Pseudoskepticism and logic

Onfire writes,

quote:

---

or perhaps sit through a class on Chakras.

---

May I remind you of the definition of pseudoskepticism in the OP. Such things as chakras would seem to be off topic in a debate about theism/atheism, but the point still applies: evidence is required for the negative position. Believing "this is nonsense" about something before you investigate it, and feeling no obligation to defend that belief, is not a truly skeptical position, which IMO is the main point that RAZD is making here.

Straggler, I've discussed this with you directly and I've also addressed these points in other threads in which you participated. You still don't seem to understand what my own position is, which strongly implies that you weren't paying much attention.I've been reading this thread and I think it would be helpful, as has been suggested, if RAZD could define what he has in mind when he talks about God. It is perhaps not the same definition that others are assuming. I'm curious about how Zen fits into it.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD,I can see you're busy here but I have a question for you.This has perhaps been the most fascinating thread of all, IMO, in the recent faith-evidence debate. I was thinking at first that the atheists were making a good case for the existence of God being improbable, because it seems absurd to have to prove all negative hypotheses (i.e. the invisible chasm around you) false in order to consider them improbable. But you are making a consistently strong argument for the purely skeptical position of being an agnostic until evidence gives a reason to change a belief one way or the other. I'm learning a lot from this.I wonder if we could talk about actual evidence for or against God, which necessarily means trying to define what God might be. I see no evidence of a conscious God who interacts with the universe in any readily detectable way -- certainly not how Yaweh is described in the Bible, or the way the Greek gods tended to tinker with the lives of mortals. At least one person who's been debating against you here has admitted that they could believe in something more impersonal, such as a "force." (not THE force of course.) So can you tell us how you read the evidence yourself, and how that influences your beliefs?

Straggler wrote,

quote:

---

You constantly accuse me of not paying attention or listening to your points. And yet you persistently and relentlessly refuse to anwer my explicit questions regarding your position.

---

It just helps, when we talk with each other, if you have an understanding of what I actually believe. You seem to classify me as a theist and you think that I would write off the IPU as nonsense, both of which are not true. I don't think my beliefs can correctly be classified as theism. Maybe you could go back to the "Immaterial Evidence" thread and read my post Message 137 and the link from there to Message 51. It might also be helpful if you read my last few posts in that thread. I don't believe that I've got any insights that are superior to anyone else's, but if you want a dialogue with me at any point I would appreciate it if you didn't repeatedly mischaracterise what I've been saying.

quote:

---

On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific.

---

No, for the reasons given in my recent post to RAZD here. I agree with him that the logical position is agnosticism and that if you decide to lean toward a negative or a positive, you should be able to provide evidence to justify your stance. See my link above to what I'd say about an IPU claim. I think RAZD has shown here that science and many other things would be impossible if people made things up all the time, so to consistently claim that "people make stuff up" in order to justify a negative belief is illogical.

Hi Onfire, nice to talk with you too

quote:

---

I am simply asking for a better definition of what he believes in to know if I actually dismiss it. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about when he uses the word "God." If it's not religious, cultic, tribal, etc., then what is it?

---

While I don't think this is necessary in order for a discussion of the OP to happen, I agree that it helps if everyone in a discussion like this can clarify their position.

quote:

---

I am not an atheist in regards to some indescribable force that exists in the universe; I would not define that as a "God," so I hold no opinion of it. I don't have a negative position/hypothesis towards that; I'm not skeptical of something like that; frankly, I don't know what "that" even is. All I seek is a clear explanation of "that."

---

So what makes you open to this, while you are more doubtful of a god? You are presumably aware that others here would also say that there is no evidence that such a force exists either and so they'd conclude it probably doesn't?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Rrhain,I'll keep this brief because essentially the same conversation is going on here with RAZD, and from what I can tell my position doesn't differ significantly from his.

quote:

---

So you claim there is no objective evidence that people make stuff up?

