Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi iano, There's two ways you can approach that, IMO.One, you can ask the relevance of the overall question: Is there a god?The logic here is, why would one need to ask that question to begin with? IOW, what would that question be an answer for?The second approach is, if you accept that the question should be asked, to consider whether the concept of god has observable consequences? (ie. does it have somekind of effect that can be detected?)If there are no observable consequences and no observable reason to ask the question, then the concept of god is not necessary to understand the workings of reality (our universe, etc.).This, IMO, is what gives us the parameters by which to judge the likelyhood of ANY concept/idea. We do it for any concept, why does the concept of god get a pass?If it doesn't measure up, then the likelyhood is low, if it does measure up, then the likelyhood moves forward in a positive direction. At which point, the accumulation of supporting observable evidence brings us closer and closer to the truth.Now, the way I see it, when someone makes the giant leap in imagination to consider god is outside of reality (ie. outside of our universe) - having no evidence to support that concept - they are doing so to compensate for the lack of logic and reasoning that their personal belief has.They must fathom some unknown variable (outside of the universe) to help make sense of the lack of evidence that supports their concept of god.It has no observable consequences, nor is there observable reason to ask the question in the first place. By those parameters, the likelyhood is quite low, and it's the same for any other concept or idea we have. God doesn't get a pass.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No wonder you thought the arguments were specious: You didn't understand them. But there is evidence for there being a pelvic girdle in the living species of Tiktaalik.A faith based position might be saying that the specimens we have do have preserved pelvic girdles - we just can't detect them.The absence of evidence position would be that the lack of evidence for these specimens having preserved pelvic girdles is evidence that these specimens don't have preserved pelvic girdles. The faith based position is that we haven't found the Tiktaalik's pelvic girdle because Dave the wicked Palaeontologist removed them all in such a fashion as to ensure nobody would detect his theft. The evidence, say the faithers, is that there is no pelvic girdle found in the specimens.The skeptical position here would be "There are so many names and jobs that the probability it was a Palaeontologist called Dave is low. Moreover, he could also be benevolent or ambibalent. Or it might have not been a human. Or a corporal entity. Or an entity that resides in the universe. There are so many unfalsifiable possibilities that picking one of them to explain the absence of the girdle would mean that your choice is likely to be false."If we translate it to the pseudoskepticism thread: you would have us arguing that religious experiences don't exist, which isn't what we were doing.To continue the (pseudo) skeptic would argue that there are known mechanisms that can result in parts of fossils not being found: erosion, predation etc etc. And that it is more likely that this kind of explanation is the case here.Now - true, we might not know what actually caused this particular absence - but to think that evil Dave hypothesis should be entertained beyond a philosophical argument about epistemology should be viewed with skepticism.David Deutsch put this in an interesting way. He describes the concept of easily varied explanations. I'd say that faith based explanations are often easily varied, and that the philosopher's God is one of the ultimate in easily varied explanations. The first ten minutes or so of that video are the setup.Deutsch uses a Greek mythological explanation for seasons which involves one goddess being forced into a marriage contract with a god and as part of the contract has to go into the underworld periodically which makes the goddess' mother sad and the goddess' mother is the earth and so the earth grows cold until the goddess returns.The point Deutsch makes is that this explanation happens to be falsifiable (and falsified) but that it is easy to vary it slightly to avoid that falsification. And there are potentially infinite ways of varying the story to avoid subsequent falsifications, ultimately culminating I assume in the story that an undefined deity causes the seasons by {insert scientific explanation}.

quote:

---

...this easy variability is the sign of a bad explanation because without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them in preference of the others is irrational...

---

Which seems to me to be an excellent alternative (and more complete) way of putting the point I was making in that earlier thread - and seems to be on topic here.

Sorry Modulus, but I (still) disagree that your argument shows anything. Curiously, you don't show this to be so. Living species? Not even in the fossils.Tiktaalik roseae: Home
Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

quote:

---

Neck
Ribs
Flat Head
Fin Skeleton
Ear Notches

---

Those fin skeleton details are the front fins. No mention at all of a pelvic girdle or pelvic fins. The fossil does not go back that far.I also googled "Tiktaalik pelvic girdle" to see if there was any new information.AiG on Tiktaalik roseae: In the Disco Institute "Research" Tradition.

quote:

---

In the article, Menton’s only claims about the anatomy of Tiktaalik relate to the pelvic fins and girdles (i.e. the hips and legs) of Tiktaalik. There is no disucssion of the skull or shoulder girdle, and only tacit reference to the fin skeleton. Menton explains in relation to fishes and tetrapods that:

(t)he hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.

Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I’ve seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin.

---

emphasis mine.http://www.bio-medicine.org/...-fish-and-land-animals-3772-1

quote:

---

In 2006 the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of an almost perfectly intermediate fish-tetrapod, tiktaalik, but even so a gap remained between this animal and the earliest true tetrapods (animals with limbs rather than paired fins). Now, new fossils of the extremely primitive tetrapod Ventastega from the Devonian of Latvia cast light on this key phase of the transition.

​

"Ventastega was first described from fragmentary material in 1994; since then, excavations have produced lots of new superbly preserved fossils, allowing us to reconstruct the whole head, shoulder girdle and part of the pelvis", says Professor Per Ahlberg at the Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, Uppsala University.

​

The recontructions made by Professor Ahlberg and Assistant Professor Henning Blom together with British and Latvian colleagues show that Ventastega was more fish-like than any of its contemporaries, such as Acanthostega. The shape of its skull, and the pattern of teeth in its jaws, are neatly intermediate between those of tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

​

"However, the shoulder girdle and pelvis are almost identical to those of Acanthostega, and the shoulder girdle is quite different from that of tiktaalik (the pelvis of tiktaalik is unknown), suggesting that the transformation from paired fins to limbs had already occurred. It appears that different parts of the body evolved at different speeds during the transition from water to land", says Per Ahlberg.

---

This matches what Bluejay said. We don't have evidence from Tiktaalik for the back part of the organism, including pelvis, girdle rear fins or tail.However, this is irrelevant to the argument: the argument is that without evidence what we can say is that we don't know, and that anything else is pretending. Frankly, Modulus, I am astounded that you keep making this poor argument, as obviously you have not understood my points at all. The issue is not whether the pelvis has been, or can be, properly described, from the information available, but whether it exists. All of which just shows that you have a poor explanation, not that the pelvis\god/s\whatever do not, or cannot, exist.The point of the Tiktaalik analogy is that it should be relatively obvious that concluding that there is no pelvis, (or girdle or fins or tail ...) is not justified by having a poor description of what they may be like when found.Now if your argument is only concerned with how good the description is, then it doesn't answer the question of whether god/s exist or not, nor does it provide any evidence on which to conclude a negative hypothesis that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.We can obviously make some assumptions about what Tiktaalik's pelvis, (or girdle or fins or tail ...) could look like from the closely related species before and after the time of Tiktaalik, but that is opinion based on assumptions and the likelihood of the description being correct is low, as you have claimed, while the likelihood of the pelvis (or girdle or fins or tail ....) having existed (and perhaps evidenced in other as yet unfound fossil specimens) is much much much higher.That is what you have not addressed.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) • • •

I explicitly accepted that there are no fossil specimens with a pelvic girdle. But there is still evidence that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle. Unless you think evolution is bunk or something? I mean - it's possible that Tiktaalik's ancestors and close relatives had one, as did its descendants and Tiktaalik didn't have one. But that would be very unusual. The evidence therefore suggests that it did. I am not suggesting that Dave the evil Paleontologist doesn't exist. I was just saying that without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating Dave the evil Paleontologist in preference of the others is irrational. That is to say: Faith in Dave is irrational and skepticism about the Dave claim is a rational position to take. Not "Dave doesn't exist." but "I don't believe Dave was responsible for the lack of pelvic girdle specimens in Tiktaalik and won't believe until I see some evidence in favour of that claim." Fair point. In that case, maybe you do understand them - but you choose to argue against a different argument and pretend that is the argument raised against you.However, I'm using my experience of your honesty as evidence that you, for whatever reason, are not understanding the argument. Why else would you get it wrong when you try and describe it in your own terms?

