Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi On(ifre), thanks If you don't know what you don't believe in, then how can there be atheists?Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

atheist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

---

That seems pretty general and should be sufficient to cover the question.For those still unclear on the concept, this is an hypothesis that X does not exist, and it is a negative hypothesis.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 Onifre You are missing the full quote, reproduced here complete with typo which will go unedited to show that I have not changed the post since 09*27*2009 10:36 PM: Message 196
So you asked what a deist would say, and I gave you an answer AND then told you where it came from. Unfortunately that page no longer displays.Further discussion is offtopic.Thanks.

---

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 Onifre, Glad you read the link before it disappeared. There are other similar sites. There seems to be quite a number of us.Well, that would be why I am an agnostic theist, rather than a strong theist. Actually I borrowed it from another source, so no, I did not make it up. (see Message 337 for clarification). You are assuming that the only negative hypothesis is in response to a positive hypothesis, in essence the claim that "no you are wrong" is the only kind of negative hypothesis possible.There have been several examples of other negative hypothesis presented on this thread, many using arguments provided by YEC creationists, which all demonstrate that the negative exists and it still needs to be justified by the proof or evidence that supports the claim.For example an extreme antitheist (an 8?) could say: Would you not agree that such a claim needs something more than "people make things up" as substantiation?The issue gets muddy because we have this spectrum of beliefs from antitheist to fundamentalist fanatic with a lot of ground in between.
We have the red "Strong Atheist" at one end, the green "Pure Agnostic" in the middle and the purple "Strong Theist" at the other end. We also have the yellow blended "Agnostic Atheist" and the blue blended "Agnostic Theist" in between those primary positions.Where one stops and the next begins is not clear, but the spectrum is not a complete blend, the "Agnostic Atheist" is between two positions, and the cross-over from "Pure Agnostic" to "Strong Atheist" occurs when you consider the negative position more valid than the neutral position, and would claim you are predominantly atheistic perhaps (but not always) with a little agnosticism added.There needs to be some logical proof or substantiating evidence to cross that line or one falls into the definition of pseudoskeptic in Message 1 or of a false skeptic in Message 4.Same for the "Agnostic Theist" - however we are interested in the burden of proof for the negative hypothesis\claim on this thread. The definition of atheism says otherwise. That's the definition of agnosticism. Glad you agree that to move away from a neutral position without having evidence to make you go there is unreasonable. Now all we need to do is agree on where that center is.All the definitions commonly used place that center firmly on agnosticism, in science, and in the rest of the world. No evidence? Do we need the merry-go-round of subjective experience/s again? Do we need to re-investigate the numerous experiences of a religious nature that are certainly evidence of something, what is not conclusive.And we have also seen the similar purely subjective arguments of people trying to defend strong atheism when the best they can justify is Agnostic Atheist because of the similar subjectivity of their evidence.Sorry, Onifre, I'm done in, bagged, tonight, and clarity of thought needs a fully conscious and aware mind.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /center

---

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 a general reply to all those now climbing onto the "atheism is the null hypothesis" bandwagon in an attempt to show that they don't need to bear the burden of providing logical proofs or substantiating evidence for their claim that the "most likely" explanation is that there are no god/s.Null+hypothesis Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

null hypothesis —noun
(in the statistical testing of a hypothesis) the hypothesis to be tested.

---

Now if someone is actually doing a statistical testing, then there must be some empirical data that has been collected eh?Null hypothesis - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (Ho) formally describes some aspect of the statistical "behaviour" of a set of data. This description is assumed to be valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another or alternative hypothesis. Statistical hypothesis testing, which involves a number of steps, is used to decide whether the data contradicts the null hypothesis. This is called significance testing. A null hypothesis is never proven by such methods, as the absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish its truth. In other words, one may either reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it. This means that one cannot make decisions or draw conclusions that assume the truth of the null hypothesis. Just as failing to reject it does not "prove" the null hypothesis, one does not conclude that the alternative hypothesis is dis-proven or rejected, even though this seems reasonable. One simply concludes that the null hypothesis is not rejected.

