Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 4 of 536 (604361)
02-11-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-11-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Ok so I haven't followed very much the peanut gallery, but I think I do get a sense of what is going on.
But first of all, could you give me your definition of 'supernatural' ?
Here is how I see it: the problem is you approach this in a scientific way, which is essentially what RAZD is complaining about. Science works primarily works on the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, that is:
Hypothesis A predicts B
B is oberved
Therefore A is true.
Of course, A here is regarde only as tentatively true. This is effectively what you are doing in this case:
If all supernatural concepts come from the human imagination, then all supernatural concepts of which we know the source should be the human imagination
all supernatural concepts of which we know the source is the human imagination
Therefore all supernatural concepts come from the human imagination
(tell me if I'm wrong on this. But in my limited reading of the peanut gallery this is the impression I had)
The problem RAZD has is that you are applying a logical fallacy that is acceptable in science, but are applying the same reasoning on a question that is at heart non-scientific.
Not only that, but your method for identifying sources of supernatural concepts is science, which implies a clear case of begging the question because science uses methodological naturalism. It will only be able to identify natural sources for supernatural concepts. So the option of showing ''the existence of such an entity'' as you said in the OP is, even in theory, unprovable through science.
Science today cannot conclude ''God'' for any observed phenomenon, we all know this. But then, neither can it conclude ''No God'' either, because it becomes the circular reasoning I mentioned above. But this is exactly what you are doing here.
Let's approach it from another angle. The only evidence for any supernatural claim you will ever have is either personnal experience or the account of someone else's personnal experience. (if you have another type of evidence for the supernatural. I'm all hears). In either cases, even if the experience is genuine (not imagined), science will still be silent on it because it will be unrepeatable, untestable, and therefore, unscientific. And if you only accept what is scientific as true, then you will never even be able to maybe have evidence that a supernatural source for supernatural claims exist.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 8:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 2:22 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2011 2:41 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 12 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-11-2011 4:42 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 7:34 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 02-13-2011 11:16 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 8 of 536 (604373)
02-11-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
02-11-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
A causal agent which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and which is itself claimed to materially inexplicable.
Ok so we have pretty uch the same picture of what it is. I asked because sometimes, people define it as ''an unexplained natural phenomenon'' which is somewhat a self-serving definition. (I don't argue that no natural phenomenon's aren't misconstrued as supernatural, just that you can't define it that way)
Can you give me a specific example of non-scientific evidence for the existence of god(s) that you consider relevant?
I think that pretty much all genuine evidence of anything supernatural will be non-scientific, because it will be unrepeatable, which is a major criterion in science.
Example: I see someone walking on water. If it truely is a supernatural event, I won't be able to repeat it. (contrary to if it is just a natural phenomenon, then I should be able to repeat it)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 2:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2011 4:04 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:38 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 536 (604375)
02-11-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
02-11-2011 2:41 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
If a patient sees a doctor and complains that the CIA has set up an invisible base on the moon and is using undetectable lasers to alter the minds of his closest friends to...
The subject of undetectable lasers and government conspiracies is 'non scientific' at heart - but the doctor would be being perfectly within the realms of science to diagnose the patient as suffering paranoid delusions despite the fact the doctor has not at any point ruled out that the delusions are actually real experiences.
I agree, but the doctor uses Occam's razor to pose this diagnostic. It does not come from any sort of scientific hypothesis that says ''all CIA conspiracies are the product of human imagination''.
This cannot be said of many claims of the supernatural, which usually involves someone seeing something that seems totally unnatural to him/her.
Then how is it different when science today can conclude there are probably horses but probably not any unicorns?
Is it truely science that is concluding this, or is it logical thinking ?
Remember, we have defined science to be naturalistic, through methodological naturalism. By definition, it cannot make claims on something supernatural. (I'm supposing you intended unicorn here to be a supernatural being, and not just a horse with a horn)
Yes - this is characteristic of delusion.
