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. Then how is it different when science today can conclude there are probably horses but probably not any unicorns? Yes - this is characteristic of delusion. 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. 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. Kind of, but kind of not.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.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...). 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.

There is basically this theory in psychology. It's obviously more sophisticated than that. Either way the doctor is proceeding as if the theory - however it was derived (through occams razor etc) - is true.abe: in case it wasn't clear: the diagnosis (the patient is suffering from paranoid delusions, not actually being persecuted by unseen agents) is the doctors theory. He presses ahead as if it were true and prescribes antipsychotics or whatever. I still don't understand why 'this cannot be said of many claims of the supernatural' what does something being totally unnatural to the claimant have to do with it. People can be deluded that parts of their own body are completely unnatural to them, diagnosis is fine there. No - just a horse with a horn. If you want to propose a horse that is supernatural you'll need to explain what that means to me. Science doesn't conclude anything. But a person can examine evidence and infer conclusions based on a certain disciplined process of reasoning. Most scientists don't get paid to write papers about unicorns - but you'll certainly find scientists using scientific methods to conclude that Brontosaurus never existed, that Apatosaurus is no longer extant, and may other such things. But my personal experience is not the ONLY way to acquire evidence of my personal experiences. I can demonstrate to my partner I did the washing up by showing her the clean dishes, for example. I can back up my claims of athletics success with medals, certificates, trophies and newspaper clippings.Claims of ontology are even easier. I have personal experience of cats. If you doubt me I can give you evidence that cats exist.If there is some ontological thing in my personal world that you think can only ever be experienced by me individually and that can never be corroborated to be real by a third party let me know. Well if God doesn't exist this is trivially true. Is there some specific reason that science cannot conclude the existence of God? If scientists aren't the 'voice of science' who is? Science is a method, and doesn't say anything to anyone ever about anything. That is a logical construction, it is abductive reasoning. Yes, abductive reasoning is deductively invalid as you described. But it isn't affirming the consequent or deductive logic that drives us to good conclusions in science...so as I said 'kind of, but not quite'. Yes, it is.You want to actually try expanding on your position. Explaining your problem with it? Providing a better definition? I gave a list of properties that gods have that distinguish them from other entities as well as some they share with other entities. What else are you looking for? Do better. Try not to dismiss a three paragraph explanation for we might mean as 'god' in this thread with 5 words, thanks.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Looks like you are in agreement. Nobody is making the claim that no god can exist...

Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler,(the son of the Dragon, son of Dracul, aka Dracula) definitely existed and was Voivode of Wallachia and famous enemy of the Turks (along with some unfortunate political skirmishes with Hungary). Vampires were believed in, and there are many anecdotal subjective experiences of their existence stemming from Slavic lands. They were dead people that raised from the dead (possibly because a cat walked across their grave, or they died before marriage) and gained the ability to change into different animals, the desire/need for blood, the dislike of garlic, stakes and fire. It might be pointed out that you claimed 'he doesn't truly exist' based on the fact that the only source of vampiric Eastern European nobles you knew of was Bram Stoker and those that followed him...Dracula as a vampire may have been thought of by some in the Slavic lands, but it was certainly popularised by Stoker's work.Let us not disregard that as recently as the 18th Century, there was major panic about Vampires in Europe.They are as 'bone fide' as gods, ghosts, spirits and djinn as far as supernatural credentials go. Dracula is as good a suspect for vampirism as Peter Plogojowitz or Mercy Brown.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

He was in Bram Stoker's book, and many in life undoubtedly ascribed supernatural devilry to him. But it was a known piece of fiction about a class of being that if existent, would be considered supernatural AND that people have believed do exist. Next you'll be revising your notion that the FSM counts as an example of a supernatural being we can say is made up because we know it is made up therefore it is not a supernatural being but a fictional construct made for the purposes of satirising intelligent design creationism and 'teach the controversy' mentality.The fictional character of Dracula, was defined as being moody, angry, having a perverse sense of honour and justice, and could fly, turn to smoke and had to drink blood.This is a supernatural concept. The idea itself isn't magical. The character is fictional. But it is a concept of a thing that that has magical properties. Denying that Casper the Ghost is a supernatural concept because it is a natural pile of transparent cells with paint on them, coupled with voice acting and so on is just being ridiculous.You might as well try, in a discussion about the folklorishness of Dragons say we can't talk about stories about Dragons! Indeed - what you are doing is like saying that Smaug is not a dragon concept!Do you concur that vampires, such as the one Dracula is portrayed as, are 'supernatural beings' in as far as 'if they really existed, we'd be perfectly happy to call them supernatural since they defy everything we know about biology.'We can suggest that Dracula is a fictional character based on a real, claimed to exist, supernatural category of beings called 'vampires' or 'strigoi' or what have you. That Dracula is a known example of a supernatural creature that was 'made up'. We can look at other vampire stories and show how 'mass hysteria' and 'superstitious magical thinking' can be put forward as explanations for the many claimed subjective experiences of vampires so that we can hypothesise that all supposed 'real vampire' stories are actually inadvertant products of a flawed human brain even extending that notion to cases where historical records are too sketchy to be sure either way.