---

Amusingly, what this means is that if you claim that atheism is the null hypothesis, that then you "cannot make decisions or draw conclusions that assume the truth of the null hypothesis."Curiously, that would mean that the default position would be agnostic. Certainly that would be the case when there is no set of empirical data for testing the hypothesis.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 Modulus, Thanks. Those that are paying attention can take my response as answering them as well for the repeated points.I am also putting people on notice that I'll be marking posts "noted" when they have not added anything new to the debate and only continue to dodge the issue. I could also say that it is made up - as you have given me less information than people have on religious experiences for justification - but I don't think that argument is worth using to dismiss concepts you don't like. What I would like to see is some basis for calculation that is not confirmation bias. So your default response is that the explanation is almost necessarily false without even knowing what it is? Does this apply to things that we currently don't have the technology to detect? From Susan Blackmore, Message 1:

quote:

---

"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, ... but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . "

---

To do science you also need an open mind in order to explore new concepts, and develop testable hypothesis.Curiously, the emphasis some on this thread place on skepticism being doubt and dismissing the element of uncertainty:

quote:

---

skepticism also scepticism (skěp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy
- a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
- b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
- c.A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

---

We are talking Philosophy, and thus uncertainty is more applicable than doubt. This element of uncertainty is stressed by Truzzi when he says that the "true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."Thus the true skeptic agnostic says that the concept of god/s is not proven, not that it is any degree of unlikely.Doubt is not complete enough for the scientific approach: if all new concepts are doubted and dismissed as being most likely wrong before testing even begins, then a lot of valuable science fails to get done. Which explains how such experiences occur, but not necessarily why. You now have a mechanism to explain how, and the next step is to test it, to try to show that this mechanism applies to all religious experiences. Surely (hi Shirley) you would agree that such a positive hypothesis should be tested and supported by empirical study.We also have evidence that Buddhist Monks and Catholic Nuns can develop the same brain patterns via religious practices:Atheist Empire: God and the Brain

quote:

---

Though skeptics may argue that God lives only in the mind of the faithful, Newberg suggests that the opposite conclusion is equally valid: "If there is a God, it makes perfect sense that He would create a way for us to communicate with Him."

---

How, but not why eh?Page not found - Mind & Life Institute

quote:

---

These dialogues on mind and life confront the questions: Are these disciplines simply incompatible, or might they rather be regarded as complementary? Are there scientific ways of testing Buddhist theories and Buddhist ways of testing Western science? This meeting enables experts in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neuroscience, and Buddhist theory and practice to clarify key concepts in neuroscience and Buddhism for the purpose of improving cross-cultural understanding among Buddhist scholars and Western scientists.

