic then keep up posting as you have been for the last 5 or 6 threads dealing with this kind of issue, and continue to fail at producing evidence to support your postion/s.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, PaulK Forgive me if I this strikes me as cognitive dissonance and dealing with uncomfortable information that conflicts with your view of self.Interestingly, if there is no way to assign probability then the default position is "I don't know, there isn't enough information" - or 100% agnostic.The question is why you think any other position is logical or reasonable.Certainly, if someone asserts a positive hypothesis, we ask for substantiation.If the person replies that this is what they believe based on subjective evaluation of what evidence is available and how it matches their worldview of how reality works, but that they are not sure, then I mark them a 3 and we move on.If the person claims to know, or have objective evidence supporting their position, then we ask to see the objective evidence.Likewise, if a person asserts a negative hypothesis (evolution does not exist) then we ask them to substantiate that position.If the person replies that this is what they believe based on subjective evaluation of what evidence is available to them and how it matches their worldview of how reality works, but that they are not sure, then I mark them a 5 and we move on.If the person claims to know, or have objective evidence supporting their position, then we ask to see the objective evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Somewhat, yes. For instance I would have to ask if it is your only definition of what a god could be, or if you considered it only one of many appropriate descriptions. I would retain the concept that non-belief in something that you have no compelling reason to believe exists is an appropriate reaction.However, I still fail to see how your proposed logical error would apply. A god which is described as a pink elephant still allows the possibility of pink elephants that are not gods (The quality of being a god, A, being fully encompassed by the superset B, pink elephants). But, if there are no pink elephants at all then it is impossible for a god described as being a pink elephant to exist (assuming the description is accurate, the non-existence of superset B would also make the subset A non-existent). For it to be a logical error there would have to be gods which do not conform to your description. Once again the question becomes the accuracy and validity of your description/definition rather than the logic involved.The question really comes down to if you, RAZD, consider it reasonable to not believe in something that you have no evidence to believe exists, and if it is appropriate to behave in a manner consistent with that belief. Yes, this is a direct question to which I would like a clear answer. I think this is needlessly snippy. I can only work with what you give me, and I suspect my debating an imagined version of what you might say rather than what you do say would be much more unacceptable to you. I would appreciate you not being annoyed with me when I am unable to distinguish what you meant from what you wrote.Edited by Phage0070, : Added a "no", without which I seemed loony!

Hi Modulus, it's getting late for me so I hope you won't mind me being brief. Yes, the emphasis on "very improbable", as opposed to plain "unlikely", has the connotation of probability, the implication that you have done some kind of calculation based on some kind of information. Aren't these reasons to be agnostic? Aren't you assuming a probability when you don't know? Certainly SOME can be true, and wouldn't the default position be that you don't know?Curiously, I can be totally agnostic to all ideas that I don't know about, so why would I need to suddenly take a position pro or con when I come across a new idea? So no part of the complex idea can be true? Or could there be an interpretation problem due to a lack of information? The question is why you aren't equally unimpressed with the negative hypothesis that also lacks evidence to the same end? Which justifies agnosticism, yes? And yet another possibility is that all such (or a vast majority of) such specified entity/s could just be a poor interpretation of reality.In the Rig Veda god has many faces. I had a better link with an actual citation, but this will do:Just a moment...

quote:

---

henotheism: A Western term denoting the type of theology found throughout Hinduism, namely the teaching that there is a single ultimate reality behind the many gods of devotional Hinduism, where each god represents one of many faces through which an ultimate reality is manifested and through which it may be worshiped.