My logic is impeccable. You claim to be a "4" on propositions like "fairies manipulate sub-atomic particles" and Biblical omphalism. You claim that you cannot know whether such propositions are true or false, so you have no opinion, and that those who put a "6" on such propositions are "pseudo-skeptics".Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", you cannot be a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth. If you claim a "5" on omphalism, then you can be a "3" on the ~4.5 billion year earth, but not less. Again, in order to claim "2"s and "6"s you are dismissing the proposition that the fairies manipulate sub-atomic particles and/or atoms with a "6", meaning that you are a pseudo-skeptic by your preferred definition of the term (not mine). If you grant the supernatural anything below a "6" on that scale, you're in trouble for all scientific claims. We're not disagreeing on "1"s and "7"s. We're certainly disagreeing on "6"s, and my point is that you are a "6" on many supernatural propositions, whether or not you know it, or admit it. Your simple scenario is about creationists claiming that Tiktaalik was "front wheel drive" without evidence to support the claim. You are trying to make an analogy with those of us who take a "6" position on supernatural explanations, and it's a terrible one. It is terrible because there's overwhelming evidence for the existence of nature and natural processes, and there's no evidence for the existence of the supernatural.This is why I am a "2" on the proposition that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and a "6" on the proposition that it was created ~6,500 years ago with an appearance of age by the omphalists' god.The former is based on analysis of the natural history of the planet, solar system and universe, and the latter is supernatural. The evidence of the existence of natural processes is effectively infinitely greater than the evidence for the existence of supernatural beings and processes, so natural explanations are the default.On the basis of observation, experience and evidence, the cause or explanation for any observed phenomenon is always very likely to be natural, making all proposed unevidenced non-natural alternatives into "6"s. Highlighting why the attempt at analogy is useless. We do have loads of positive evidence for the existence of natural processes, and the creationists in your example have no evidence for their claim. Do you really think that I'm lying when I claim that we have loads of evidence for natural processes and none for the supernatural? Do you think that people are lying when they point to the many mutually exclusive "one true gods" that theists believe in as evidence of the human tendency to invent non-existent beings?In the case of Obama, the choice between his having natural origins and his being the anti-Christ is easy for those of us who recognise that natural explanations are virtually infinitely more likely than supernatural ones.Supernatural explanations require this thing called Faith, which is belief without reason or evidence.Do you agree with me that the evidence for the existence of the natural exceeds the evidence for the existence of the supernatural by a ratio of more than 1 million to one?And do you agree that you cannot be a "2" on one of two mutually exclusive propositions without being a "6" on the other? Another few hundred posts and you'll catch on to the fact that "2" through "6" are all "I cannot know" positions, which leads us to your oft repeated non sequitor: Bull. There's an apparently motiveless murder in your town, and you are one of a thousand people in the town who do not have an alibi. Based on this evidence, I'm a "6" on the likelihood you committed the murder. Dawkins "6": "I cannot know, but I think it very unlikely". A 1/1000 probability is unlikely. So, not knowing whether or not you are the murderer does not mean that we cannot assess likelihoods.The likelihood of Obama being a natural human being is infinitely greater than the likelihood of him being the anti-Christ, a god, an elf, a warlock, or a fairy, because natural explanations are always infinitely more likely than supernatural ones. You come from a very theistic culture, so you decided to neutralize a priori beliefs, opinions and confirmation bias by believing in a god?

Yes, but I was offering a reason to suppose that god might exist. I thought Onifre was saying that the question of god's existence shouldn't even be brought up in the first place because there's no reason to even suppose that god might exist. My point was that the prevelence of the concept, itself, is a reason to suppose that it might exists and thus a reason to ask the question. Perhaps I'm way off, but I don't think we were even getting to the point of increasing confidence in the proposition.

Oni Message 102Who is better: Bach or Beethoven? I don't think so. Especially for unique instances. You need repeatable phonomenon in order to scientifically investigate.And scientific investigation is limited by that which is empirical. You can't determine if Bach is better than Beethoven with the scientific method.You also can't use it to determine if a singular subjective experience is any indication of reality. But millions of people believing in god IS objective. And I maintain that that is a reason to bring up the question of god's existence. It doesn't matter if their individual reasons are subjective. Message 103You realize my point towards the end: It doesn't become a thing to logically believe in, its cause for supposition.Its the propensity of the belief in god that is a reason to ask the question if he exists. What's wrong with some guy sitting in a valley in awe at the wonderous world in front of him wondering if there might be some being that is greater than him that put everything together? Getting down to the gnat's ass on the logic and rationality behind whether or not he really should be asking the question or not doesn't detract from the fact that it has come up and the supposition has begun. There are reasons to ask the question. Hell, even being indoctrinated is a reason to suppose whether or not. What other method? Not using the scientific method isn't necessarily using another method. Non-sequitor.Picking a hypothesis and then flipping a coin to determine if it is correct is not following the scientific method but also does not abandon formulating a hypothesis.But anyways.... Sure I would. Even SO's complete bullshit on the geocentric universe was a reason to suppose that the Earth might be in the center, even though I don't believe it for a second.I guess I just don't see it that difficult to find a reason to suppose something. It seems like your using your argument that the question shouldn't even be asked in the first place as a debate tactic and I think you're wrong.