---

This is open-minded skepticism, agnosticism at it's best, imho(ysa)o. Then let's use X = religious or spiritual experience for starters. One could measure the "green-ness" of leaves in a forest and determine that each leaf is different from the next, and conclude that being able to pick the "green-est" one would leave (heh) you with at very low probability of picking the right one.However one can look at not only green, but red and brown and yellow leaves and find that the common element that leads to the appearance of green is the chlorophyll. But are you sure that the concept must necessarily be unverifiable/unfalsifiable or that this is just a result, an artifact, of the framing of the question. If you don't have enough evidence to demonstrate a positive or a negative, then you don't know if evidence could mean it is verifiable?Does the fact that "there are no god/s" is a falsifiable hypothesis mean that it is true? Yes, you asserted that this was the case, however I see it as comparable to the creationist "calculation" of the probability of life with the hurricane in the junkyard argument, and I've described reasons why your assumption that they are all distinct and separate concepts is not a valid assumption. Which then must be shown to necessarily apply to all the religious and spiritual experiences, and this has not been tested. And if I say that it is possible that they all have features in common, kernels of commonality, that indicate a possibility or some supernatural or spiritual essence, and thus that they do not disprove the hypothesis that there may be god/s, and that because of this, the claim is not proved rather than disproved, and you have not borne the burden of proof for a negative claim that god/s are "highly unlikely."You are left with agnosticism as the logical conclusion.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 Stile, The agnostic position is that there is not enough information to discern whether the idea is from imagination or not. See Message 1 again and what Truzzi says about the "true skeptic". Yes the need to provide evidence and substantiation of a positive claim is well established and recognized on this thread.What this thread is about is the equal "burden of proof" for the claim that "X is false" and that without such evidence or logical proof that it is not rational to conclude that "X is false" or even that it is a "better" explanation. And the True Skeptic of Message 1 says that the only rational (and consistent) thing to do is to ignore basing decisions for OR against such propositions. Quintessential agnosticism. Or one could remain unconvinced that any such doubt\fear\hope is sufficiently proven by evidence or logical argument to make a decision. Consider a friend of mine: he says that he is an "apatheist" because "he doesn't know and he doesn't care." Then one should be equally skeptical of claims that the concepts are false. Curiously, I had a similar discussion with Onifre on one of the other threads, and the conclusion was that it was okay to allow the probability that X was true while not feeling encumbered to test it, rather than to dismiss it without any evidence suggesting that it was false. Let those who are interested in the question study it and then if they come up with more evidence then I can revisit it.Notice that this is being both open-minded AND skeptical. And assuming that a claim is false or that it is based on imagination without having sufficient evidence to make that claim is not being rational.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 bluegenes, Thanks for admitting this. That makes 4 or 5 (I've lost count, mostly because I don't really care) atheists who have ended up saying this. And the absence of evidence over a 64 million year period means that the Coelacanth did not exist between the time of dinosaurs and the present?Curiously what the absence of evidence is evidence for is the absence of evidence to rationally form a decision.Phage0070 has a similar problem in understanding the agnostic position. The agnostic says that there is not enough evidence to show that a dragon could or could not exist, and that therefore the logical response is to say that it is not proven rather than it is shown to be false. Or that there was a magical invisible chasm that was waiting to trap only me. Did you read my responses?Similar your suggestion of omphalism, which again, is a concept where there is no evidence to base a decision on, so the concept is not proven, and it is not falsified.Or do you 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) • • •

Hi bluegenes, I'll kick this off with a false comment of yours. The correct term is agnostic - see Message 197 for clarification. Now if you think it is hilarious, then fine, but you are ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for or against it. The question is what is a reasonable conclusion?Let's explore the difference between the negative position and the neutral position.It is possible to have a negative hypothesis that is not a response to a particular positive claim. For example I can claim that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the age is anywhere close to this number, and what we have is X is NOT less than 400,000 years as the negative claim that now needs to stand alone on it's own merits.To be a valid claim, I need to provide evidence or a logical proof to show why the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years, or this claim rates as a pseudoskeptic claim.The evidence I can show is on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5, Message 6, Message 7, Message 8, Message 20, and Message 21. The evidence doesn't stop there, but that is sufficient to establish that the earth is not less than 400,000 years.Thus evidence is provided that does establish reasonable grounds for accepting the argument that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old. Message 1 once again: I have now provided an example of a negative hypothesis and that it is indeed supported by substantial objective empirical evidence, thus the claim is not pseudoskepticism.Ah, you say, but omphalism theory says that all your evidence is made up, in this case by god/sOnce again, we look at the claim that omphalism is true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.Then we look at the claim that omphalism is NOT true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.Thus there is no need to make a decision about the validity of omphalism until more information is available, at which time the question can be revisited.Now remember what Truzzi said in this situation:

quote:

---

" 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.""

