Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 16 of 536 (604436)
02-12-2011 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
02-11-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Slev writes:
Ok so we have pretty uch the same picture of what it is.
Good.
Slev writes:
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)
I agree. Personally I think that definition is little more than a debate tactic sometimes used by some atheists. It doesn't even attempt to describe the sort of concepts under discussion.
Slev writes:
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.
As has been pointed out by others your repeatability criteria is somewhat ill thought out. Science can and does investigate all sorts of unrepeatable events.
So do you dispute that the only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination? If so can you give me a specific example of non-scientific evidence for the existence of god(s) that you consider relevant?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 02-11-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 536 (604479)
02-12-2011 4:12 PM


RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
RAZD is truly losing the plot now. In the Great Debate thread and in the Peanut gallery he has resorted to just about the worst theistic argument there is.
RAZD writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
Since when did people writing down their beliefs constitute "objective empirical evidence" for those beliefs?

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 4:38 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 536 (604483)
02-12-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
02-12-2011 4:12 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Well, it is evidentiary. How much weight we should give to it is another question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 536 (604484)
02-12-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
02-12-2011 4:38 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
It is evidence of belief. Sure.
To cite it as anything else is to engage in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to base beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 4:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 7:48 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 536 (604485)
02-12-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
02-11-2011 1:47 PM


Jon Said Something Sensible!!!!
I have just chanced across quite possibly the most sensible thing I have ever heard you say here at EvC.
Jon writes:
This is only true if we decide to discount the possibility of any naturalistic alternative, such as the one I've mentioned several times now. Is there any reason we should discount a naturalistic explanation? Message 125
We have a naturalistic explanation (i.e. human imagination) for an observed phenomenon (i.e. the existence of, and human belief in, supernatural concepts). So (to quote you) - "Is there any reason we should discount a naturalistic explanation?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 02-11-2011 1:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 02-12-2011 5:53 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 536 (604493)
02-12-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
02-12-2011 4:46 PM


Science and Induction at the End of the Line
The issue is not the origin of the God concept; I think it can be safely agreed upon by most that if there is a supernatural God whose interaction with this world cannot be sensed, then the origin of any concept related to that God can indeed come from nowhere other than the human imagination.
However, just because this concept is imaginedand all the evidence tells us it isthe object of this concept, God, is not automatically discounted from actually existing. I have not read much of RAZD's posts, but what I gather from the few I've read along with the replies made to them by others is that this is one of the essentials behind his argument.
Science and induction won't help us here.
Scientifically and inductively there is no evidence for any God;
Scientifically and inductively there is plenty evidence to conclude that all God concepts are made up;
Scientifically and inductively none of this tells us anything about the possible reality of any of the Gods in these concepts;
Science and induction are simply not suited to addressing these issues.
But we've had this conversation before, you and I, and nothing came of it; I think having it again won't change that.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-12-2011 5:59 PM Jon has replied
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 5:23 AM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 536 (604494)
02-12-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
02-12-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Science and Induction at the End of the Line
But we've had this conversation before, you and I, and nothing came of it; I think having it again won't change that.
Looks like you are in agreement. Nobody is making the claim that no god can exist...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 02-12-2011 5:53 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 02-12-2011 6:38 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 536 (604504)
02-12-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
02-12-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Science and Induction at the End of the Line
Looks like you are in agreement. Nobody is making the claim that no god can exist...
Like I said, I've not really followed any of the RAZD great debates, and have also not followed this thread. I guess I am not entirely sure of what the disagreement is between the parties involved.
Forgive me if I've strayed from the topic.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-12-2011 5:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 536 (604517)
02-12-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
02-12-2011 4:45 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
It is evidence of belief. Sure.
To cite it as anything else is to engage in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to base beliefs.
No, of citing testimony. How much such testimony sways us may depend on our antecedent beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 25 of 536 (604542)
02-12-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-11-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Hi Straggler,
While I agree with the central assertion of your "tentative theory" (that all supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination), I find your statement of premises, predictions and potential falsification to be less than satisfying.
Not least among the problems is that we have no ability to define what "a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source" might be. As I see it, "supernatural concepts" fall in the domain of "tricks played with human language," using the grammatical tools for asserting existence, attribution, action, agency, experience, etc, along with tools for quantification ("some, most, any, all, none," etc), and -- crucially -- negation with controlled scope (negating a whole sentence, verb phrase only, subject only, object only, attribute only, etc).
Since humans are not aware of (let alone able to comprehend) any non-human system of communication with this extent of assertive power, it seems meaningless to refer to "non-human sources of supernatural concepts." (It's possible that non-human communication systems could exist, built on similar or equivalent principles, but if there has ever been any evidence of such a thing, humans have been unable to observe it objectively and recognize it as such.)
So I'll propose different approach -- dare I say, an alternate theory. To establish adequate grounds for "inductive atheism", we need to address two distinct categories of theistic assertions:
(1) Claims regarding any purposeful but unobservable entity acting as the causative agent for observed phenomena.
(2) Claims regarding the existence and attributes of consciousness (and particularly human-like consciousness) beyond the realm of objective observation (god(s), spirits, life after death, reincarnation, etc).
For the first category, we can form a theory that all such claims stem from a natural, innate human tendency to infer causes and reasons for things that affect our lives, including things that don't happen (a person didn't die from injuries, wasn't on a plane that crashed, etc).
It is in the nature of such claims that they cannot be refuted in any objective sense, do not yield any value in terms of making usable predictions for future observations, and have no more likelihood of being "correct" than countless alternative supernatural claims that could be made up to "explain" the same phenomena.
Given our experience with forming and testing natural explanations, and the fact that these have repeatedly succeeded with increasing accuracy while supernatural explanations have repeatedly failed, we can conclude by induction that supernatural explanations for observable phenomena are, at best, always useless, and lead, at worst, to misunderstandings and/or false assertions about the phenomena.
The second category is more pernicious, because it has no bearing on anything observable; the limitless indeterminacy of unobservable entities is compounded by the unobservable environs that they must occupy. In effect, there is nothing that differentiates claims of this type from mere fiction or mendacity.
One possible exception is the occasional observation of "cases suggestive of reincarnation," but these are so rare that they could well have happened "by chance" -- that is, they don't come close to refuting the null hypothesis, which says that each personality is a natural outcome of the particular genetics and environment in which the individual is born and raised, rather than being some sort of projection or continuation of an earlier personality from another lifetime.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

