Pseudoskepticism and logic

I wonder how people have come to the conclusion that the North American mastadon is extinct? Perhaps the last lone creature wrote a note telling us positively of their fate.Here in the U.K., we have found the bones of many large mammoth. Fools declare that these creatures no longer roam our island, based merely on the absence of evidence for their continued existence. But we know that this is fallacious, thanks to the brilliant Hyroglyphx/RAZD law, that absence of evidence is never positive evidence of absence.Hyro, it is not "proof", but it is evidence. You're never going to go hunting dragon, mastadon or mammoth.Of course, you can argue that this doesn't apply to beings who would have no effect on this world. But, if they have no effect, we would have to imagine them up in the first place in order to believe in them.

Hi, RAZD Only if you assume, as many creationists implicitly do when they use its gaps as evidence, that the fossil record is complete. As you know it's very incomplete, I'll leave you to judge the relevance of your comment. I think the mastodon is extinct. It no longer exists. This view is formed entirely on the absence of evidence for its existence, combined with an estimation of the likelihood of it escaping detection in modern times. Same for the mammoth.With principled agnosticism, I'm a 6 on the Dawkins scale on the existence of these two creatures. 6 is "I cannot know for sure, but I think it very unlikely that they're extant". My conclusions can only be based on absence of evidence being evidence for their absence.According to your bizzare way of thinking, that makes me a pseudo-skeptic. Would you like to think again? Proven? Proven? Who suggested that evidence automatically "proves".I have no problem in understanding the real meaning of agnosticism. The agnostic position on dragons is that you cannot know whether they exist or not. The intelligent agnostic then thinks in terms of evidence, not proof, and can make an assessment of likelihood. In the post you replied to, I told you what your position was. It is the same as mine. "6" on the Dawkins scale."I cannot know for sure, but I think it's very unlikely that dragons exist."You see how useful six is? And you think it is pseudo-skeptic.If there's complete absence of positive evidence for a proposition, then the true agnostic skeptic will always start at six. Take any example:Universes are created from the farts of celestial cows.There's zero evidence for this, and therefore no reason to move it ahead of all the other (essentially infinite) propositions that could be made about an area outside our current knowledge, so it's a "six", because we cannot give it a 7, as seven is defined as knowing. If we promote it to a "5" even, we are practising pseudo- skepticism unless we can present support for it. Nearly right, but complete absence of evidence is, in a sense, a non-existent concept, because it becomes evidence for a probability assessment, as I demonstrated with the mastodon. I chose omphalism as an example, because, unlike the efforts of creation science which do not fit observation, omphalism, by definition, does. So omphalism, for the thinking agnostic, is a six, for exactly the same reason as the celestial cow described above. All such mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions on the ultimate origins of the universe are equally likely/unlikely.I suggested that you were a "6" on omphalism, while you, attempting a naive 50/50 version of agnosticism, opted for the Dawkins "4". But I was right. You are a 6 on omphalism, and you can justify your six (very unlikely) by pointing to all the other (effectively) infinite alternative propositions with equal evidence (zero). [my brackets above] Of course not. As with islam, deism etc. So, the thinking agnostic, the atheist/ agnostic fits all such evidenceless propositions into the six category:"We cannot know for sure, but (random evidenceless proposition) is very/extremely unlikely."Any promotion to "5" or above of one of these mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions on origins would require a pseudo-skeptical unjustified bias (or positive evidence). Curiously, I do. Cheers.

Hi LindaLou RAZD and CS believe in hypothical creatures. If no-one did, the thread wouldn't exist. We atheists are happy to leave out all such evidenceless hypothetical beings, and ascribe our existence to nature, a phenomenon for which there's overwhelming evidence. Yet we're being asked to present evidence against the evidenceless!It's like a debate between those who assume that pigs only walk, and those who claim that they can fly, with the flying factor demanding that their proposition should be conclusively disproved. The premise is false, and was made by someone who didn't realise that it is impossible to be a 50/50 agnostic when faced with more than two mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions. And we can make up billions of evidenceless propositions once the supernatural is allowed.I've been illustrating this by using mutually exclusive supernatural propositions on origins, but if the real debate is between the supernatural and the natural, there's only one evidenceless position involved.