---

This may seem like behaving as if the claim were false, as has been suggested, but to really understand this issue we need to look at what happens if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the claim - here I'll use a "generic" version that includes last-thursdayism, etc - is true: This means that up to that point the evidence and the conclusions are valid, so it is reasonable to proceed with their use.Beyond that point then the evidence is made up, it is an illusion made by god/s. We take this to the extreme point that this occurred in the last second, and thus everything you "know" is all an illusion.This conforms to the Buddhist view that "all is illusion" and thus validates that belief, but there is also a point where this agrees with science. In science we make as few assumptions as possible, but one necessary assumption is that what we learn about the real world is actually related to reality, for otherwise all is illusion. If this can be shown to in fact be true, then a more important truth has been learned.So do I need to claim that omphalism is true or false to make my claim that the earth is less than 400,000 years old? No, because it doesn't matter: the hypothesis remains true up to the point that omphalism kicks in, and the truth of the hypothesis is irrelevant if omphalism occurred in the last microsecond, as a more important truth has been learned and pretty much everything you thought you knew is irrelevant, not just the argument about the age of the earth.As such I remain agnostic on omphalism as there is no evidence pro or con that can provide me with reasonable cause to believe either way. Except that this thread OP and I fully agree with you that such an assertion unsupported by evidence would qualify as pseudoskepticism.So why does atheism get off?If someone from a traditionally atheistic culture gives much higher credence to the possibility of the nonexistence of god/s than the evidence would warrant, and is skeptical about theism, this would fit pseudo-skepticism, again due to cultural bias.Cultural bias is just how your world view interacts with your understanding of reality, and is the subjective part of opinion formation, whether atheist or theist.What is your special pleading reason for atheists to avoid the equal burden to show evidence of their claim? Nope.In agnosticism there is no "but (insert subjective biased opinion)" involved. The agnostic just says that they cannot know.Personally I can say that there is not enough evidence to base an objective opinion on, but that it would be wonderful to find if it is true.Now you can have an opinion of what you think is true, but asserting that opinion is not agnosticism, it is making a claim. The question comes down to how much you think that claim is true relative to the neutral position.Is it reasonable to claim that 'X' is true or not true if there is not enough evidence to make a reasonable conclusion (tautology intended)?

• The strong anti-X claims that it is most reasonable to think that X is unlikely
• The agnostic anti-X says that they think X is unlikely, but that there is reasonable doubt, and this prevents making a claim that it is not true
• The agnostic says there is not enough evidence make a reasonable decision
• The agnostic Xist says that they think X is likely, but that there is reasonable doubt, and this prevents making a claim that it is true
• The strong Xist claims that it is most reasonable to think that X is likely

The first and the last need to show why they think their position is true beyond a reasonable doubt.We all agree about the positive claim, and we've seen many instances where the negative claim needs to bear the burden of proof and substantiation.Why should atheism get a free ride?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : qs qsEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : link tinker

---

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) • • •

Summary of your posts
61 by straggler
Message 5 suggesting that you have evidence
.... doesn't present evidence
Message 126 says "Thus I am not a "pseudoskeptic"." Message 395 still fails to understand the issue, still no evidence
Message 428 rather than present evidence, makes assertions that are not based on my position (once more), and now resorting to ad hominem while still avoiding the topicnow 428 posts in the thread
Still no evidenceThe evidence speaks louder than the words.Enjoy.