I doubt that very much. Has it been established beyond all unreasonable Hindu Hypothesese? If you like, you can replace that with djinn (the alleged creatures that inspired tales of wish granting genies such as the one that lived in Aladdin). If they have been established as not real - then we can also establish that Islam is false, which would be interesting.Until then - you're going to have to settle with proving the less well known Slavic paganism as being false. Now there's a religion with an interesting pantheon....Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are you asking what has the return of God, the descent of the kingdom of God to earth from the heavens and God's final judgement of mankind has to do with God?A lot, I would have thought. Did you forget the part where Straggler mentioned Armageddon?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So it appears that you really don't think that god's final judgement over all of mankind as the kingdom of god descends from heaven and god made flesh bodily resurrects humanity might constitute a scenario which could pass as having some relation to a thing called god.Since, by the nature of your latest replies, it is evident you are being as elusive as you are obtuse - the sensible course of action is to leave it having simply repeated my point in a sufficiently sharp manner.But maybe you will feel like having an actual sensible discussion later on, which might be nice. I'll know that day is come when you present a defence for your position rather than hiding behind short content free posts...maybe even tying it to the original point of debate.I'm fairly sure I actually get where you are heading, but at least give us the courtesy of reading our posts, comprehending them and responding in a way that isn't like a 1st yr philosophy student that thinks they are being...clever.

As might anybody that speaks English or other language which uses the Gott/God word to describe supernatural creators and judges of the world. That should be a clue that we don't buy it. We just accept that Christians believe in a thing called God and the thing that they call God has certain properties and if there was strong evidence of an entity that has those certain properties then there would evidence of the thing Christians (and other English speakers) call 'God'. In the same sense that a stampede of bulls has to do with bulls. It is an event that contains an entity that is referred in English to a certain noun. In one case, bulls, in another case God.If a bunch of old men in robes described a stampede but I had never seen one and I said that stampedes were figments of the human imagination it seems reasonable to re-visit that theory if I am presented with something that has all the defining characteristics of a stampede. The same applies for gods and supernatural end times.

No, that is not what I said and it can be easily shown so by me saying1) I believe the highest seats in the theatre really do exist, and I believe I have even sat in them on occasion.
2) I believe in the existence of certain obscure English rock bands from the 60s
3) I believe there is an Amiga based platform game from the early 90s.
4) I believe there are system administrators, chatroom moderators and IRC operators.
5) I believe there are fictional characters in books.What did I actually say?We just accept that Christians believe in a thing called God and the thing that they call God has certain properties and if there was strong evidence of an entity that has those certain properties then there would evidence of the thing Christians (and other English speakers) call 'God'.Try again. That's nice, Jon, but God becomes empirically verifiable in the Christian end of the world. From Revelation 21

quote:

---

the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away

---

Of course, it's also possible that all the atheists will have been defeated by the giant armour-plated scorpions and cast into the Abyss of fire before that happens...but that being the case I'd certainly accept the existence of Hell and giant armour-plated scorpions as well as Abaddon who is king or something like that. And angels too - there would be no shortage of empirically verifiable angels. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