In a complete absence of any evidence, yay or nay, then I'd say it's evidence, though very, very weak and liable to be overturned at the slightest hint of any actual evidence FOR the claim, that the claim should be considered probably not true. {AbE} For, what exactly would you expect to find if a claim is false? I'd expect a lack of evidence for the claim being true.{/AbE}But, as you should know, we're never in a situation for which there is absolutely no evidence. Even when we think there is none, we still have to cinsider the source of the claim. Now again, arguing from authority (or lack thereof) is also not the strongest basis on which to form a belief, but if we have a claim for whcih there is no positive evidence, and the claim is coming from a suspect source (and all humans are suspect sources when it comes to claims without any objective evidence), the most probable conclusion to make is that the claim is wrong.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Straggler Message 105We're not justifying belief. I've provided an objectively evidenced reason to think that gods might exist; The propensity of the belief itself. Sure. But your argument is about comparing the amount of evidence for two mutually exculsive position where you've labeled one position as have absolutely no evidence when in fact it does.

quote:

---

There is no objectively evidenced reason to think gods even might exist.

​

(snip)

​

the possibility of gods being human inventions is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility than the totally objectively unevidenced possibility that gods actually exist.

---

The propensity of the belief in god is objective evidence that suggests a possibility that gods actually exist, so the possibility of them being human invention is not infinitely more objectively evidenced. Whoa....its, like, the exact opposite of that. The thiestic/deistic side is the one claiming that there is a continuum of confidence in belief that is applied to a continuum of objectiveness of the evidence that we have. You are the on who has been proclaiming the either/or's. Just to be clear: What, exactly, are you talking about when you refer to this immense amount of evidence?And I maintain that there exists objective evidnece that suggests that gods might exist: The propensity of the belief in god being one that I've brought up here. But you are basing your likelyhood on the absolute position of there being no evidence whatsoever for even the possibility of god existing. This is why you are the one who has to use "ridiculous figures of black and white absolute certitude". If you allow for even one piece of evidence that suggests that god might exist, then you'd actually have to bring out your evidence and actually weigh the likelyhood. It doesn't matter. All we need is one reason to believe that god might exist and your whole argument falls apart. Message 46All those scientific answers wouldn't preclude a god existing and believing that a god is behind them doesn't necessitate that we stop finding scientific explanations. You're points is, well, pointless. Your argument relies on weighing the evidence against absolute nothingness in order to develop a likelyhood of what actually exists and what doesn't but even the existence of subjective reasons is objective and more than absolute nothingness so your likelyhood is unfounded.

Contradicting evidence.

That is exactly what atheists say. They just go the next step and say that understanding that, it would be quite a leap to then say, "I believe." If they can't say that phrase, they must be atheists, or lacking belief.

In which case - we don't need a prevalence of the concept. One person publicly postulating it is enough for those that hear the postulations to consider the concept.I don't that wasn't what Onifre was saying. I think he was more gunning for the idea that there is no reason to accept the claim 'god exists'. By so doing, it doesn't explain anything and we advance no further in our discourse. He was going in the other direction: since it does not explain anything, why bother arguing over whether god exists in the first place? Of course you can. First of all you define what you are testing they are better at? At writing music that entertains Mod? Stick me in an MRI and give me music to listen to and have me score each piece. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Right, but what you could do is determine why the question needs to be asked in the first place.If it's only to compare subjective opinions, then there is no need for the method. Which is not to say that it can't be used, what it means is that it's irrelevant. Sure you can. You can use it to investigate the persons hypothesis about the experience. Of course you can't investigate the experience itself, but you can investigate the conclusion.Just as you would with any other hypothesis, we can ask, does the hypothesis have observable consequences in reality? No, what it's objective evidence for is that people claim belief. It's objective that they've verbaly said they believe, but so what? But you're by-passing the question you should be asking first, which is, why do they believe? Which is the same for a million people or the individual. You can't go into the god question unless you establish why people believe it first. That's what the propensity of belief should make us ask.If you can find objective evidence to support their belief, then you can move on to the god question. Nothing is wrong with it.But why is he asking if there's a "being" that is greater than him? What's his evidence for supernatural beings that can be greater than him?This is an imagined thing. There is no evidence for any kind of external beings to nature, and the sheer need to invoke it seems like a worthless attempt to answer questions of awe. In fact, question of "awe" is what science handles. Important to note is that, what is mysterious today is not tomorrow, and a shortage of natural explanations doesn't lead to the conclusion that supernatural entities might exist. It should simply lead to more questions. The god hypothesis solves nothing, objectively. But why does your logic insist on jumping past the obvious questions and give relevance to that HUGE question?Shouldn't we determine why people have this belief in the first place? What is their reason for invoking a god to begin with? Ok. But it does raise the question of why can't you apply the scienctifc method? If your answer is because its a subjective question, then the relevance of that question is not common for all who experience reality. And while subjective eperiences are common, subjective interpretations vary.That is why to demand that someone like myself take a position on the question, when I find the question completely irrelevant, then claim that my position is a negative position, is wrong. Right, and that means that you advocate an initial null position until such time that SO can produce OBJECTIVE evidence to support it.Likewise, for questions about god (if you stay true to that logic) the initial position is the null position, until such time that OBJECTIVE evidence is produced. It is when the question is about the supernatural, something for which NO objective evidence exists to support it. I think the obvious question is to ask why someone needs to ask the question in the first place.I'll ask again: What has been observed that requires god as answer? Subjectively?- Oni