Linda, no one can prove that there's no such thing as pigs that can fly. According to you and RAZD, it would be pseudo-skeptical to be a 6 or 7 on the Dawkins scale about flying pigs.You're never going to hear the end of all the things that you have to be "50/50 agnostic on. Once you start with the nonsensical absurdity of considering evidenceless propositions as 50/50, the world actually becomes mad. Here's one:LindaLou is an evil black witch.I'd like to be a 6 or 7 on that, and reason tells me to be a six ("I cannot know for sure, but I think it very unlikely"), but your friend RAZD will accuse me of pseudo-skepticism.Fortunately, I don't listen to superstitious fools. You're a romantic, Linda, and the fact that we're a superstitious species is obvious. Yes, there's cultural convergence in religions as in many other things, which merely emphasises that we are all very much one species.Ritual cannibalism, head hunting, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, mutilations such as female circumcision, and evil spirits as causes of both physical and mental illness are all things that anthropologists have found to have been widespread and to have emerged separately in a number of different areas.Oh, for the good old days of the "divine".

The "romantic" bit was a comment on your rosy tinted view of the religious beliefs of our species as "spiritual" and "divine". I think you could be a bit more agnostic about whether or not I'm laughing. My little list of examples of "spirituality" and the "divine" was just a comment on your romantic view our species' religious beliefs. Of course I can't prove that there aren't evil spirits who cause disease, and of course I can't prove that there aren't gods who would appreciate your child as a sacrifice, and of course I can't prove that you're not an evil black witch.I just think that all these things are extremely unlikely, a "6" unlikely, and you (perhaps) and RAZD, (certainly) are trying to call me a "pseudo-skeptic" for that. No-one is. Haven't you noticed. Being agnostic about something is just that; recognition that you cannot know. It has nothing to do with RAZD's desire that it should mean "close to 50/50."Agnosticism - WikipediaIf you read through my posts on this thread, you'll see me trying to explain this to RAZD, and eventually, hilariously, leading him into declaring himself 50/50 on omphalism. That's the point at which he discards the Dawkins scale, and brings in his own definitions. He also attempts to redefine agnosticism, bringing this comment from bluegenes: I think that last point pretty much sums up what this thread's really about.

Hi RAZD False comment eh! Strong words, indeed. From Message 179At this time, you were still using the Dawkins scale, and a 4 is specified as meaning 50/50 on that scale. That it [omphalism] is extremely unlikely, as it's one of an effectively infinite number of equally evidenceless propositions.It's a 6 on the Dawkins scale, RAZD. "I cannot know for sure, but I think it very/extremely unlikely." No-one could justify a 5, even.This thread is going to be closed, and I have to go out now, but I'll enjoy answering the rest of your post on the inevitable follow up.I'm busy for a couple of days, but after that, I suggest that you and I have a one on one debate on this in which I'll not only defend the "6" position against charges of irrationality and/or pseudo-skepticism, but promise to demonstrate that your position on this thread is both irrational and pseudo-skeptical.I think we'd have fun, and it could be interesting.If you don't want that, I'll certainly cover the rest of this long post somewhere. You may find some or most of the ground covered in the last post I addressed directly to you (not Linda).Back soon, and think about the Great Debate proposition! bluegenes

Hi RAZD I asked you where you were on the Dawkins scale on omphalism, and you replied "4", which is defined as 50/50 on that scale. Yet you defined yourself as being "3" on the Dawkins scale in relation to the existence of god (3 is defined as more than 50/50 but not much more) and you describe yourself as a deist. You may have inadvertently misrepresented your position by using the number "4" in answer to my question, which concerned the Dawkins scale, but that's no-one else's fault.You have since given us another answer. You don't have enough evidence to make a decision or a probability estimate. Is that correct?Is it your position that someone like me is being a pseudo-skeptic because I'm a "6" on the Dawkins scale in relation to omphalism? Yet you are calling people who choose a "6" in relation to evidenceless propositions "pseudo-skeptics". "6" involves the "very/extremely unlikely" probability estimate, just as "3" involves the "more likely than not" estimate.Let's look at "the issue". From your O.P.

quote:

---

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."

