Pseudoskepticism and logic

Straggler, I've discussed this with you directly and I've also addressed these points in other threads in which you participated. You still don't seem to understand what my own position is, which strongly implies that you weren't paying much attention.I've been reading this thread and I think it would be helpful, as has been suggested, if RAZD could define what he has in mind when he talks about God. It is perhaps not the same definition that others are assuming. I'm curious about how Zen fits into it.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Until RAZD defines what he means by "god(s)" nobody will ever know. I am not holding my breath................ Nor do I as long as there is some mechanism that allows said "force" to be potentially objectively knowable in principle. If said "force" is some aspect of nature as yet unknown then (rationally or otherwise) I might even go so far as to say I think it more probable than not!! Thus I, the arch atheist apparent, am less of an atheist than you with regard to this at least it seems. England are in the World Cup. I was at Wembley itself for the Croatia game. I am not only still hungover from that night, nearly two weeks ago, I fear I am still inebriated from that game.Uraguay. Hah! We won but nobody cares anyway! INGGEERRRRLAND INGEEEERRRLLLAAND!So when are you coming across the pond? I am meeting Mod this weekend which is very exciting. My first ever EvC (indeed my first ever internet) meetup.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You constantly accuse me of not paying attention or listening to your points. And yet you persistently and relentlessly refuse to anwer my explicit questions regarding your position.On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific. If you search all threads on EvC in which atheism is mentioned you will find that RAZD plays a prominent role without ever specifying what it is he is saying atheists are not rationally justified in not believing in.His "absence of evidence" assertions are nonsense until he specifies what it is he is actually talking about.I too am curious about how Zen fits into anything but I have no doubt that RAZD will tell us this is "Off-Topic" because he does not wish to discuss his beliefs. God forbid he might have to pin himself to an actual position rather than what he doesn't believe in.

I think the fundamental difference between the two sides in this never-ending series of threads boils down to this question.The atheists assume without further thought that human invention is so evidenced as to be unnecessary to actually cite evidence for. It is the default position. In the absence of any other objective evidence, direct or indirect, it is implicitly assumed without any further thought being given to the situation.The deists/theists on the other hand seem to consider the "It's 50-50 I just don't know" as the rational position in the absence of any other stated evidence. They too do this without any further justification or thought.Thus the two sides (and I obviously include myself here) relentlessly talk at cross purposes throughout.The question is - Which default position is the most evidenced and thus rational? Who are the "pseudoskeptics" in their assumptions? Who are those unwittingly denying objectively evidenced facts in their assumptions? There can be only one.... (to quote Highlander)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Phage0070, let's see if we can sort this out. Then you are NOT demonstrating that it is improbable, you are just making an assertion that your opinion is that you think it is improbable. Amusingly, this is not significantly different from the creationists claim that life etc is improbable, yes? Fascinating concept, in spite of the fact that you cannot know whether it is true or not, as you are not on the privileged to fall in list.Curiously, what you are suggesting is that I could have a unique supernatural experience that would show this world to be illusion, unreal, possibly made up. Yes, I could proceed on the basis of not having enough information at this time to decide. If I fall in, then I have evidence that this world was illusion, and I am either in another illusion or the real world at that point. If I don't fall in then I have either somehow missed chasm or it does not exist. And not falling in would still not constitute evidence that it doesn't exist eh? It could happen at any moment. Except that I do not need to claim that it does not exist nor claim that it exists, as I can wait for further evidence. It is the claim, particularly the unsubstantiated claim, that x does not exist that separates the pseudoskeptic or atheist type position from the agnostic or true skeptic position. Sorry to disappoint.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : [i]thimk[i/]

---

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 PaulK I guess you'll have to take that up with Dawkins, possibly due to the fact that he doesn't claim to be an agnostic ...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 again Modulus, Which only shows that it is unlikely for someone to draw something that they don't know. Curiously I am reminded of the reaction of scientists to the first evidence of the platypus trying to decide if it was real. And yet being skeptical that a positive position is true does not mean that you must consider the negative position to be true. This is where I am having the trouble: getting beyond a purely skeptical position to one that asserts a negative hypothesis without any evidence that the negative hypothesis is true. And I'm still having trouble with understanding the distinction between 5 and 6 with this argument: if you don't feel you have sufficient evidence to convince other people of your claim then (a) why are you making it, or (b) why don't you admit the uncertainty and take a 5 position instead?Sorry, I just think that if you are convinced that it is "very improbable" that you would want to have something more substantial than using subjective thinking, made up probabilities, and confirmation bias to view the pros and cons, something objective and empirical. Great. So if you are skeptical of the negative hypothesis, then what is the problem with being an agnostic? Do they have bad breath? And yet you still assume the negative hypothesis rather than the "I don't know" hypothesis. No, I don't think it is a matter of my understanding, nor do I see how my being determined to misunderstand would mean that you are somehow providing objective empirical information to justify a negative hypothesis. This is the issue of the thread.

quote:

---

"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. ... 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

---

The creationist asserts that the spontaneous formation of life is "highly improbable" and they are asked to justify their calculation.Why should an atheist that claims that god/s are "highly improbable" get a free pass from demonstrating evidence to show exactly how improbable it is? Clutching at straws - perhaps the flaw is not in my reasoning but in the scale that Dawkins provided that was used as a reference of relative positions. PaulK made the same argument. Curiously this STILL does not absolve you from providing evidence for the negative hypothesis. From Message 1

quote:

---

Taking these three statements:

• 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.
• 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.
• There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .

---

There is no probability attached to agnostic there. Message 24

quote:

---

Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism, according to wiki, just means that certain claims are not known (there is no currently available data to support or refute the claim) or are unknowable (there can never be any data to support or refute the claim).