We identify an entity based on the words used by familiar languages to identify said entity. Sometimes this can be done by pointing at the entity and identifying or it could be by explaining what the entities attributes/properties are so that you can identify it yourself should you see it.There are many people that have identified an entity that they have labelled 'God' and it has certain properties. Therefore, if we see such an entity, we can identify it as the thing those other people called 'God' and should we wish to communicate what we saw to other people we would use that word.It is the common sets of descriptions in use by people in their respective languages that atheists broadly have not accepted the existence of. And we're talking inductive atheism, as per the topic... Not really.According to Straggler atheists would be churlish to sit around saying 'I'm sure there is a perfectly good scientific material explanation for this' while the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss and Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators etc.And further, suggests Straggler, most people would be content that bluegenes' theory is falsified and atheists that consider themselves 'inductively atheistic' using similar reasoning should admit they were wrong. That isn't to say atheists should believe everything about all supernatural things, or accept the Bible as completely true.It certainly wouldn't confirm substance dualism in any easy way, but maybe someone could figure out a way to successfully argue that dualism is the better metaphysics all things considered. Sure sure - you can intrerpret the Bible so as to include no direct experiences of God if you want. Most Christians don't, and it was to the commonly believed version of Armageddon rather than some ambiguous post modern Armageddon I think Straggler was talking about.Obviously, Armageddons where God doesn't directly appear are still something that could falsify bluegenes theory and give most atheists food for thought unless it transpires to be so metaphorical that nothing particularly happens at all. The literal return of Jesus and the literal resurrection of the dead indicates he was going to a direct and literal interpretation of God living with us, wiping our eyes in the Golden Kingdom of Heaven...as if the relationship in Genesis of a walking talking imminent living god was reestablished. Precisely, and that's all Straggler was saying. If Jesus was empirically verifiable (and therefore it is also verifiable that he is God) then atheists would concede that their previous notions were flawed (or they would be 'churlish', as Straggler notes). The Apocalypse of John is an end-times account, at least the end of an era.

And you can supernaturally explain it as well. The question is, is the explanation correct?Let's say you see Jesus turning water into wine. He gives you access to a powerful microscope and you watch, stunned, as molecules appear de novo in the water making it into a wine the likes of which is impossible to brew using material technology.How would you know you aren't crazy?
How do evolutionary biologists know they aren't crazy?Well they don't, not 100% but they can invite others to check their work. If their work is verified then either they are deluded about the verification and are so deluded its hopeless (aka The Matrix, brain in a jar etc).Sure, its a material explanation - but I think we can agree that absent any confirmatory evidence it would be foolish to accept that.For the sake of moving forwards lets try a different angle.The supernatural hypothesis of gods: There are two 'types' of substance. There is substance that has a quality called energy. Substances made of energy can be used to detect other substances made of energy. This substance acts in a certain way that can be described, and thus predicted. This substance is called matter. I appreciate that's a little simple but for our purposes it'll do.There is a second substance that has a quality called magic. Substances made of magic can be used to detect other substances made of magic. This substance also acts in a certain way (though possibly different than matter), it may or may not be possible to describe it fully and prediction may or not be feasible in certain circumstances. This substance is called spirit.Both substances are governed in some fashion by spiritual beings (1 or many) that for convenience we will call gods.Humans are mostly material, but have a soul which is made of spirit and can thus, in principle at least, detect other spiritual entities possibly including gods.