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 27 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:44 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 536 (604557)
02-13-2011 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
02-12-2011 7:48 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Dr A writes:
Straggler writes:
To cite it as anything else is to engage in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to base beliefs.
No, of citing testimony.
People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these expereinces evidence of exactly?
Why would we think that such experiences constitute evidence for supernatural causes rather than evidence for fluctuations in the matrix?
Because the experiencee believes it to be so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 5:10 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 45 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 2:16 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 536 (604558)
02-13-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Otto Tellick
02-12-2011 11:53 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
OT writes:
Not least among the problems is that we have no ability to define what "a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source" might be.
Aside from the demonstrable existence of a god or other supernatural being beyond reasonable doubt some natiralistic possibilities would be:
1) Animals exhibiting religious beliefs of some kind
2) An alien civilisation exhibiting supernatural beliefs
As things stand human imagination remains the only known source of such concepts.
OT writes:
As I see it, "supernatural concepts" fall in the domain of "tricks played with human language," using the grammatical tools for asserting existence, attribution, action, agency, experience, etc, along with tools for quantification ("some, most, any, all, none," etc), and -- crucially -- negation with controlled scope (negating a whole sentence, verb phrase only, subject only, object only, attribute only, etc).
At this stage in the proceedings you are over complicating things. Casper the Ghost is a supernatural concept but I wouldn't describe that as a "grammatical tool" of the sort you have defined.
As things stand human imagination remains the only known source of supernatural concepts.
Bluegenes theory remains a strong one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-12-2011 11:53 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 536 (604559)
02-13-2011 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
02-13-2011 4:37 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these expereinces evidence of exactly?
Why would we think that such experiences constitute evidence for supernatural causes rather than evidence for fluctuations in the matrix?
But if you are going to go down that route, then your doubt seems just as applicable to causes which people tend to deem natural. You see a guy eating a hamburger --- or do you? Perhaps it's just a "fluctuation in the Matrix". I don't see how this would be different in principle from seeing him walking on water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 5:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 536 (604560)
02-13-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
02-12-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Science and Induction at the End of the Line
Jon writes:
But we've had this conversation before, you and I, and nothing came of it; I think having it again won't change that.
Except now you seem to agree with the conclusions of inductive atheism. So where is it you think disagreement lies exactly?
Jon writes:
The issue is not the origin of the God concept;
It very much is the issue given that this is what Bluegenes theory seeks to explain.
Jon writes:
Scientifically and inductively there is plenty evidence to conclude that all God concepts are made up;
Can you help us explain this to RAZD? He has been struggling on this point for quite some time.
Jon writes:
However, just because this concept is imaginedand all the evidence tells us it isthe object of this concept, God, is not automatically discounted from actually existing.
The existence of such an entity remains a philosophical possibility in exactly the same way that the existence of Leprechauns or Thetans remains a philosophical possibility.
Jon writes:
I have not read much of RAZD's posts, but what I gather from the few I've read along with the replies made to them by others is that this is one of the essentials behind his argument.
RAZD obviously doesn't know what the term "tentative" means. In fact he seems to have a massive intellectual blindspot regarding the difference between falsifiable tentative theories derived from inductive reasoning and statements of logical certainty derived from axiomatic deduction. He seems to be terminally incapable of igrasping the difference between science and pure logic.
Jon writes:
Scientifically and inductively none of this tells us anything about the possible reality of any of the Gods in these concepts;
It tells us is that whilst these concepts remain philosophically possible we can have a high confidence that they are little more more than figments of human imagination. That is what it tells us.
Jon writes:
Science and induction are simply not suited to addressing these issues.
If you have a superior alternative I am all ears?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 02-12-2011 5:53 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 536 (604561)
02-13-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2011 5:10 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
It seems we are talking about two different things.
Dr A writes:
I don't see how this would be different in principle from seeing him walking on water.
Regarding someone walking on water, an event that could presumably in principle be filmed, empirically investigated etc. etc.- I am not saying there is a difference.
But the sort of "subjective experiences" RAZD has relentlessly hammered on about thread after thread (and those more generally implied by theists at EvC) do not seem to be of this nature.
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
What experiences? Dreams? Waking visions? Hearing the "voice of god"? Daydreams? Are all forms of "personal experience" evidence? Or only some? If I close my eyes and envisage the ethereal yellow squirrel is the actual existence of the ethereal yellow squirrel now evidenced?
There's a difference between having a "waking vision" (which was involuntary) and voluntarily imagining an ethereal yellow squirrel. But yeah, the things you mention above are the kinds of things that people are talking about. Message 239
But I'll ask RAZ exactly what it is he is talking about regarding these documented supernatural experiences that he thinks constitute "objective empirical evidence" in favour of the supernatural.
AbE - See Message 1035.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 5:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 6:06 AM Straggler 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