Hi Modulus and thanks again. Well it would be shorter if the people not addressing the topic didn't keep posting, but it seems that Percy may be testing to see how far a thread can go as long as there are sufficient numbers keeping to the topic. You may have more insight from admin connections.I've restated the topic on Message 232 and my last post to bluegenes, Message 427, pretty fairly summarizes my position as well. Because it would display open-minded skepticism, present arguments from alternative views and then show the numbers that form the basis for the calculation. The calculation could be repeated with the same results by a skeptic. If the basis is opinion rather than numbers, then it is some combination of subjective opinion, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, no matter what position it purportedly defends. Doesn't the falsifiability of the claim that "there are no gods" contradict your assertion that the claim "there are gods" is unverifiable? It just shows that the individually different and varied greeness of all the leaves does not rule out the common cause of the greeness in all the leaves. Again, this shows how such experiences may occur, but not why they occur. A person is walking down the street with a chocolate ice cream cone.One person asks "How did you get that ice cream cone?" and they describe going into the shop, ordering the cone, paying for it and leaving. They can go into minute detail of choosing the flavor, how the ice cream was scooped and how the cone was handled, and even go into a discussion of how the ice cream and the cone were made.Another person asks "Why did you get that ice cream cone?" and they answer that it is because they like chocolate ice cream cones. They could add that they like chocolate and ice cream and that they think cones are convenient ways to eat ice cream while walking down the street.Different answers to different questions. The "how" question can be studied and tested by scientific processes, the "why" question is different.How eyesight evolved is a fairly straightforward question that has been answered by objective evidence and comparison of living and extinct animals.Why eyesight evolved is a different question, and it involves the purpose of eyesight, which is to provide clues to the reality around the organism. My personal opinion? That x = y + b is one possibility, where y is variable and b is constant. Except that you have a priori classified them as not being common in their experiences. Do you have any evidence that it is not?I am agnostic/deist because my personal opinion is that such evidence displays a possibility of a common experience or a religious\spiritual nature. I cannot say that this possibility is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, only that I have not found any evidence yet to contradict that view, and that the claim that there are no god/s is not proven nor shown by any empirical or objective data. As I said, it is a possibility that is not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, not that it is "more likely" -- that was your claim for atheism wasn't it? They could also all have a common element of truth, no matter how many, and the chances of picking one with that element of truth would then be high. I see this as an argument from incredulity and a straw man that does not address the possibility of common element/s to religious\spiritual experience, and that the claim is not proven.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : submit button hit too soon

---

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 bluegenes, But it is. Why? Because I did not use the "50/50" pseudo-probability to describe my position, rather I used the words, as they are a more accurate description.You can't do probability without knowing all the possibilities.To claim that I said it was 50/50 is just as false as Straggler saying that my description of what a deist might say is my personal description, because it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Last time I looked misrepresentation was a falsehood. And the reasons why I discarded the pseudo-probabilities from further discussion are (1) it is a made up probability that is not necessary to describe the positions, while (2) you and others are obsessed with discussing the numbers rather than the issue. More pseudo-probabilities with made up infinities to sound like a reasonable position. They all have a common denominator - that at some (unknown) time in the past the world was made up by god/s.Every one of your "effectively infinite number" are cescribed by that one single position.Let's compare your argument to the example I provided for the age of the earth, which - interestingly - you completely avoided: Message 427
Now, what your argument is like would be if I had claimed that I don't need to provide evidence for the earth being older than 400,000 years, because there are an "effectively infinite number" of ages between 0 and 400,000 so the probability of it being any chosen age is infinitesimally small. Thus a younger earth is "extremely unlikely, as it's one of an effectively infinite number of equally evidenceless propositions."Curiously, I don't think that argument would have lasted as long as the one currently in it's 4th incarnation.Do you, perhaps now, understand why I think phaque calculations of pseudo-probabilities that are really nothing more than dressed up personal opinion are as worthless a measure of reality than honest opinion? And deprive the others of the opportunity to actually show some evidence for the atheist position?Straggler and some others are now claiming that I am in denial, as if this is an argument for the atheist position being logical, and I have to wonder what he thinks I am in denial about:

• the evidence that has not been presented?
• the logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
• the absent posts addressing the issue of providing evidence for a negative position?
• the equivocation that atheism = agnoticism and therefore is immune even though the next breath says that X is "highly unlikely"?
• the argument that the negative hypothesis is the "default" hypothesis, as if THAT excused it from providing evidence when it is asserted as "highly likely"?

