Subjective Evidence of Gods

You keep saying that the same objective facts equally support both our conclusions.But the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.How on Earth can the evidenced fact that humans will invoke intelligent intent when it isn’t there possibly support the conclusion that it is there?This doesn’t make sense A preference for false positives is present for the same reasons that a preference for attractive mates, high calorie foods and adrenaline inducing pursuits is present. Evolutionary selection/survival advantage. But I haven't said that the evidence precludes the existence of gods. I have simply said that that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims and that human invention is more objectively evidenced than the evidentially baseless claim that gods actually exist.There really is nothing subjective about it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have been led astray from the true path of the pink one.

But have I assumed this?Do you accept that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none in non-god-related areas?Do you acknowledge that conspiracy theorists see the hidden hand of the puppeteer at every opportunity? That every unusual large-scale event in the world will be met with a host of assertions about undetectable manipulators in our midst? That humans will naturally but irrationally construct explanations for disturbing events or social phenomena in terms of the actions of powerful individuals and organisations? Even where the evidence suggests that these explanations are even more outlandish than the things they purport to explain? Do you accept that we have all irrationally feared malevolent monsters, armed murderers or other forms of terrifying intent when alone in the dark? Do you agree that humans will see patterns, meaning and intent in demonstrably random and disconnected events because it aids survival to overestimate these things (i.e. false positives) rather than the opposite of missing these things when they are actually there?Our knowledge of these human tendencies is not based on assumptions about gods. We have objective evidence of humans exhibiting a deep proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none. This proclivity isn't limited to untestable gods. We display it in all sorts of situations where the absence of intelligent agency can be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.So no - There is no assumption in the evidenced fact that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none. It is just a fact of human psychology that happens to be relevant to the question at hand. A distinction needs to be made between:A) Evidence that favours gods as human constructions
B) Evidence that precludes the existence of godsDo you understand that I am talking about A) but not B).....? My position just doesn't require the same circular thinking that yours does. No-one needs to assume anything at all about gods to accept the evidence that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.The two conclusions are not equally circular.

Perhaps the best way to consider this question is to consider the reverse situation. To try and imagine what it would be like if we had no agency detection capabilities at all. Severe autistics are probably the closest examples of this state of mind. I once read a description of how psychologists think those with severe autism see the world. Humans and animals are utterly and terrifyingly baffling. These strange bags of skin move and make noises in ways that have no discernible cause and which display no rhyme or reason. Their actions are unpredictable and utterly incomprehensible. So whether in the role of predator, prey or sexual suitor the evolutionary selection benefits reaped from the ability to discern the motivations and intentions of other conscious intelligent beings (i.e. other humans and animals) should be obvious.The selection advantage of over attributing agency arises because the cost of a false positive (being spooked by non-existent monsters, concocting conspiracy theories or inventing false gods) is less than that of failing to perceive an actual positive (being killed or otherwise harmed as a result of failing to detect the intentions of others). Hence the proclivity to perceive agency when it isn't there rather than fail to detect it when it is. As a result the human ability to detect agency is overly sensitive, hyper-active, and has a hair trigger. It therefore generates perceptions of agents that are non-existent and attributes agency to things that lack it. Yes - The evolutionary advantage of false positives over false negatives. What are you proposing as the cause of this psychological disposition? Where to start? Humans see pattern, meaning, causation, purpose, agency and intent absolutely everywhere and anywhere.Want to know what fate plans for you personally? Find the answer on the palm of your hand, in the entrails of sheep, in tea leaves or in the arbitrary groupings of stars. Lonely as a child? Then invent an imaginary friend. Both preschoolers and (interestingly) Alzheimer patients explain objects like the Sun and moon in teleological terms and will commonly attribute inanimate objects with human mind-like attributes. Show normal functioning adult test subjects some simple geometric shapes moving around on a screen and ask them to create a narrative — Invariably and predictably those shapes will be imbued with wants, desires, aims and frustrations. Even when we don’t actually believe that there is any agency present inventing it comes as second nature to us. Why does the Sun cross the sky? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary Apollo riding his flaming chariot or Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle dragging it across the heavens are intuitively considered perfectly viable explanations. What are those unnatural looking lights in the sky? Must be hyper-advanced aliens seeking to enslave us or some super secret and uncharacteristically efficient wing of the US military harnessing the alien technology they have been hiding for decades. What is the real cause of the global financial crisis? Unregulated bankers? Apparently not. Apparently president Obama rather than being the disappointing and rather ineffectual president of the US that many perceive him to be is in fact the highly effective anti-Christ intent on bringing about the end of days. What was that strange looking shadow? Must be the ghost of a tormented soul. Why is the world in such a mess? Ask David Icke and his followers about the race of reptiles that are undetectably using the moon to mentally enslave humanity. Too far fetched? Then maybe Icke himself is being manipulated by the Illuminati in order to mask their plans for world domination by making those who propose such dastardly plots sound like crazy nutjobs. Is there a simple biological explanation for Chuck77’s shoulder story? Or did the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all that is seen and unseen take time off from passively observing the suffering victims of drought, disease, floods, tsunamis, Earthquakes and volcanoes in order to deal with Chuck’s shoulder twinge?I could go on. But the point is this - Invoking intelligent agency isn't something that humans are just a bit partial to. It is utterly endemic and not at all restricted to gods. If this is god's way of revealing himself to us it would be difficult to conceive of a more inefficient or scattergun approach. When smart but innately flawed (as we all are) human beings start invoking undetectable intelligent agents as explanations for events or phenomena that they find significant or baffling they are treading a well worn path. From false gods, to conspiracy theories via imaginary friends and attributing mind-like properties to inanimate objects we just cannot help ourselves.Your behaviour is entirely predictable and reassuringly human.