---

This possibility (rather than probability), of course is why I lean to a 3 position from strict agnosticism. Sorry, Modulus, but when you use the term improbable, it is making a judgement of a negative hypothesis, and this should be substantiated with evidence of that improbability. Otherwise we have the same kind of argument that creationists make about the improbability of life or evolution. They don't get off the hook. Fascinating. Why does it seem like all the atheists are busy either trying to show that they do not need to provide evidence for being a 6, or they are trying to pretend that their position is based on objective evidence that they can't seem to substantiate with empirical data?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Phage0070 Curiously I can remain agnostic, and live my life while waiting for more information. If you have read my posts on the other threads you will see that I am agnostic on many things, such as alien visitations, and sasquatch. There is evidence that suggests a possibility that these are actual experiences, however they are not convincing beyond that level.I can also be agnostic leaning towards atheist on the issue of the IPU, due to documentation of it being an intentional fabrication. Sorry for the snip, but you could have made that assumption and moved on rather than taking another post cycle to cover the issue.Let's be clear - do you think that you can form a single definition of god/s that is all inclusive and then demonstrate the improbability of such defined god/s being real?The question really comes down to whether or not you can justify a negative position when you have a lack of evidence of the same degree as you claim exists for a positive position?Are you making an assumption, or do you actually have evidence?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This is difficult more in the sense of being able to form a single definition of god/s that is all inclusive, rather than demonstrating the improbability of it being real. However, I still maintain that demonstrating the improbability of something's existence is not required for non-belief. Are you truly only agnostic toward unevidenced concepts, even concepts that cannot have evidence to the contrary? For instance, suppose that I claim there is a thirty-foot wide, 150 foot deep chasm around where you are currently sitting/standing/whatever. This chasm is of course undetectable, and the only thing that will fall into it is you (and no testing with parts of your body, etc. it is all or nothing).My claim has no evidence to support it, but isn't impossible except in the sense that you have never heard of undetectable chasms before. Supposing you were not aware of its usefulness as a theoretical example, would you really behave as completely agnostic toward my claim? Would you perhaps get someone to carry you across the 30 feet "just in case" the roughly 50% chance you would plummet to your death, or would you judge the threat to your life as slim enough to ignore it?My question isn't if you think it exists or not, because as it is defined you cannot know one way or another. My question is about how you *behave*. If you behave as if the chasm does not exist then it is like an atheist behaving as if there is no god. The alternative is maintaining your position and claiming you are roughly 50% open to any concept lacking evidence to support it, which I doubt is your actual behavior.

In message 111... ...RAZD is refusing to take a position on if he thinks your evidence exists. While I think this is a debating tactic of false ignorance (or something like that), I guess it does mean that you do need to lay the "God delusion" type information/evidence on him.Adminnemooseusps: There is a (sort of) side discussion relating to this topic at the "Coffee House" "Peanut Gallery" topic. It starts here. And in case anyone doesn't already know - Full disclosure - Minnemooseus is in an opposition position to that of RAZD.

quote:

---

Forgive me if I this strikes me as cognitive dissonance and dealing with uncomfortable information that conflicts with your view of self.

---

I suppose I will have to forgive you this clear example of cognitive dissonance on your part as you need to deal with the uncomfortable information that a 50/50 probability estimate is not a safe default and requires justification.

quote:

---

Interestingly, if there is no way to assign probability then the default position is "I don't know, there isn't enough information" - or 100% agnostic.

---

Indeed, and you will note that I said nothing against that view. Of course every position on the scale disagrees with the assertion that there is no way to estimate the probability.

quote:

---

The question is why you think any other position is logical or reasonable.

---

There is no position on the scale that you used which does not include a probability estimate, so you agree with me that position 3 and 4 DO require justification.

quote:

---

If the person replies that this is what they believe based on subjective evaluation of what evidence is available and how it matches their worldview of how reality works, but that they are not sure, then I mark them a 3 and we move on.

---

So if somebody said that they believe that God almost certainly does (or does not) exist (thus meeting your not sure criterion) and their justification for this position meets your other criteria you would tell them that they believe that God is likely to exist as not and try to move on. I don't think that that is going to work.Rather, you are admitting to using a quite different scale (which raises the question of why you are trying to use the Dawkins scale at all).