---

Now let's look at what Truzzi is talking about, which is investigation into the "paranormal". An example would be if someone reports seeing a ghost in the house. The skeptic, by Truzzi's description, would say that whatever is being perceived, the burden of proof is on those who make the ghost claim. He does not offer an alternative explanation. If someone does offer an alternative explanation, then that doesn't remove the burden for the ghost claim, but adds a burden of proof for the "skeptic".In other words, Truzzi is defining such a person as not really being skeptical about a mysterious phenomenon, because he or she has offered an explanation, as has the person who claims "ghost".So, how does this relate the discussion on "god" that we're having here. Atheism doesn't offer an explanation of the universe, does it? We would have to be talking about mysterious phenomena, and the best examples are the kind of "god" experiences that many people claim, and that you mention frequently.If the claim is that these are evidence of a real god, then the true skeptic, according to the way Truzzi wants to define skeptic, would say that these phenomena are "not proved" to relate to a real god. He or she would not offer an alternative explanation.So, if I claimed that all apparent god experiences were due to a specific neurological condition (I'm not), I would also be making a claim to explain these phenomena, and I would no longer be a skeptic by Truzzi's definition (although I could only be a pseudo-skeptic if I were describing myself as a skeptic on the issue, presumably).One thing that has been causing confusion is Truzzi's reference to a "negative claim". The two claims about god experiences (evidence of real god, neurological condition) are both positive, they're only negative in relation to each other.Truzzi's definitions don't really apply to the "is there a god" question, because there's no phenomenon being discussed, only an abstract idea.But they would apply to any real phenomena that were being attributed to god (god experiences, lightning bolts, the universe).All Truzzi is really expressing is the age old idea of suspending judgement during investigations. Right. So any specific proposition is unlikely. You brought the Dawkins scale into the thread. It says "god" singular.
You said you were a "3"Are you now amending that to being a "3" on "any god/s". including the plural?Omphalism is a specific proposition. I'm a "6". Why would that make me a pseudo-skeptic? It's irrelevant. We could have a specific Omphalistic god proposition with a given age, but Omphalism anyway describes a specific type of god who deliberately creates the earth with a false appearance of age. The omphalistic god has to compete with all other evidenceless gods. He is, to me, a 6, as all the others must be.The general proposition that the universe was created by a god or gods at any time also has to compete with an infinite number of non-god propositions, both supernatural and natural. So it's also a six.In an area in which we can know absolutely nothing, any proposition is a 6. You need evidence to shift up to 5.The skeptic takes the "6" position on proposition "x" because "x" is not supported with evidence.You're making the common mistake amongst theists of giving gods a greater likelihood than other propositions, like nine dimensional universe making machines, when they don't have any more evidence to support them.I'm a "6" on nine dimensional universe making machines, of course.Call me Mr. "6". The atheist position is just lack of belief in gods. Babies are implicit atheists. What you mean is evidence of the "6" position; a view that gods are unlikely.That's the same as the evidence that fairies don't exist, and that dragons don't exist. No positive evidence for them, and plenty of evidence of the human tendency to invent such things, as the thousands of mutually exclusive beliefs illustrate. It's also because any evidenceless proposition is unlikely in an unknown area, as explained above.Belief is active, RAZD, and there's no reason to believe in anything merely because it is suggested to us.Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