---

So we have ...

• (strong) atheists - predomonantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
• agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
• agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
• agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
• (strong) theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)

We can see how this applies to the favorite atheist arguments:The IPU - there is no need to assert a pro or a con opinion, one can easily await further information.Russel's Teapot - there is no need to assert a pro or a con opinion, one can easily await further information.The Garage Dragon - there is no need to assert a or a con opinion, one can easily await further information.The Orange Salamander in Rrhain's stove - there is no need to assert a pro or a con opinion, one can easily await further information.The Invisible Chasm that only swallows certain individuals - there is no need to assert a pro or a con opinion, one can easily await further information.It is when you feel you need to assert a pro or con opinion that you need to justify it, substantiate it, provide evidence for it, with the level of empirical objectivity of the evidence in proportion to the degree of the assertion of the truth of the claim.So you believe that atheism is most likely true, with a sprinkling of agnostic for tentative flavoring. You think that an entirely subjective explanation is sufficient evidence to support this position, but that an entirely subjective explanation is not sufficient evidence to support a predominantly theist position. Why?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : (strong) added

---

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) • • •

Exactly. As I thought about it more, the idea of replacing the classical version of god with this new vague version, seems a lot like someone is trying to move the goal posts to something less and less definable. Placing us (athiest) in a philosophical uphill battle against an assertion so vague in its description that we can only answer "I don't know" to the question of "if it exists."- Oni

Hi Phage0070, Yes, thus concisely demonstrating the problem with the argument.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 Linda Lou, haven't had the pleasure of debating you yet, looking forward to it. I enjoy reading your posts. Maybe so, but certain words can trigger reactions from the very people one is seeking to get a reaction from. Fair enough, and I agree. However, lets not presume that everyone who claims something is nonsense (which I didn't claim it was) hasn't taken the time out to investigate it.In regards to what I believe RAZD is discussing, I haven't said that what he claims to believe in is nonsense. I am simply asking for a better definition of what he believes in to know if I actually dismiss it. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about when he uses the word "God." If it's not religious, cultic, tribal, etc., then what is it?I am not an atheist in regards to some indescribable force that exists in the universe; I would not define that as a "God," so I hold no opinion of it. I don't have a negative position/hypothesis towards that; I'm not skeptical of something like that; frankly, I don't know what "that" even is. All I seek is a clear explanation of "that."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Nope, as I said that is not required for my position of non-belief. *You* are the person that keeps asking for my evidence of its improbability, I still consistently maintain that it is not required for my position. Of course, my claim is based on "subjective evidence" that requires some sort of sixth sense I am unable to explain. Seem familiar? Not so, you simply have evidence that you are unable to detect some pits. You also would need to revise your understanding of how pits operate. Right! That is the point of the example; you are unable to prove the non-existence of the pit, so by your logic you would need to remain in fear of it constantly. Wait for *what* other evidence? If the claim is true then not getting any evidence to support its existence would be consistent with the claim. On the contrary, I am delighted. The concept that you claim to be sitting next to your computer waiting for evidence that will never come, halfway open to the concept that a trip to the bathroom would kill you, is fulfilling in and of itself. That you will forever consider traversing that room a game of Russian Roulette tickles me to no end.

Hi Rrhain, Does it need to? One can explain why, while the application of Ohm's law can explain how. When you blow a soap bubble you can explain how the air and the water film are in equilibrium, but that doesn't explain why the soap bubble was formed. Likewise you can show how soap bubbles can form naturally, but you cannot demonstrate that all soap bubbles are formed naturally. I see no reason NOT to be open minded about god/s - do you? Do you have empirical evidence to justify NOT being openminded? Great. So where is your evidence for the non-existence of god/s?{off topic and irrelevant red herring quibbling ignored}What I want to see is your empirical objective evidence for the non-existence of god/s -- will you be the first on this thread to provide it?This thread is not about me justifying my position, it is about people with a negative hypothesis supplying evidence for that hypothesis. **blink**Where? Somehow I missed the presentation of objective empirical 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) • • •

Good grief, you cannot be this dense. Look; if the evidence is made up then that, in and of itself, qualifies as evidence that people make things up!

Agreed. Good point. It must also lie within the realm of reality; "knowable in principle" seems like a very basic thing to require. Fair enough. It seems like it's almost certain that some aspect of nature is yet unknowable.

---

When I do head that way (your side of the pond) I/we must hit up a football game. Congrats to you! But my boys from Spain, wow! 8-0!!! Next year for sure (business or pleasure, either way). Be careful, Chris Hanson from Datelines: To catch a predator might show-up. Check his age. LOLThat's really cool though, hopefully I can meet a few of the folks here too. Let us know how that went.- Oni

Hi RAZD,I can see you're busy here but I have a question for you.This has perhaps been the most fascinating thread of all, IMO, in the recent faith-evidence debate. I was thinking at first that the atheists were making a good case for the existence of God being improbable, because it seems absurd to have to prove all negative hypotheses (i.e. the invisible chasm around you) false in order to consider them improbable. But you are making a consistently strong argument for the purely skeptical position of being an agnostic until evidence gives a reason to change a belief one way or the other. I'm learning a lot from this.I wonder if we could talk about actual evidence for or against God, which necessarily means trying to define what God might be. I see no evidence of a conscious God who interacts with the universe in any readily detectable way -- certainly not how Yaweh is described in the Bible, or the way the Greek gods tended to tinker with the lives of mortals. At least one person who's been debating against you here has admitted that they could believe in something more impersonal, such as a "force." (not THE force of course.) So can you tell us how you read the evidence yourself, and how that influences your beliefs?