No explicit calculation needed to make a judgement about probability as I explained. I explain it again later. The first one is also a reason to be agnostic. The second + third one coupled with the first are reasons to be highly sceptical about any positive claim about what unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities actually exist. There is a choice of billions upon billions of describable objects - with a billion billion more indescribable ones. I'm going to pick a small set from those objects without any particularly reliable system. So my chances of picking objects that conform to objects that actually exist is very small.The position is that I do not know which ones, if any, are real objects. By deciding to pick one or several objects and asking 'what do I think the chances of this set being real are?', I think it is safe to say 'very slim, at best'.If an English-man in the 10th century were to create a list of fantastical animals, thousands upon thousands of them. It might be the case that he accidentally drew/described a kangaroo. If we picked one of those animals using any unproven system - the chances of us happening to pick the kangaroo are very low (n to 1, with n being the number of alternatives)I wouldn't be surprised that there exists some entities which are either practically or by their very nature are unverifiable or unfalsifiable. I would be surprised if someone managed to anticipate what those entities were. You don't need to, RAZD. I'm not explaining what you are compelled to do by necessity. I am giving you my reasons for thinking the way I do. If you think that my reasons are compelling then so be it, but I don't anticipate you will. I didn't say that. I simply said that since it seems to me that reality has shown us that such complex entities don't just spontaneously appear and that they themselves require an explanation it strikes me as improbable that any 'God' type entity is the ultimate end of the chains of causality. I am unimpressed with the hypothesis 'there is no god' since there is no evidence that can suggest this if we stipulate that god is unfalsifiable - by definition.But I think the reasoning that there are potentially infinite number of unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities that can be described or imagined and that choosing ones that happen to be right is highly unlikely is sound. Yes it does. Yes, that is a possibility...indeed I've been arguing that to have been the case for some time now. Anybody who claims that the correct interpretation involves {unverifiable entity #5891447578} being an entity with actual existence is taking an essentially random shot in the dark and is very likely to have missed. I have done so. And not only that, but I have stressed the tentativity of my knowledge in this subject, by definition of the entities in question. I don't know. Maybe because you don't understand what we are saying? Maybe you are determined to misunderstand our position? Maybe we're all morons? I can't really say.I have provided my reasons, the rationale and the evidence for that rationale. You don't agree that they are good enough, and I didn't anticipate you would (as I'm sure I've said recently, otherwise you'd be saying you were a '6').But you didn't address the comment you quoted. You suggest that you are a #3. This suggests that you believe that the chances of god existing are greater than 50% but you have yourself not provided any evidence upon which to conclude any probabilities. By your own argument, every position on the seven point scale requires evidence to justify it.

Hi bluegenes, Curiously you don't know my position on omphalism, but even more fascinating, this topic is not about me.What this topic is about is defending a negative position with evidence that substantiates that position.Let's deal with the message and not attack the messenger eh? I thought the ad hominem attack was a sign of having a position that you can't defend with logic or evidence. Or so you assume. Any empirical data? Do you realize that the complete application of this "evidence" to all perception would leave us with very little to say about anything? Everything is just made up in our minds, solipsism eh? Yet you say you are a 6 on omphalism (last-thursdayism), which logically amounts to the same thing.If you are a 6 on the concept of all experiences and knowledge being made up, then why would you use this as evidence to support a 6 position on another issue? Amusingly, I had a teacher in high school that told me that if I need to state that something is obvious, that then it isn't, while if it is obvious, then you should be able to just demonstrate it. Agnostic is where you don't have enough evidence pro or con to make a valid conclusion pro or con based on evidence and admit it.Agnostic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

ag⋅nos⋅tic
 -noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

---

Here we should be using definition 2, seeing as the discussion covers all negative hypothesis, not just ones about god/s. So when a 6 or a 7 states that they are so, because x is unlikely, or very improbable, then we can take this as evidence that they are not being agnostic eh? And again I ask you, if there is no evidence against the proposition, then why isn't your position equally skeptical of that hypothesis? Why 6 over 5 or 4?

quote:

---

4. Completely impartial agnostic.

​

5. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

---

Or do you have empirical evidence? And if you have empirical evidence, then what is it?Or do you just have a subjective argument based on your subjective perceptions of the world around you (your worldview) and base your position on the assumption that you are right? Here the question is whether you recognize the subjective nature of your opinion and are satisfied to be unsure (a 5), or whether you claim a stand without sufficient evidence to support it (a pseudoskeptic).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •