Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi again petrophysics1, thanks for the support. Exactly, and precisely where the whole issue started on the Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? thread. Good advice.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,Still problems. Except that in this analogy the blind people are completely unaware of these things call lightwave that seem to appear and dissappear without being detected by normal people. Ghosts, people with precog ability, etc etc.There does seem to be some common elements of claims made by "visionary" people, but they are all subjective experiences with no validation in the blind world reality. They only need to be rare enough that no two get together for your comments to make some sense, assuming that we leave out the idea that lightwaves are known to this blind world.No analogy is perfect, however this one serves to make my point. You can nit-pick the details, but you can't avoid the point that something similar could be going on. Exactly, which is why, if you cannot eliminate the possibility of (b) from any spiritual or religious experience, then picking any one gives you that same (b) result.Your singular card was for a particular god to exist, second prize can be any god can exist, third prize is that there is a spiritual plane outside of normal (blind) human perceptions.We have whole realms of possibilities with string theory and multiple dimensions: what would something from outside our 3D+T perceptions look like? What color are the wavelengths? You have it backwards, and this is just what you have been doing, or close enough to be irrelevant.If you throw out all the (y)'s then all you have is the (b)'s and your chances of getting a (b) == 1.That is your problem.My concern is not with how many different ways "light" can be explained by (blind) people, but in asking the question "does this light exist" - and that is independent of your calculations of pseudo-probabilities. Well, I thought we were discussing religious\spiritual experiences, rather than alien abductions or conspiracy theory experiences. The untested subjective experiences are sorted by what they claim to pertain to, and then studied to see what is common about them.In such a situation it would not make sense to look at other experiences that don't claim to involve religious or spiritual experiences to see if they have a religious or spiritual component in common with the ones purported to be religious or spiritual. Not just humans, but an emergent property that would appear in any species that reaches the level of intelligence we have. Not implanted, an emergent property, like speech, that occurs once a certain level of intelligence is developed. Agreed, however I am not making the claim that it is "highly likely" or even that this possibility is likely to be true. As you note it is speculation about a possible purpose for such an emergent property to serve.Of course, I'm a Deist/Agnostic: I don't claim that my opinion is any more likely to be true than anyone else's.So yes, your massively speculated evidence is just as much based on opinion as mine, and it certainly is not objective evidence, nor is it an entirely valid logical construction, as I've been arguing.This is sufficient to justify weak atheism = atheist agnostic, and not strong atheism where a claim about the likelihood of the truth is made.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : light question

---

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 xongsmith for joining us. I wasn't aware that we knew of another universe, and had determined that one was created by god/s and the other was a natural formation.Take the analogy of soap bubbles: some occur naturally, some by children blowing bubbles, and some by accidental spilling of soapy mixtures: how can you tell which bubbles are which? And the absence of evidence can be due to lack of cause for making evidence, OR it can be due to not looking in the right place.In the case of the Coelacanths, it was not looking in the right place.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 xongsmith, And about making claims that are not supported by evidence, in particular negative claims, yes. Where

• Box 1 would be evidence for a strong or absolute theist
• Box 2 would be evidence for a theist agnostic or weak theist
• Box 3 would be evidence for a strong or absolute atheist
• Box 4 would be evidence for an atheist agnostic or weak atheist

And the pure agnostic is not on the list because it makes no claim and thus uses both 2&4 combined? Well that IS the problem. If, as you claim, there cannot be evidence for box 3, then that makes the strong atheist position difficult to support and this position should not be claimed as supported by evidence.Same holds for box 1 and strong theism, but that's a different topic.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 xongsmith, Good luck with that. I keep asking for the evidence, and so far all I get are arguments that are logically questionable if not outright false. So far all we have are logically weak or false rationales for belief, with the pretense that it is evidence. Exactly, just repeated many times, as if repetition of a false argument makes it more valid.And of course there is the question of what "properly investigated" means, ie what was being tested.

• That Zeus/Thor/etc caused lightening?
• That god/s created a universe with lightening in it, thus causing it? (to answer Rrhain's question once again)

Or do we just have another example of confirmation bias in how the evidence is interpreted.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : etc

---

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 bluegenes, Thanks for making my point that the inclusion of pseudoprobabilities by Dawkins makes people focus on the numbers and not the words. Notice that you have completely ignored the words.The important part of the definition of "4" for me is "Completely impartial agnostic" as that matches what Truzzi says in the OPNow, unless you can actually demonstrate that there is some valid objective method to calculate the actual probabilities of these different positions - nobody else has - then you should agree that calling them "probabilities" is really meaningless subjective personal opinion rather than objective measurements. Capiche? bold and color for emphasis.So on your question of omphalism:Claim: omphalism is true. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."Claim: omphalism is false. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence. No, the true skeptic takes the agnostic position because neither "X" NOR "notX" are supported with evidence. Taking a position is not what makes you a pseudoskeptic, what makes you a pseudoskeptic is making a claim without supporting it with evidence.So IF you are truly a "6" (strong atheist) on omphalism, then where is your objective verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it actually IS "highly unlikely"?What is your test for discontinuity between the actual and the god-did-it part of reality? What are your results? I am saying that anyone who claims that their conclusion is more rational than the agnostic position needs to show why they think that.The atheist agnostic and the theist agnostic that claim that there is not enough evidence to make a claim, but express a personal opinion of what they believe, are still predominantly in the agnostic camp - agnostic first, atheist of theist second.The strong atheist (or theist) is atheist (or theist) first and agnostic second, distant second or non-existent second.One does not need to justify belief, however one also needs to recognize that it IS belief and not a rational derived conclusion.And it is not a rational derived conclusion when it is not supported by objective evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief is likely to be true -- ie tested scientifically So? Does that really limit his argument about pseudoskeptics in any way?Do we now move to ad hominem attacks on Truzzi when you can't find evidence to support your claim? Denial is like that. I guess you DO think that I wasted time with that thread when I could have made the argument like yours as I posted on Message 445:

quote:

---

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."

---

So did I waste my time on that thread when all I really needed to say (according to your argument) is that a younger earth is "highly unlikely" instead of providing the evidence?Really? Including the judgment that god/s are "highly unlikely" ...Thanks for demonstrating the fact that you are not suspending judment during the investigation, but are actively making a claim ...... so: got 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 LindaLou, Not far off. Think of it this way:y = explanation/s of the experience based on worldview and subjective opinion of the evidenceb = whether or not it was an actual experience of some facet of god/sThe truth of b is independent of the truth of y, so all the pseudo-calculations of the probability of y are not relevant to the issue of the validity of b and we are left with the question of whether b is true or not.Say you can develop a machine like the god helmet and induce a religious experience.Does that mean that the actual religious experiences are not true experiences?Say you measure the patterns of a person thinking of any specific experience, say the color green, and then use the machine to replicate that pattern in another persons brain: does that mean that the first person's experience was not a real experience?If you get the same pattern for seeing green in a thousand people, does that mean that the color green experience is just a function of the brain causing that particular pattern to occur?If you get the same pattern for having a religious\spiritual experience in a thousand people, does that mean that the religious\spiritual experience is just a function of the brain causing that particular patter to occur?So the real question is whether (b) is a true experience not how probable (y) is or isn't. The discussion of different explanations for (y) is just smoke puffed up to replace a vacuum of 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 Straggler, still trying to make logic out of thin air. No, the question here is that when you say that the absence of god/s is very likely (or that the existence of god/s is "highly unlikely"), that you are making a claim that needs to be supported with evidence.The true skeptic will not make this claim when there is insufficient evidence, and will say that the claim is not proven.The pseudoskeptic will make this claim without having evidence. Curiously, I am agnostic on that issue: I have consistently stated that "we do not know" how life began on earth. This is because there is insufficient evidence to say what caused life to develop on earth. My personal opinion (which has been posted previously, also see RAZD - Building Blocks of Life, Message 2) is that the universe may have been designed to produce life, and that earth is just one place where this has occurred.This is, of course, consistent with deist beliefs, however I don't claim that my opinion makes this possibility "likely". Sorry, no. What we don't have is any evidence from you for your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" that amounts to more than opinion supported by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. So what evidence am I in denial of? What objective evidence do you have that god/s do not exist.From Message 1 Truzzi says:

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." 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 ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