It seems that we both agree that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. Yes? The question is "Why". Where I cite the evolutionary selection advantage of false positives with regard to detecting agency and intent you instead contend that this objectively evidenced human proclivity is intentionally instilled in us by some over-arching intelligent agent (i.e. a god of some description). Is that right?A) Are you really suggesting that everything from preschoolers thinking traffic lights operate on the basis of a personal choice to conspiracy theories about Obama as the anti-Christ via imaginary friends and tales of advanced undetectable aliens seeking to take over the Earth are the result of God instilling in us a psychological proclivity to come to such false conclusions?B) How are you suggesting that this psychological proclivity has been instilled in humans? Some form of godly supernatural interventional magic? Or by some natural mechanism?C) Why should anyone consider your own invocation of intentional agency as an explanation as anything other than a symptom of the objectively evidenced proclivity of humans to invoke such agency to explain things they find significant or baffling? The selection advantage of false positives is not at all agnostic about the falseness of the positives. Hence the name. It tells us that humans will see agency and intent regardless of whether it is there or not. It tells us that we will imbue inanimate objects (for example) with agency and intent where we know that there is none. What makes you think we don't learn about God everytime we stab our friends in the back as well? Why is God only ever responsible for the positive and not the negative? Suffering and pain are every bit as much an innate part of nature and existence as the things you want to attribute to God. So why isn't He responsible for those things too? Is God responsible for everything or only some things? How do we decide which things to attribute to God and which things to attribute to nature? Did God design the screwworm?

quote:

---

To find its host, an adult female screwworm seeks out exposed flesh on an animal (usually some sort of livestock, but an injured soldier or a human baby isn’t out of the question) in search of a place to lay her eggs. She prefers wounds, but may also settle on using the eyes, nostrils, or anus of her victim to construct a nursery. Next, the 200-or-so eggs hatch, and the larvae start burrowing into their host’s flesh. Once they’re situated in their cozy little meat tunnels, the infant flies continue to feed and grow. The bigger they get, the more they have to eat. Eventually, this creates a whole lot of festering and oozing on the host, which attracts more flies, which lay more eggs, which do more feeding and burrowing. It’s a brutal onslaught, and a swift one. Screwworm larvae are reportedly capable of consuming an entire sheep or dog from the inside out in five to seven days.

---

LinkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just stop and think about what is being said here.Think of all the unfalsifiables we could apply this to!!!!What test can be undertaken to determine the existence of the pink fluffy magically undetectable Easter Bunny? What test can be done to confirm or deny Last Thursdayism?Yet I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence favouring both of these as human inventions to conclude that in all likelihood the Easter Bunny is a fiction and that the Earth is billions of years old rather than a few days.What do you say? There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. Every human claim is made in the highly objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology.It mystifies me why believers of all flavours think that defining something such that it is unfalsifiable makes it somehow immune from all forms of objective evidence.Can you explain why you think there is no objective evidence relevant to the question of god(s)?

You previously told me that my conclusion that humans have a proclivity to falsely perceive agency was based on circular reasoning and the assumption that no intelligent agency was actually present.Since you wrote this I have demonstrated to you (and you seem to agree) that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invent agents in a host of situations to explain all manner of things regardless of whether the agency they perceive is actually present or not. This proclivity is objectively evidenced and experimentally demonstrable. The natural mechanism responsible for this human proclivity is generally considered to be the selection advantage of false positives. But a propensity to falsely perceive agency when it is not present hardly seems like a reasonable basis for coming to your conclusion that it is present. So what natural mechanism are you proposing instead? The conclusion that humans will invent agency to explain those things which they find baffling or significant is not a subjective conclusion. Your conclusion that an unevidenced intelligent agent is responsible for the things that you personally find baffling and significant (morality, altruism, love etc.) very much is.The two conclusions are NOT equally subjective. Do ideas cause brain activity or does brain activity cause ideas?I already mentioned autism as an example of those who might lack normal levels of agency detection. Interestingly schizophrenics arguably have the opposite problem. They see agency and intent to a degree that is mentally debilitating. Everything has meaning and intent, nothing is random or co-incidental and conspiracy theories result in paranoia and psychosis. Unsurprisingly Schizophrenics are particularly prone to supernatural/paranormal beliefs. The fact that such symptoms are treatable with drugs suggest that there is a definite physical cause for such beliefs.Furthermore experiments involving the manipulation of dopamine levels in believers and skeptics suggest that people's perception of pattern and meaning can be directly affected. It seems that the physical brain is the cause, not the effect, of beliefs and ideas.