I'd ask what I am missing, but the fact is that what I am missing is an honest debate about atheists providing actual evidence to support the atheist stance, an argument that can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the negative claim that there are no gods is substantiated by anything other than opinion, evidence comparable to the evidence that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years.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 Modulus,It appears that we are at a cross-roads. etc etc etc.And yet you have not shown that any two such concepts are completely and entirely mutually exclusive, but keep operating on that assumption.Your argument is like the analogy of the green leaves, that every leaf is measurably different from all the others, and therefore being able to select a single leaf that is the "true" leaf is next to impossible. You've posited a blind man picking a leaf and just by chance finding that "true" leaf.And yet the blind man can pick up any leaf in any forest in the world in the last 400,000 years (just for good measure), even including dead and well preserved leaves, and be almost 100% guaranteed of finding one with chlorophyll in it. That is not the question. The question is what is the purpose of the religious or spiritual experiences - why do they occur, now how, and why do they have common elements. I already have.Your point 4 does not address ALL cases, so it is not a refutation that many experiences could be entirely valid religious and spiritual experiences, nor does this show beyond a reasonable doubt that this can explain all the religious and spiritual experiences.And you have not been able to demonstrate that an explanation for how a religious experience occurs means that it necessarily is not a true experience of a religious or spiritual nature. We can explain how we see things with our eyes, but this does not explain why we see, nor does it mean that what we see is explained by the how mechanism. Now if you want to argue that our vision is subjectively interpreted in a flawed and error prone manner, then I will agree with you, but note that even so there are valid experiences seen with our eyes, experiences that are evidence of reality and that can be repeated by other people.Your point 5 seems to be claiming that the explanations in point 4 do cover all the possible religious and spiritual experiences, even though it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is so.You have not been able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no "god=chlorophyll" common to the many numerous and well documented instances of religious and spiritual experiences.Without the assumption that 4, 5 and 6 are valid points, you are left with not enough evidence to show that the existence of gods is "highly unlikely" beyond a reasonable doubt.Curiously, all it takes is one religious or spiritual experience to actually be true to render your whole argument void. There remains reasonable doubt that your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" is a valid conclusion, the claim has not been substantiated.Now that we have driven that issue into the ground, can we deal with the issue of providing evidence or logical proof to substantiate any negative hypothesis or claim?Let's try these simple scenarios:

1. Do you agree that the agnostic bears no burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I don't know whether X is true or not, because there is insufficient evidence or information on which to form a rational decision pro or con"?
2. Do you agree that the absolute theist bears a burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is true because evidence or information on which to form a rational pro decision is available"?
3. Do you agree that the absolute theist has not born the burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is true because it is my opinion"?
4. Do you agree that the absolute atheist bears a burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is not true because evidence or information on which to form a rational con decision is available"?
5. Do you agree that the absolute atheist has not born the burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is not true because it is my opinion"?