---

No, I don't claim this. People do make stuff up but not all the time. They are also capable of accurately assessing the truth, otherwise there would be no such thing as science.

quote:

---

Don't you think that you should include the fact that people make up stuff all the time? That many of the various beings that have been put forward as "god" were made up?

---

As I've said several times in this ongoing debate, the evidence would seem to suggest that humans have a propensity for developing spiritual beliefs. While the validity of particular beliefs is a separate debate, IMO there is possibly some underlying reality that people are interpreting in ways that make it more readily accessible and understandable to them. Please prove to me that this stance is any less valid than "people make stuff up so all theistic beliefs are made up."

quote:

---

It's you for insisting that something that cannot be defined has a possibility of existing.

---

Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption. Secondly, it would seem to me that we are all able to talk about something called spirituality, without getting into semantic misunderstandings. We may not agree on what that is but if we had no concept of it at all then we'd have difficulty using the word.

quote:

---

There's a reason that the null hypothesis (what you are trying to show isn't true) is the default position. The default position is always that the thing that is claimed to exist actually doesn't.

---

But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it? You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists." The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible. Actually I can't stress this enough. There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal, and others who will admit to being interested in such subjects off the record but who fear damage to their reputations if they admit it publicly, and what they're up against is a cadre of vocal pseudoskeptics (many of whom are not even scientists) who continually insist that the reality of such phenomena is patently absurd. How is it any different to insist that the idea of a god is patently absurd without appropriate evidence to back up the claim?Case in point -- I've given this example before but I think there are people here who didn't read it, and I don't remember anyone replying to it directly. You find a way to travel back in time, to the middle ages. You decide that you're going to enlighten the people with your scientific knowledge, but (for whatever reason) you did not bring any of your apparatus with you. You tell them that their bodies are made up of many, many little things called cells; they'll have to take your word for it because it's impossible to see them. You also tell them that there are these cells called bacteria that live all over and inside your body and which actually outnumber your own body's cells, only you can't see those either. And there are these molecules called DNA, made up of things called atoms, which are responsible for the reproduction of those cells . . . and so on. Look at this from the point of view of the person you're trying to convince: you're insisting something is true but you are unable to prove it to them. And to them it sounds like the most absurd notion; their educated doctors would laugh at you. But the kicker here is . . . you are right.How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?" Surely the truly skeptical position, the one more open to new facts, would be, "I can't be sure about that until you prove it to me"?My reaction to someone who described an IPU (or fairy or ghost or whatever) sighting is described in the "Immaterial Evidence" thread: Message 51I'm not sure what else can be said because it feels like everyone's entrenched here and no one's going to budge. I'll keep my eye out for interesting new arguments though.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD,Thanks for the post. I don't know how you write consistently detailed and well reasoned responses when there are so many people arguing against you. I find it overwhelming when that happens to me.

quote:

---

Why not? Could there not be a kernel of truth in that concept? I also noticed that you had an interesting discussion with Modulus about chi.

---

Yes I do believe there's a kernel of truth to the concept but I was reluctant to say so because I anticipated the response I'd get here. Maybe I ought to be braver and just put up with more guff.I didn't pursue the chi discussion either because I figured people would start trotting out studies that purport to prove that acupuncture is no better than placebo, etc. I'm sure you could find those if you looked but it would be a long debate to have to explain to closed-minded people why I accept the possible reality of chi despite that, and then we're getting into faults and bias in studies, and I've been there before . . . wasn't pleasant. It would make a refreshing change for me to join some science discussions here but usually that ground gets covered by people with more knowledge than me. I'm still banned from Herb Allure and I miss a good scientific debate. (Russ has been saying for about 6 weeks now that he'd "look into the issue," LOL.)

quote:

---

Thank you. I'll admit to having something of an "lighbulb" moment when I read the article in the OP, so I learned something too. I'm glad this knowledge is useful to others.

---

I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi or Richard Wiseman. But I think its application to those who dismiss the possible existence of a god is also sound, as you've shown.

