Inductive Atheism

This thread is derived from the RAZD Vs Bluegenes the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge and the extensive Peanut Gallery coverage of that debate. If (as seems to be the case) there remains appetite for ongoing comment and wider participation on this ever present issue perhaps this a better place for it than the peanut gallery?The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced sources might exist (anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by Last Thursdayism)Discuss.(If you want to. If promoted)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Fix linksEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Maybe it will be different and maybe it won't. Let's see. You could ask that question of practically any EvC question. Why wouldn't it be?

A causal agent which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and which is itself claimed to materially inexplicable. Can you give me a specific example of non-scientific evidence for the existence of god(s) that you consider relevant?

Good. 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. 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.

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. Since when did people writing down their beliefs constitute "objective empirical evidence" for those beliefs?

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.

I have just chanced across quite possibly the most sensible thing I have ever heard you say here at EvC. 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?"

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?

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 beliefsAs things stand human imagination remains the only known source of such concepts. 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.

Except now you seem to agree with the conclusions of inductive atheism. So where is it you think disagreement lies exactly? It very much is the issue given that this is what Bluegenes theory seeks to explain. Can you help us explain this to RAZD? He has been struggling on this point for quite some time. 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. 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. 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. If you have a superior alternative I am all ears?

It seems we are talking about two different things. 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. 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 is true for any given very specific god concept but it fails to take into account just how widespread such beliefs are in human culture. A better bet would be an evolutionary explanation for the origins of such beliefs. LinkI should point out that this excerpt and link was itself taken from Mod's post Message 1018 all of which is absolutely relevant to this thread.

Having seen a great deal of the positions put forward by RAZD, Catholic Scientist etc. etc. I am gonna try and play devils advocate here. Depends if it wants (or is able to) to communicate specifics I guess. If we are talking about a deistic "something" then - No not necessarily. The specifics are human inventions. Only the ardent adherents of specific religions will dispute that. But "consilience" demands that the common factors suggest "something". Or there is a common "something" supernatural that various peoples are all experiencing and interpreting differently in terms of the specifics.Man - I should become a deist!!!!

I don't think so. RAZD is promoting what he calls the "Hindu hypothesis" which basically suggests that the combined specifics of various supernatural beliefs point to some wholly unspecific actuality of supernature. In other words "consilience" of some sort. I don't think so. It mainly seems to be about RAZD's inability to differentiate high confidence theories from logically derived facts. The different lines of evidence would be the different specific beliefs. RAZ is fond of the blind men and the elephant analogy. As Jon (of all fucking people!!!) so aptly put it - "Is there any reason we should discount a naturalistic explanation?"So much for my devils advocacy....

A good point. And one you should put to RAZ in this thread or elsewhere. Another good point. Let's se if RAZ will raise his head above the parapet on these issues.