Do you agree that 2 and 4 are similar, and thus we need to see the evidence or logical proof that demonstrates - beyond a reasonable doubt - that it is not just opinion?Do you agree that 3 and 5 are similar, and that both fail to meet the standard of providing evidence or logical proof substantial enough to show beyond a reasonable doubt that their position is true?After we can find some agreement on these points then we can proceed to what is rational for mixes of atheism and agnosticism or theism and agnosticism.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 Modulus, And there you have a negative claim with no attempt to provide evidence. So (5) is the set of imaginary mechanisms similar to (4) that you have made up to enhance your argument. Except that I have, you just reject it because the refutation contradicts your beliefs. Here is your rejection again: You have made an a priori assumption of virtual exclusiveness and then use this assumption to claim that the possibility of common elements "clearly isn't so" when you have not born the burden to show why it "clearly isn't so" which brings us to: So you are clearly guilty of the absolute atheist type argument when you say X "clearly isn't so" and the question is whether it is the first case - pseudoskepticism - or the second case - in which case, where is the evidence. The real claim that the agnostic says is "I don't know if it is true OR FALSE" and one cannot logically "utter" that it is both true and false. How does one claim that? This has been done.Curiously, the absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence.The other part of the claim is that the evidence for the possibilities of god/s is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s exist AND AT THE SAME TIME that the evidence for the possibility that no god/s exist is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s do not exist. With neither claim being adequately supported, there is insufficient information or evidence on which to base a rational decision. Yes, so now we can discuss the "blended" positions and their relative rationality. For instance the blended atheist claims that he doesn't say that there is no possibility that god/s exist, just that he thinks it is "unlikely" "very unlikely" or "highly unlikely" -- all of which are assertions about the relative truth of the claim, and not statements of "I don't know because there is insufficient evidence to know pro or con"So the "blended atheist" is a combination of agnostic position + atheist position, and the atheist portion needs to be supported by substantiating evidence or logical proofs, or subsumed in the agnostic portion.The "weak atheist" (agnostic atheist) says that "overall the evidence is insufficient, we cannot know for sure, pro or con, but my personal opinion is that god/s are not likely." Because opinion is not evidence and it lacks any ability to affect reality in any way, this is really a claim of being an agnostic first and foremost: the claimant is predominantly agnostic if they recognize the inherent fallibility of their opinion, and pseudoseptical agnostic if they do not - as you agreed in relation to the absolute atheist basing a claim of knowing the truth based on opinion.The strong atheist says that "overall the evidence is sufficient to show that god/s are "very unlikely" or "highly unlikely" although there is a slight, small, possiblity of god/s being true. Here the claim is predominantly atheistic, and the claimant asserts there is sufficient evidence to judge the relative likelihood of god/s. This claim needs to be supported, or we have another pseudoseptical agnostic condition. Let's look at another example: the YEC claim that life could not possibly develop from chemicals. They can claim that there are virtually millions of possible combinations of chemicals, and the likelihood of your blind man picking one that actually results in life is extremely low, therefore it is extremely highly unlikely that life developed from chemicals.The problem is that a single instance of such development shows that it is not impossible. While such a single example will not show absolutely that the life we know began in exactly that way, it does provide sufficient evidence that the formation of life from chemicals is possible beyond a reasonable doubt.Curiously, when this same logic is applied to your argument about gods, a single instance means that your claim is wrong, invalidated, void, null.Thus you need to show that you claim applies in all instances. This just has not been done, (4) does not do this and assertions otherwise (5) are just additional opinion.Thus your (6) is not demonstrated beyond an reasonable doubt, (4) does not do this and (5) insufficient to show an exclusive explanation is even possible.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : full quote

---

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) • • •

Okay, Modulus, let's backtrack a bit It's possible that I did misinterpret your comment, but it was followed with (Message 448): It seems to me that you are still saying that there are more differences than similarities, and that those differences are more important than the similarities.But if you want to concede that several experiences could have common elements of similarity, then this is not evidence against the possibilities of god/s. I concede that there is insufficient evidence at this time to say the existence of god/s is true AND I concede that there is insufficient evidence at this time to say that the existence of god/s is NOT true.Why do you stop short of saying the last bit? There you go again. And you tell me I am confused by your argument.

• Some religious experiences may be valid
• The probability of the experience exactly matching and exactly describing a god is extremely low ... and
  ​
  ? ∴ ?
• (absolute atheist): the existence of god/s is not proven, and therefore god/s don't exist
• (strong atheist): the existence of god/s is not proven, and therefore god/s are extremely unlikely
• (atheistic agnostic): the existence of god/s is not proven, AND the absence of god/s is not proven, and therefore we can't make a rational decision, there is a possibility that god/s don't exist
• (pure agnostic): the existence of god/s is not proven, AND the absence of god/s is not proven, and therefore we can't make a rational decision
• (theistic agnostic): the existence of god/s is not proven, AND the absence of god/s is not proven, and therefore we can't make a rational decision, there is a possibility that god/s exist
• (strong theist): the absence of god/s is not proven, and therefore god/s are extremely likely
• (absolute theist): the absence of god/s is not proven, and therefore god/s exist