---

So Jesus does his final waltz and you ponder your position.The Supernatural Hypothesis is that the spiritual being god is using his governance over matter and spirit to make miracles happen. Or, the entire experience is occurring within the domain of the spiritual and you are observing it not with your eyes/brain but with your soul.The Natural Hypothesis is that you are crazy. That the soul is just the mind. Bluegenes' theory is that the experience stems from your imagination. Hallucinations are sometimes thought of as being where the brain mistakes projected possible worlds (imagined possibilities) for the real world.One of these theories is true (I stipulate for the purposes of making discussion around the subject at all possible). As with any theory it is actually technically impossible to absolutely falsify either one. That might seem like an extraordinary claim, but consider that any theory can be rescued with ad hoc exceptions or by dismissing the falsifier as crazy or incompetent.So let's consider how to falsify bluegenes' theory. First of all we can get brain scans, we might be a bit wonky on the human brain but if we see god and our optic systems are being stimulated in a way that hallucinations don't then that might weaken bluegenes theory.We can use the detection equipment given in the supernatural hypothesis. Let's say we find a helpful cherubim using our soulsight and ask it to think of a random number between 1 and 100 billion and to tell one person who enters the number into a computer and then isolates themselves from communication for the rest of the experiment. We get 1,000 people to walk into a room with the cherub and have the cherub tell them the number. They then record the number, enter it into a computer which encrypts it with a near unbreakable encryption. If all 1,000 people get the correct number and if it is not possible to film the cherubim (have 1,000 people watch a film of the cherubim saying the number or something) or weigh it etc - this is evidence that supports the supernatural theory and weakens bluegenes'.Of course, as RAZD likes to say, it is POSSIBLE that god exists (in that it is not absolutely ruled out by any of the information presently available) just as it is possible that bluegenes' theory might still be true, you might be crazy, we all might be in the Matrix etc etc, but there comes a point where you realize the evidence that supports that notion is highly questionable and the spiritual evidence that supports substance dualism is gaining a lot of ground.At some point you have to accept that the Matrix hypothesis or the crazy hypothesis are quirky philosophical notions that if true you are essentially captivated by them and have to live as if they weren't true.In this sense, bluegenes theory is falsified. Not ruled out 100%, even falsification is tentative! You can continue devising further experiments I'm sure. Perhaps you could take pills that suppress hallucinations, but you still couldn't be sure you weren't deluding yourself that you are taking them.The statement 'all swans are white' could be falsified by the observation of a black swan. But then, if we allow 'you're crazy' to rescue theories from falsification (as you are trying rescue bluegenes' during Armageddon) then we can dismiss the observation of a black swan. Indeed - we can dismiss any and all observations that falsify our theory. There comes a point where there are sufficient observations that continual dismissal is itself insane or incompetent. Even Popper did not believe that falsification was a purely naive and/or objective process. Source
It is a somewhat subjective process. So if you want - you can make the decision to stick to the 'I'm going crazy' hypothesis during Armageddon. It's not entirely unwarranted and it is unlikely that you as an individual will be able to perform the rigorous tests necessary to say positively otherwise. However, we are discussing falsification in principle - and it is likely that somebody will attempt these kinds of tests should Armageddon occur as per the hypothesis above and for there to still be time for testing. For them, with their information, it seems reasonable to me that they make the decision to accept substance dualism and the reality of Armageddon tentatively pending further tests which presumably would increase confidence incrementally. abe: Might I propose otherwise? There could be multiple types of laws:1 Natural laws: These are descriptions about how the realm of the material operates.2 Supernatural laws: These are descriptions about how the realm of spirit operates.A: Reality laws: This is the superset of all laws. It is merely the description(s) for how the whole of reality operates.If an entity was present that operated the way the natural laws could not describe but did operate consistent with supernatural laws one could deduce it was a supernatural entity.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

We are willing to throw away our old theory and look for a better one. Which is precisely what I've been saying. I can hardly be blamed for the evidential failings of substance dualism can I? After all, I am one of the main people around here attacking it for its evidential failings.I was however, relating their theory and developing a hypothetical future in which there is evidence. My apologies, I was being charitable. Since you claimed to have a material explanation for Armageddon I looked for the only thing that was an explanation in your post:

quote:

---

Surely you are insane

---

I guess you weren't thinking that at the time - but it is a pretty good natural hypothesis. Feel free to provide another. I explained it. They have a soul. I know it is not satisfactory, but its not my theory. It's almost as if this stuff was made up!For further clarification in the setup I related, our senses can only detect material things (things with 'energy'). So they are limited to the subset of (A) that I labelled (1). The soul can experience at least some things in subset (1) and (2).Let's say we perform the cherub experiment and got the positive results I described....would you not say that this is positive evidence in favour of a second substance, not materially detectable? It's a fun example because it only relies on information flow between the realms which is permitted in all conceptions of substance dualism.

So far, never. Likely due to its lack of existence. But we were talking about a world in which the supernatural is real, and I proposed a way in which that evidence might be found to support that. I am talking about detecting something non-materially that cannot be detected materially so I guess your supposition is false. Presuming there is a natural cause. But we are stipulating there is no natural cause, so it cannot be explained naturally. It can be described as you do by pointing out what natural things are affected, but those natural things are not acting in a way they would normally without intervention. Jesus gives you a mathematical formula for spiritual reincarnations that relies on spiritual metaphysics and the material effects all make sense and can even be predicted.To repeat for stress: You can describe the material effects materially. But you cannot find any material causation for those effects. You can find non-material causation by experience. Or - the natural laws stand and new non-natural laws are discovered. Why neglect this outcome? One presumes the dualists are of the opinion that your assumption that the body only accepts materially detectable inputs is false.Quoth Descartes:

quote:

---

I remark, in the next place, that the mind does not immediately receive the impression from all the parts of the body, but only from the brain, or perhaps even from one small part of it, viz, that in which the common sense (senses communis) is said to be, which as often as it is affected in the same way gives rise to the same perception in the mind, although meanwhile the other parts of the body may be diversely disposed, as is proved by innumerable experiments, which it is unnecessary here to enumerate.