Hi Bluegenes,

quote:

---

"Pseudo-skeptic" just seems to have become a mudslinging term for the two sides involved in "paranormal" investigations to sling at each other. Just a way of saying: "you're biased and I'm objective".

---

I first came across the term when I was trying to understand reasons why some people are so closed-minded to the possibility that some paranormal phenomena are real. These are people who make pre-judgements based on their own beliefs about what's really true; some of them spend a lot of time publicly decrying paranormal phenomena when it's clear they're not even interested in reading serious studies that have had positive results (or when they do, they do it in a cursory way and miss or ignore pieces of evidence). I don't see why the term can't be applied to anyone who pre-judges something when the evidence for such a judgement is lacking.

quote:

---

You could have equally applied it to all people who believe in a god, and think they're investigating theism/atheism seriously (I expect you agree with that).

---

Yes, this is still confirmation bias, as is clear with so-called archaeologists who go looking for Noah's Ark or similar things.

quote:

---

What do you think of the point that people from traditionally theistic cultures will frequently have a cultural bias in favour of theism in a theist/atheist debate/investigation?

---

Just that they have a tendency toward bias for those reasons. I don't think that RAZD or I have said that there's anything wrong with deciding to have faith that there is or isn't a god; just that a rational position is an agnostic one until more evidence is available.

quote:

---

Wouldn't the true skeptic regard all zero evidence propositions as equally unlikely?

---

No, because you're making the judgement of "unlikely" based on no evidence, and this leads toward confirmation bias in experiments. A true skeptic always keeps the doors open in case something new and interesting comes through.

Hi Phage,

quote:

---

But you *can* prove it to them with an experiment. That is how we figured those things out in the first place, and when the experiment yields the results you predicted it would be evidence you are correct.

---

I imagine that you could culture some bacteria without needing modern equipment, or that you could cure someone's bacterial infection with penicillin, or similar things. You might garner some interest. But I think you'd still have a difficult time persuading most people that your results are due to zillions of little creatures living in your body that are (without a microscope) invisible. My point of course was that you might be correct about something but not be able to prove it empirically, especially when people are of the opinion that it's a ridiculous idea in the first place; it's not an impossible scenario.

quote:

---

You seem to be equating "I don't believe you" with "I will ignore evidence", which is not the case at all.

---

No, I'm equating "I don't believe you even though there's no evidence one way or the other" with confirmation bias and pseudoskepticism, as outlined in the OP.

quote:

---

Claims with no evidence to support them should be held in the same regard as any other of the infinite unevidenced claims that can be made about reality.

---

If there is also no evidence to disprove them then what RAZD and I are arguing here is that the rational position is true skepticism, or agnosticism. Moving from a 50/50 position should be supported by some evidence one way or the other. I'm not completely decided, myself, on how far I would personally allow that to go before I decided that you needed to have some firm evidence. It does seem clear to me that a 1 or a 7 on the Dawkins scale needs evidence in support of such a certain claim.

quote:

---

I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi

---

quote:

---

He dismisses it because there is no evidence. That is a skeptic not a psuedoskeptic.

---

This is OT but that statement is just plain wrong (excuse my bluntness), as you would find if you looked into attempts some people have made to take him up on his gimmicky prize. You would also discover, with some research, that there is evidence for such phenomena. Avoiding making firm decisions while lacking evidence is the gist of this thread; though if the evidence is lacking because of ignorance, that problem is easily solved.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Onfire, thanks for your interesting post.

quote:

---

What would be a good method (like that of science) for investigating said god/s?

---

The closest that science seems to come at the moment is quantum physics. The more we learn about the fabric of reality itself, the more we may be able to reconcile it with spirituality. Other than that, I would investigate promising anecdotal evidence, though this could of course be fraught with difficulties.

quote:

---

Would you agree, that if no method exists, then we should not consider the claim to be capable of being evidenced in reality?

---

No, because there may be ways of investigating that we have not yet discovered. I think the skeptical position would be that it could be possible to find evidence.

quote:

---

Yes, but can you point to any evidence for the development of these spiritual beliefs that is outside of the human mind?