Hello there, RAZD, Nope. I understand the word "equiprobable" very well.Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' " Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything. Certainly. We make rough probability assessments both in science and in day to day life. You do it all the time. If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.You will have made this decision due to absence of evidence that the EvC member has psychic powers, and absence of evidence for the existence of killer bogeymen.The killer bogeyman hypothesis is a zero evidence proposition, and if we are to be consistent, we should assign it a "6" as with all other zero evidence propositions in unknowable areas, like "god created the universe, for example". "6"Dawkins scale: 6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'Substitute abogeymanist for atheist, and bogeyman for god.In science, an example of making a probability estimate would be on the question of whether or not there were other planets in the universe outside our solar system before the first wobble on a star was detected. Cosmologists would have probably considered them highly probable once they had started to understand star formation, and knew that there were other stars like our sun. Even before that, the fact that there are 8/9 in this solar system would have led most observers to think them more likely than not. No. As with the bogeyman in your bedroom, the logical position is atheist/agnostic "6" towards any omphalistic god, because you cannot know, but it's a zero-evidence proposition. "6" is agnostic. "6" on the Dawkins scale is not a "strong atheist". Check the phrasing of "6". It actually says "I think God is very improbable". But never mind. It is complete absence of positive evidence for gods that supports my view, along with the known human tendency to make up such things. Same as with the bogeyman, dragons, etc. Lack of evidence leads to lack of belief (what atheism is) and it is theists who make a special exception for the god hypothesis. To gain consistency, theists should be constantly vigilant about killer bogeymen. Such a test is the kind of thing which could shift god from being a "6" proposition to a five or above. The onus is on those who believe in any of the very many "true gods" to support their position. The atheist position is not just that god hypotheses are not "proven" (Truzzi's word) but that they are completely unsupported by evidence. The "6" position is agnostic. Agnostic is the position that one cannot know something. We could not know that there were planets outside the solar system until they were detected, but we could be reasonably sure. We cannot know that bogeymen don't exist, but we can be reasonably sure that they're human inventions. I suggested before that if you wanted to make accusations of ad hominem attacks that you should support them with quotes. There isn't one in my post. I now suggest that you should find out what ad hominen means. The suggestion that someone making an ad hom means that they can't support their position is an ad hom. Why aren't you being agnostic as to my position when I started my investigation? You cannot know what it was. The conclusion is that there's zero evidence in support of the god hypothesis, and overwhelming evidence of a human tendency to invent supernatural things. Yes. See above. And why aren't you a "complete agnostic" on the proposition "gods are highly unlikely"? Got evidence against it?On Omphalism. Biblical Omphalists are a sub-division of Young Earth Creationists. Omphalism is one of the YEC models. You describe YECs as delusional and irrational here:http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm I think you need to revise this with your new found view that there isn't enough evidence to make a decision either way on omphalism, which is one of the "YEC models." Enjoy!Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

If you're finding it tiresome, the fault lies with your terrible English comprehension. The Dawkins definition is clear, so you need to admit that you made a mistake and misread it when you answered my question. You are not a "4" about Omphalism on the Dawkins scale, which is fine.Your position appears to be that there's no evidence on which to make a probability estimate on omphalism. This contradicts your description of all YEC models as being delusional and irrational. YEC omphalism is one of their models. "Gods are unlikely" does not contradict the position that the claim is neither proved or disproved. English comprehension, again.Truzzi is talking about the examination of phenomena. In the case of the god hypothesis, the phenomenon is the universe, "god/s" being presented as one possible explanation of its origin which, like all others, has no evidential support. As we have no knowledge of the ultimate origins of the universe, the skeptic will be agnostic on it, and will regard any specific unevidenced proposition as unlikely. Just as the proposition of universe making machines or the universe being formed by the collision of other universes would be regarded as unlikely.Truzzi's burden of proof would apply to someone who is approaching the problem thinking that they have an explanation for the universe, as with his example of someone who explains a "psi result" as being due to some artifact.Atheism does not offer an explanation for the ultimate origins of the universe, and a "6" on the Dawkins scale about god is just describing one of the evidenceless propositions made by others as very unlikely, as it would be, considering that it must be made up by humans who cannot look outside the universe, just like all other propositions in that area.A "6" on the Dawkins scale about the god/s explanation of the universe is an impartial agnostic. Someone who promoted any proposition about the ultimate origin of the universe from a six to a five would be being partial to that explanation, as there's no evidence to support any of the many speculative ideas that we can make up about a completely unknown area. English comprehension, anyone. Agnosticism is the position that one cannot know something.Dawkins' "6": Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"I cannot know for certain". Agnostic.The Dawkins' scale is in a section of the book on agnosticism in which he describes himself as a "6", and as an agnostic. 2 through 6 on the scale are agnostic, because they do not claim certainty. As Huxley puts it:

quote:

---

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]

​

"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."