I'm just trying to follow your logic to a valid conclusion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : agnostic not atheist theist

---

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 Modulus, let me see if I can show you why your "probability" assumptions get no traction in my opinion. So we come back to my response that every x = y + b where b is a constant element of the spiritual or religious experiences.Let me note that my expectations for such common elements are low, I do NOT expect experiences of coming face-to-face with god/s to be common in details, nor do I expect voice-of-(insert religious icon here) to be common in details. As a deist I don't expect god/s to show up just because someone has an experience.With a minimalist (skeptical but open minded) approach I would expect a common experience closer to the Buddhist vision of "being-that-is-not-being" or oneness with the universe. This gets back to the how versus why question, and the purpose of such experiences.If we compare these experiences to the experiences of a person with vision in a world of blind people, we can have an analogous situation. Here the blind scientists can measure the brain patterns in normal (blind) people and in people suffering from the visionary disease, and they can show that certain sections of the brain are active when visionary people are having an episode. They cannot measure, nor determine what it is that is causing this pattern, other than that certain nerves inside the body are stimulated, nor can they determine what is "seen" during these experiences. The concept of colors seems to be a made up concept, etc etc etc. They can explain how these brain patterns occur, and they can attribute them to various brain malfunctions and behaviors, commonly associated with "visionary" people, ones that don't occur in normal (blind) people. In old times, this "visionary" condition was cured by simple pre-frontal nerve fusions, so that the damaged nerves would no longer send false signals to the brain, however now some radical scientists are exploring the concept to understand more about what is happening.Why people see is because it serves a purpose, the ability to survive and reproduce is enhanced for those that can see. This serves the purpose of survival for the individual directly, and indirectly for the species.If the purpose of creation is to develop sentient and fully aware beings comparable to god/s, then the ability to see and to reason are elements likely to be included as emergent properties of the process.It is also not unlikely that a mechanism to take people outside their normal consciousness levels of survival and breeding, to an awareness of the oneness of life that is above tribal thinking would also be an emergent property set to occur once a certain level of intelligence was developed. The problem I have is that you can't - even with this example - eliminate the god hypothesis from virtually every example.Let's compare this to a lottery, where tickets cost $100 with a $1000 prize for getting the bonus "god-is-real" card.First, if all the tickets are sold, the probability of my getting the bonus card is low, but the probability of someone getting the bonus card is 1: a sure thing.Second, let's say there is a secondary prize, evidence of a spiritual nature. This is like being guaranteed $0.01 back on every ticket (everone's a "winner" lottery). If all I need to do is select one ticket from your lottery to win that prize then the probability of picking one card with such evidence is 1: a sure thing.Finally, I go back to my previous statement that any x = y + b where be is a constant value, so any one of your pieces of paper has a value of x = y + b. In other words, some have (4)+(b) and some have (5)+(b), and if all I need to do is select a piece of paper with b on it, then every piece has that.Now, what this does, is replace all your imaginary scenarios with the actual question: is there a value (b) that is common to all or most spiritual or religious experiences?We don't know. The explanation (4), of how some experiences may occur, does not eliminate the possibility of (b) also being evident. There is not sufficient information or objective evidence for a logical conclusion, and thus the logical position is the agnostic one:

• The evidence for god/s is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s exist, so the premise is not proven.
• The evidence against god/s is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s do not exist, so the premise is not proven.
• There is insufficient information to allow one to calculate probabilities of one over the other, because neither have been disproven, and logically each is just as valid a possibility as the other, both are untested hypothesis that need further information to validate before one can reach a rational conclusion.

So yes, IF you can guarantee that the result of your lottery will be absolute knowledge pro or con, then I will take your wager.If you can't guarantee a winner, then your lottery is rigged or has severe functional problems, and this renders any calculation of probability based on the sale of tickets invalid.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) • • •