Here is the much cited Dawkins scale of belief: In the thread Pseudoskepticism and logic RAZ stated that: Message 510A selection of the scenarios and entities that were mentioned in that thread and which I would class myself as being a 6 on the scale above:Last Thursdayism. An invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom. Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and other imaginable but irrefutable concepts that the human brain can conceive of.Is it really rational to be 5 on the above scale with respect to Immaterial Toilet Goblins the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel or an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom?We cannot test for any of these. But I would suggest that we can still be pretty damn sure (albeit philosophically uncertain) of their existence.

Indeed. It seems to be the theistic default position to fall back on unfalsifiability as some sort of argument.This is why other unfalsifiable things like Immaterial Unicorns and Last Thursdayism have to keep being raised. If believers stopped getting excited about unfalsifiability there would be no need to mention such things. I would say that there is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. This is another common theistic fallacy. ALL claims are made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, psychology and culture.

Again - I haven't said anything directly about the non-existence of gods. I have simply said that we know as an objectively evidenced fact that humans will invent intelligent agents in situations where there are none because of their psychological proclivity to falsely invoke such explanations for things they find baffling or significant. When the objective evidence tells us that humans can, and almost invariably will, invent such agents whether they exist or not how it can be equally reasonable to conclude that a particular unevidenced such entity is just as likely to exist as be invented? This makes no sense. It can indeed be rejected without being tested in the way that RAZD insists upon. Because where there is sufficient evidence of human invention falsification becomes largely irrelevant. That is my point.Where do you "reason" that concepts like the Easter Bunny, the IPU, Last Thursdayism etc. etc. etc. originate from if not the human mind? And isn't this reasoned conclusion based on the absolute fact that humans can and do invent such things?If not then what?

Again - The false dichotomy.What I have actually said is that there are evidenced explanations, unevidenced explanations and questions that we are unable to answer as yet. Without our physical senses we can experience only that which is inside our own minds. With our physical senses we can only detect that which physically exists. How can it possibly be otherwise?

But RAZ the problem here is that you just don't practice what you preach. You cannot test for Last Thursdayism but you still go round telling creationists that the Earth is "Old....Very old indeed".If I put it to you that there is an undetectable killer bogeyman in your bedroom whose actual existence will only manifest itself by killing you then it is a fact that you are just as dismissively atheistic towards this entity as I am. Not because you have tested it. You can't test for it (except by being killed). But because you know as well as I do that baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions.You can call it an "opinion" but unless you move out of your bedroom just in case your actions speak louder than words. It's not pseudoskeptical to conclude such entities are human inventions. It's by far the most evidenced conclusion.Your problem lies in taking this evidence and applying it to the things that you subjectively believe in.

A case can be made for the existence of things like objective mathematical truths that exist in some sense apart from physical brains. Things that can be discovered by, and which will be the same for, any intelligent being that exists anywhere or at any time in our universe. Things like the value of Pi for example.I would even go so far as to acknowledge that it is conceivable that some aspect of zero sum based morality can be described as "objectively true" in this platonic mathematical sense. Possibly.But invoking some baselessly conceived entity as an explanation for such things does nothing to actually explain them. It simply pushes the question back a further notch in order create a gap in which to insert psychologically appealing beliefs.Maybe a universe simply cannot exist unless it has some logical/mathematical structure to it? Maybe zero sum morality is simply a product of the innately necessary maths that allows something rather than nothing? Maybe there is some explanation for all of this that no human has ever yet conceived of? The fact is that I don't know and I don't claim to know. I hope one day we can work it out. But I also accept that we may never be able to.But I do know that when humans start invoking undetectable intelligent agents as explanations for the phenomena that they find baffling and/or significant the evidence strongly suggests that they are going to be wrong in their conclusions.

Your position is all over the place. One minute you are confidently telling people that the Earth is billions of years old and the next you are demanding complete agnosticism to anything that remains untested (e.g. Last Thursdayism). Why not clear this up once and for all by answering the following two questions honestly and explicitly:1) Is the Earth billions of years old or only a few days old?
2) Is your answer to the above a mere opinion or an evidenced fact? Strangely what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that god concepts are products of the human proclivity to invent such things. So you are not taking an atheistic position with regard to the undetectable killer bogey man in your bedroom. You have not confidently concluded that this concept is a human fiction rather than a real entity. You are instead taking a "cest la vie" approach to being butchered in your bed.RAZ this is not a credible position.

Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist? Which is exactly why applying the term "evidence" creates a misnomer. Of course not.But if that which is being described as "evidence" is functionally equivalent to imagination then the likelihood of that evidence leading to correct conclusions is no different to plucking conclusions out of one's arse.And I would suggest that will result in conclusions that are more likely to be wrong than right. Whether this is true or false it would be irrational for anyone to believe it to be true based on the above alone wouldn't it?