In which case you must agree with me that gods, if such things really do exist, are genuinely unknowable? Radical idea I know. It bewilders me how believers can simultaneously assert that the object of their belief is so definitely "unknowable" whilst at the same time getting so tragically upset at anyone who points out just how unevidenced, genuinely unknowable and thus irrational belief in such things really is. And don't even get me started on the contradiction of knowing enough about something unknowable to know that it is unknowable.... No we don't know with 100% absolute certainty. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring. Because your arguments againts atheism only apply to black and white imbecilic proclamtions of certitude which no one here is making. But your position denies the evidence of what we do know.1) We know that there is a long history of supernatural answers being overturned by naturalistic ones thanks to the application of the scientific method. We know that no supernatural answer has ever yet stood up to scrutiny. In short we know that the "god of the gaps" is a flawed argument. Even if the gap here is belief in god himself.
2) We know that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced.
3) We know that the possibility that gods exist is not objectively evidenced.None of which makes any given god concept a logical impossibility. It just makes it relatively unlikely to be true. And then we have all of the other possible reasons that people might believe in gods to consider in making any assessment of likelihood...............Why is belief in gods not considered to be evidence for telepathic dogs using their psychic powers to infiltrate the minds of people and induce such beliefs? According to LindaLou the evidence for telepathic dogs is irrefutable. Which is more than can be said for the existence of gods.The actual existence of gods is but one unevidenced possible reason as to why people believe in the existence of gods out of a near infinite number of conceivably possible causes for such beliefs. Why do you consider the actual existence of god to be superior to any other answer? Because it is believed by the expereincee that the experience is attributable to god? In which case you are effectively citing belief in god as evidence upon which to justify belief in god.This is circular.

Well exactly. Belief in god itself is being cited as evidence upon which to justify belief in god. This is indisputably circular.Why is widespread belief in gods not evidence for the commonality of human psychology? Or evidence for the existence of telepathic dogs who psychicly induce such beliefs in humans? Or indeed evidence for any other conceivable explanation for the cause of such beliefs? Why? What is the evidence for the possible existence of gods beyond the circular argument that people believe in gods therefore belief in gods is justified? The actual existence of gods is but one possible cause for these beliefs. Why do you give it preferential treatment?Is belief in anything always evidence for belief in that which is believed? Are the beliefs of scientology evidenced by the beliefs of scientologists? Or are you special pleading god again? Whooah! I have never said that anything will "preclude god existing". The entire point of irrefutable claims is that they are irrefutable. Some might say intentionally so. Understanding thunder and lightening doesn't preclude Thor existing. But it does make Thor rather redundant. Likewise scientific evidence as to why people believe in gods potentially makes the entire concept of god redundant if belief itself is the evidence you are citing here in favour of god.The god you are arguing for here is as much a god of the gaps as is Thor the product of ignorance regarding the actual nature of thunder and lightening. There is no difference except your underlying assumptions. What are you talking about here?You seem to be assuming that if people believe in god this is both explained by, and evidence for, the actual existence of god. This is circular on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin. The explanation for the phenomenon (belief in god) is the evidence that justifies the phenomenon itself (i.e. belief in god).Why do you consider the actual existence of god to be superior to any other potential answer? Because it is believed by the expereincee that the experience is attributable to god? In which case you are effectively citing belief in god as evidence upon which to justify belief in god. This is just circular nonsense.If nothing else answer this: Why is widespread belief in gods not evidence for the commonality of human psycholgy or the existence of psychic dogs who induce religious belief in humans telepathically?Seriously. Why?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.