The claim that "god/s are highly unlikely" is a negative claim and it bears a burden of proof. Curiously, that is the question. These facts are explained by the hypothesis that god/s exist, whether they are sufficient to prove that god/s exist beyond a reasonable doubt has not been demonstrated, so the logical conclusion is to be agnostic on the issue: it has not been proven, and it has not been disproven.None of the arguments advanced so far have demonstrated that god/s could not be involved.Got evidence?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

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's simplify. They still only explain how such experiences would occur. They do not disprove the existence of god/s. Dividing them into piles does not answer the question. Both the mechanical explanation and the religious\spiritual experience could be occurring at the same time. How you experience something doesn't control what you experience. Curiously, I have answered that, and I am agnostic on it: why would you assume that I would change my position since Message 179, Message 197, Message 427, Message 445, and Message 478?

quote:

---

So on your question of omphalism:

​

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

​

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

​

The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence.

---

SO, got 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 Straggler, And once again we have this amusing claim on your part, still without any example of the evidence for me to actually deny. And what is hysterical about it is that this is (1) part of your "logical" argument that god/s do not exist (argument from incredulity fallacy) and (2) is just another in a long line of misrepresentations of what I actually said. It's a quote mine, just like creationists use. Now that's funny. Which is just another in a long line of logically false arguments, one that still fails to demonstrate that god/s in fact cannot exist. Once again, you fail to provide evidence to support your position. So: got 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 Rrhain, My impression was that Einstein said that it showed that there was no aether effect, but not that the aether did not exist. Another possibility is that your hypothesis of what should show up is in error.For instance the Coelacanth: the absence of evidence for over 60 million years was not evidence of the absence of the Coelacanth from the living world, but evidence of people looking in the wrong place. Yes, because your hypothesis for what should show up could be faulty. In science, when an experiment fails to produce an expected result the hypothesis is revised.So what experiment did you conduct that was designed to show absolutely that god/s could not exist?What's your 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) • • •

High xongsmith Except that his hypothesis test could be faulty instead. While that may help some posters to focus on the kind of evidence they need to provide in order to claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" it doesn't change the fact that a negative claim still needs to be supported by 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 Modulus, No, I have not read this book, I find his personal opinion outside of biology to be rather irrelevant, and that he displays an anti-theist tendency that would qualify as pseudoskeptic. I see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) his personal opinions. And you make this conclusion based on what? My initial positions on certain topics? My position on the Age of the Earth?Curiously, what I am defending is the middle position on the "Dawkins scale" - and that of the "true skeptic" in the Truzzi quote in the OP. So where is your evidence that god/s are "highly unlikely"?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, still not understanding YOUR problem are you? The fact that you do not have such evidence is not my problem - I haven't made the unsupported claim.What you need is evidence that supports your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" - a claim that you have asserted is more rational than the agnostic position.You need to provide evidence if you are NOT a pseudoskeptic. Sorry, the point is that you have made a negative claim and have not supported it. None of which demonstrates that no god/s can exist, all of which reduces to logical fallacies of one kind or another:

• people make things up, people have religious experiences, therefore religious experiences are made up, and
• "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ...
• pseudo-probabilities that are nothing more than made up opinions
• etc

To be in denial you need to have presented more than your personal opinion supported by bad logic for me to deny: you need evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your claim is true. Without that evidence all I am in denial of, is the absolute absence of objective evidence that has been presented by all the atheists on this thread.The fact that theists look at the religious experience as validation of their belief, while several atheists here use the same evidence for brain dysfunction but can't show that this applies across the board, makes it apparent that these conclusions are really opinions and not based on objective analysis. Opinion is not objective.So if we throw out the religious experience as inconclusive, then the question comes down to other evidence. Do you have any OTHER argument?You have not supported your claim with evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your position is supported.So: are you a pseudoskeptic or do you have evidence that supports your position?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 xongsmith But that's only valid for showing that the claim has not been contradicted.Truzzi: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." And the Deist Model also works, while there has been no evidence that contradicts it, so once again:Truzzi: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."The problem of pseudoskepticism is not that these positions exist and that they have not been falsified, but in the assertion that one or the other position is true or very likely true. Which is the crux of the issue. The question is what you believe is the truth while making the search - does one take a pre-conception biased view while looking for evidence or does one remain agnostic until the evidence is available?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) • • •