This is characteristics of a whole lot of things. How many 'claims' about your own personal life do you have only your own and/or others personnal word for it.
This is because all those claims are events of the past. It is probably characteristics of the majority of things you did last week.
Science is designed to overcome our brains unconscious failures and biases. So a double-blind experiment where multiple people speak to the same God and get some confidential information like a password might be a good start to proving that whatever we're calling God in our experiment is a real entity.
Yes, this is a logical technique that can be applied in a scientific context. And of course, the same can be applied to claims of the supernatural.
But this does not mean that science can conclude the existence of God.
Not necessarily silent. It could point out that the experiences were not under controlled conditions and that the default stance would be 'interesting, but probably human error' just like in a non double blind medical trial.
That would be the stance of the scientist, or any human for that matter. But it doesn't mean science doesn't stay silent on this issue.
Hypothesis x is an explanation of A.
It has explanatory power.
It is consistent with all available evidence.
It is parsimonious.
It is not falsified.
This isn't a logical construction. It's a list of chracteristics you have assigned to hypX. If you build a logical argument, you will find affirming the consequent, just like in the case of every single scientific hypothesis.
RAZDs objection, worded as best as I can make it, is that all theories are consistent with all available evidence when there is no available evidence as in this case. Though you are right, in that RAZD sees this as stemming from a host of logical fallacies, as his worldview insists this must be the case (RAZD is big on worldview explanations for positions...).
ANd he would be right in that worldviews do have a great deal of impact on someone's position.
I'm perfectly happy to scrap the term. Since this is about atheism we'll stick with gods and assume they are as natural as pies. The same reasoning applies then as government conspiracies (with the notable point that we happen to at least know government conspiracies in general exist).
What do we mean by a god? Let's stick with something like 'an intelligent agent that governs some aspect of nature on planet earth'. Governs essentially covers 'creation, design, and/or continued operation. That is to say, if said intelligent agent so decided they could alter or suspend the continued operation of something, redesign it, or create new ones. These agents are not human and they are of at least equal sentience if not more so.
If a dualist wishes to argue that there is some other realm in which deities live as an explanatory hypothesis for the lack of evidence then it is upon them to define the characteristics of this realm.
That isn't really a definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2011 2:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2011 5:49 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 11 of 536 (604378)
02-11-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AZPaul3
02-11-2011 4:04 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
I don't understand. Why would this not be repeatable? If you saw someone walk on water could they not repeat the feat in front of more witnessess?
I mean repeatable in it's scientific definition. In that anyone, anywhere, could repeat it and have the same results. I think we can agree that if it is up to someone's 'will' if something physically happens or not, then it is not repeatable in a scientific way.
But then they might refuse and might deny the first episode. Then you would be right in not having a repeatable experience. In which case you have nothing but your original perception of the episode.
You have no evidence, scientific or otherwise; only what you think you saw. Human perceptions are notoriously bad. Even in crowds. We all know this.
You would be left without any "genuine evidence."
You are left without genuine 'scientific' evidence. This does not mean if 500 people saw me walk on water, it couldn't be considered evidence that a supernatural phenomenon occured. (of course, other options should be looked into first. Is it a trick ? is it an as-of-yet unknown natural phenomenon ?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2011 4:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 2:45 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 10:45 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 536 (604384)
02-11-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ZenMonkey
02-11-2011 4:42 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Yeah well I think it should be obvious that if Hypothesis a predicts B, both observing be and observing notB will give you information on the validity of A ...
Afterall, correct predictions are one of the criterions we use to intuitively judge which theory is more successful, not just the shortcomings of competing theories.
AbE Ok concrete example. It was the successful prediction of the cosmic microwave background by the Big Bang Theory that made it ''win the war'' on the Steady-State theory in cosmology back in the 60's.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-11-2011 4:42 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 02-13-2011 8:08 PM slevesque has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024