---

You quoted this earlier in the thread, apparently without much comprehension. Anyone who does not claim certainty on a given proposition is being agnostic on that position. Now, read "6" again. Terrible reading comprehension again. Read the Dawkins scale again, and you'll find that only sevens are defined as strong atheists. "6" Atheist: The fact that humans have a proven tendency to believe in supernatural beings that are not there (there are many mutually exclusive beliefs) and that anything proposed to exist outside the universe must be a human fabrication, because we cannot look outside the universe. This, combined with the fact that all zero evidence propositions can be regarded as very unlikely, is why I think gods are very unlikely.Any other position would be special pleading, and would indicate partiality towards gods. So, you'd move out of the bedroom. Interesting. Your view that omphalists are deluded would indicate that you are a 6 or 7 on omphalism.

Hi, RAZD.Yes, I'll provide a summary tomorrow if I've got time, so I hope the mods will keep this open for a day or two. There are a few things about the quotes in the O.P. and the controversial and inconsistent uses that the word "pseudoskeptic" have been put to in its short history (elsewhere, not here, although the problems are reflected here) that I've touched on, but which need to be explained in more detail.(The O.P. has examples of it being used by both sides in a dispute to describe each other, and I'll explain this).Cheers.{ABE}This was posted before seeing RAZD's post above, so one post more coming!Edited by bluegenes, : {ABE} additionEdited by bluegenes, : mistake

From RAZD's O.P. The term "pseudoskeptic" has become a term used by both sides on a number of questions to claim that the opposition is not being properly skeptical in examining certain phenomena. The mainstream science side tends to use it for people like evolution skeptics, global warming skeptics, and investigators of "paranormal" phenomena who are too ready to accept paranormal or supernatural explanations for those phenomena. On the other hand, enthusiasts for the paranormal or supernatural use it against naturalists, claiming that they ignore results that support the supernatural, and/or exclude supernatural possibilities a priori.It's just a way of saying "I'm being objective in my investigations, and you're not".A common example comes from some members of the I.D. movement, who complain about the a priori exclusion of the possibility of the inteference of a supernatural being or beings in our life system. Having no positive evidence for such beings, they frequently try to shift the burden onto naturalists to prove that natural phenomena have natural origins.RAZD quotes this from wiki, in an attempt to give us a definition of "pseudoskeptic".

quote:

---

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

---

There are some problems with this. One is the use of "negative hypothesis", which Truzzi briefly defines with this phrase:"saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact".The problem is that the "artifact" claim is actually positive, and it and the opposing claim are only negative in relation to each other, and to any other possible hypothesis.However, I agree with Truzzi that the skeptic would then have a burden of proof, as those supporting the original claim still do.RAZD then quotes wiki quoting skeptic atheist Susan Blackmore describing those who refuse to investigate any paranormal claims, and I agree here that there are people like this, and I'm personally in favour of thorough investigations into claimed paranormal phenomena.I will mention here that Blackmore was an enthusiastic paranormal believer and investigator for thirty years until she became skeptical due to the fact that she'd found absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural/paranormal at all.

quote:

---

The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

"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 . . . I have to say itmost of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."[10]

---

Then RAZD quotes wiki quoting skeptic Robert Todd Carroll accusing enthusiastic paranormalist Rupert Sheldrake and his supporters of pseudoskepticism:

quote:

---

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[11] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[12] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[13]

---

This helps illustrate the point I made above about two sides using the word pseudoskeptic as a description of each other. Rupert Sheldrake also acccuses Richard Dawkins and other critics of his paranormal claims of pseudoskepticism.RAZD then sets up his stall: Now one thing has to be said here is that there's an elephant in the room, because regulars on EvC know that the "at least one individual on this board" refers to a person or people who are skeptical about RAZD's deity. So, in reality we're in atheism/theism debate here.That's useful to know, because we can give an example of what would be a straight negative assertion in relation to the existence of a god/s. The strong atheist assertion that "there are no gods", or that he, the atheist "knows there are no gods".Such claims would not appear to be easily supported, and some here would agree that the pseudoskeptic label might fit that atheist, although the strong atheist could counter that there is no phenomenon to be investigated, and that he is not offering an alternative hypothesis like the "artifact" in Truzzi's description.He would have a good point, and it appears that RAZD may have misunderstood the language in his O.P. Pseudoskeptic is being used for the investigation of phenomena, and "god" is not a known phenomenon, but an idea put forward to explain phenomena such as the universe, or the "god" experiences that so many believers have.But this is not where RAZD's problems stop, because the "god" skeptics he's referring to tend to be agnostic atheists, usually of a "6" on the Dawkins scale which is this:

quote:

---

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

---

Rather than a "7", which is this:

quote:

---

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

---

There is a massive and significant difference in the phrases "I cannot know" and "I know".So, what underlies the O.P. is that RAZD wants people with the "6" position to present evidence that supports the view that his deity is "very improbable", and some of us have generously done this, often extending the argument to include all propositions of supernatural beings and creatures. "Generously" because atheism does not actually propose an alternative hypothesis for the origins of the universe, like Truzzi's "artifact".Otherwise, he would like to describe us as pseudo-skeptics in spite of the fact that the "god hypothesis" is a proposition to explain phenomena, rather than a phenomenon itself, as the Truzzi definition seems to require.But still, it is a reasonable question to anyone anywhere on the Dawkins scale on god to explain why, aside from all this talk of what is and isn't pseudoskepticism.So, in defense of the "6" position, I've pointed out that people believe in many different mutually exclusive "one true gods", demonstrating that, on the one hand we have evidence that believing in false gods must be the norm, and on the other hand, we have zero evidence for any of the god propositions being true. This would indicate that any god proposed by any human who cannot look outside the universe and cannot present evidence for his or her god can be described as "very improbable"Another point is that any proposition about an area in which we have no knowledge, the ultimate origin of the phenomenon that we call the universe for example, would have to be considered very improbable as it competes with an effectively infinite field of equally evidenceless propositions. The universe was formed by a universe making machine, or by the farts of celestial cows, for example.The natural default position for any specific proposition on the ultimate origins of the universe would be a six: "I cannot know for certain, but I think "x" is very improbable."A third point is the general one that whenever we have confirmed causes for anything, those causes have been natural, and human experience of this means that we can safely consider the "natural" as a cause of any phenomenon much more likely than the supernatural."Natural" is the evidence supported default, with infinitely more evidence for its existence than "supernatural".Others have made similar arguments, and will probably cover them in more detail in their summaries, but I want to cover one important claim that I've touched on in this thread.That is that everyone is a Dawkins "6" on lots of supernatural propositions, whether they like it or not. This is because there are so many supernatural beliefs in the world that if we did not dismiss the overwhelming majority with a "6", we would all start behaving like lunatics.For example, if we hear of a culture that has the sincere belief that humans will have their souls stolen and tortured for eternity by demons if they do not perform certain rituals, and wear certain charms to ward of the demons, how do we react? The proposition cannot be disproved, but if we are not a "6" or a "7" on the Dawkins scale, then, considering how high the stakes are, we would be wise to follow a Pascal's wager type attitude, and perform the rituals whenever necessary and wear the charms.Now, there are thousands of such beliefs around the world, and we can all declare ourselves agnostic on them, with the theoretical recognition that we cannot be certain that any of them are false. But if anyone is really giving them a "5" or below on the Dawkins scale, all of that individual's spare time (and probably a lot more) would be taken up doing the necessary rituals to keep all manner of demons, devils and evil spirits at bay, and that's before the person considered what should be done against vampires, and what should be done to please the many gods, so that he could be sure of not being reincarnated as a worm or an untouchable, or of burning for eternity, and be sure of having a pleasant place in a number of paradises when he dies. (sorry about that sentence!).And everyone else around would be saying: "look at that crazy bugger; should we lock him up before he starts doing human sacrifice, or killing and eating his enemies so that he can absorb their souls, just because it's an unfalsifiable belief of some cannabilistic cultures?".RAZD claims he is never a "6"; that one cannot make probability estimates in areas where nothing can be conclusively known. But we can, and he does, and that's why I caught him out on omphalism in the thread. Evidenceless supernatural propositions have to be dismissed as "very improbable" if we don't want to end up in psychiatric hospitals, and there's no reason to make a special exception for gods.I don't hang up garlic in my house and keep a stock of crosses and sharp wooden stakes merely because I cannot conclusively disprove supernatural propositions.I'm sane.Good fun thread, anyway, wherever we stand. Edited by bluegenes, : clarity

Content hidden.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding member drool.