---

Whether I personally can or not is beside the point. In this thread we're talking about assuming a negative hypothesis to be true when there is a lack of empirical evidence, rather than deciding "we don't know." If you decided that the answer to your question is, "No, and therefore I feel certain that god does not exist," you become obliged to prove that god is actually the product of the human mind. I don't believe we can be sure of this.

quote:

---

The same is true for assuming that god is real, but that the only thing that varies, or may be wrong, is the different concepts of god. That is a logical fallacy that takes place before the atheistic position.

---

But I don't assume god is real, and RAZD has also expressed significant tentativity about his beliefs. IMO when there is a lack of evidence then some degree of skepticism or agnosticism would be the rational position to take.

quote:

---

Can you reference ONE paranormal event that has ever been concluded to be the work of magic, ghosts, spirits, immaterial entities, god/s, etc.?

---

I know of various studies and trials that have obtained results that are statistically significant, but that is OT here. I don't believe that paranormal phenomena have to be dependent on the existence of a god, and I don't believe there's anything "magical" about them.

Hi again Straggler,

quote:

---

I ask again - On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism justified?

---

You've been asking this question, or a variation, in a number of threads and it's been discussed pretty thoroughly in many permutations. Do you think that ignoring what everyone has said and repeating the question is going to hammer home some devastating rhetorical point? RAZD has already addressed this. I have been addressing it too. My simple answer to this simple point is that the more certainty you feel that god does not exist (a negative hypothesis), the more obliged you are to provide evidence for your position. If you can't, then your position is not a truly skeptical one (see "pseudoskepticism" in OP).

Hi RAZD,I wouldn't mind some moderation here too. It would be nice to have some help with keeping people on topic and not repeating the same things.

quote:

---

Too bad my last was hidden - it took me almost a whole day to assemble.

---

It was detailed, thorough, and utterly devastating. Maybe if the conversation swings back that way, as someone suggested, it will be put back in public view. Speaking for myself, I bookmark these things in my browser in order to use them for future debates if and when they happen.

quote:

---

Just an acknowledgement that evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative exists and is valid would be a start.

---

Alternative to what? Are you still talking here about people making stuff up? No one denies that that happens, but the use of this as a blanket claim for why atheism is justified has been the topic of several posts here already.

quote:

---

Well given that you and RAZD are so dissapointed by the "off-topic" responses you are getting

---

It's curious that you put those words in quotation marks. Since this thread is about the need to justify negative claims, then requests for us to prove positive claims, or for me to talk about the paranormal, are obviously off topic.

quote:

---

Why don't you or RAZD take an uncontentious example that we are presumably all atheistic towards and then demonstrate to us how you would go about justifying your own negative hypothesis.

---

Young earth creationism is bunkum because there are mountains of empirical evidence that directly contradict it. That was easy, wasn't it?Now where is your empirical evidence that god doesn't exist.

quote:

---

With this in mind I put it to you that your toilet is full of invisible immaterial ethereal

---

and so on and so on.This has been discussed by RAZD and me as well. It may help you to revisit the following posts:in the "Immaterial Evidence" thread, by me: Message 51
in this thread, by RAZD:
Message 111 -- to you
Message 121
Message 155
Message 162
Message 175
Message 180Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : typos.

Biblical omphalism is new to me: is that the notion that everything was created with the appearance of age, but the world and life on it are only a few thousand years old?This, plus Last Thursdayism and Deism, are unprovable and there's no empirical evidence for or against them. There's no evidence for or against us living in a matrix. Therefore the rational stance IMO is 50/50. The real truth here, though, is that none of this makes any difference to how I live my life and it seems rather unimportant. Even if the universe was only created last Thursday, I'm under the illusion that it wasn't and I just have to get on with things.I think there's more evidence that individual gods like Allah don't exist -- at least, as those particular avatars. Like RAZD, I willingly accept that notions of deities may contain kernels of truth.It may help this discussion if you also have a look at the posts I listed in my last post to Straggler because we're again repeating what's gone before.