​

{a discussion about how moving a foot is deterministic from a series of biomechanical causes up to the brain...}

​

I remark, finally, that as each of the movements that are made in the part of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected, impresses it with but a single sensation, the most likely supposition in the circumstances is, that this movement causes the mind to experience, among all the sensations which it is capable of impressing upon it; that one which is the best fitted, and generally the most useful for the preservation of the human body when it is in full health. But experience shows us that all the perceptions which nature has given us are of such a kind as I have mentioned; and accordingly, there is nothing found in them that does not manifest the power and goodness of God. Thus, for example, when the nerves of the foot are violently or more than usually shaken, the motion passing through the medulla of the spine to the innermost parts of the brain affords a sign to the mind on which it experiences a sensation, viz, of pain, as if it were in the foot, by which the mind is admonished and excited to do its utmost to remove the cause of it as dangerous and hurtful to the foot.

---

The cherub experiment that I described is still awaiting... What I'm talking about is something that we can sense that no instrument can. And no, we don't automatically regard everything we detect as being from another realm. The sensible amongst us presently regard undetectable 'phantoms' as minor but relatively common hallucinations or other such works of the imagination. However, the existence of non-material beings can be established by identifying the existence of a being that is not made of matter (inluding energy et al). We could call this 'extra' substance what we want; the extranatural, the paramundane, the praeternatural, the supernatural or even Super Psychic Intransient Roaming Independent Tellurians.

If I can see something which neither emits nor reflects electromagnetic waves, nor has any energy, mass or the like and yet, all humans that look, see the thing. I think we've got a good bit of evidence in favour of the supernatural. But, as you say, science extends to take new information into account. If the spiritual realm exists, I see no reason that science can't extend it's methodology to try to learn about it, once it is given the appropriate information (ie., some kind of howto for bridging the gap, or a sudden appearance of a menagerie of spiritual beings readily experienced by all and sundry). If you want to define supernatural as having the property 'cannot be experienced', then we're back to Straggler's argument that whatever opinions humans have of the supernatural are necessarily human inventions since they did not acquire that knowledge through some experience by definition.I was trying to shoot for a different angle as I recall, since that one went precisely nowhere interesting.As for causes, we were talking about science explaining stuff. That is, finding the causes and explaining how those causes can cause the effect that was caused. I'm not suggesting we throw out the whole process! I'm suggesting that we do resort to a new theory. And no, I'm not suggesting we need jump straight into theism at the sign of an interesting result. I'm suggesting that the accumulation of a certain kind of interesting result predicted by supernaturalists and defined as being 'supernatural' by them is increasingly supportive of their general theory of substance dualism. To justify that it is a cause you have to tie it to thermodynamically improbable events in some fashion. Did Jesus pull Maxwell's demon out of hell? Did he redirect the fire so that the shadows it casts were of wine rather than water?Otherwise it's not a cause, it's just an observation of a preceding event. Maybe it was just Jesus being a showman. Of course it does. If it turned out that science could access a parallel universe - would this be nothing to do with science? That's essentially all that I am proposing here - that and that the physics may be different in that universe. But that the physics in that universe and our own universe abide by a larger set of physics that govern reality.So science gets to communicate with beings that are not made of matter or energy. Do you think scientists would suddenly say, 'well technically this isn't something in our remit to study' or do you think, people driven to learn everything they can about reality might just abandon rigid dogmas about how science should be, and roll with the times. And nor have you to support it. You can call it whatever you like. It's just a name. The name isn't important. It's that it has the properties described by dualists that is of interest.

---

Just to make it clear, when bluegenes uses the word 'supernatural' he refers to things such as gods, miracle causing agents and the like. If such beings were to exist, regardless of if they are called 'supernatural' or not, this would be sufficient to falsify bluegenes' theory.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.