Inductive Atheism

Hi Jon,
You seem to trying to read my posts so as specifically to argue against them, and it renders your points somewhat unclear.For instance you said: That response doesn't really make sense. First of all I think we both know that neither of us believes there is good evidence that such critters exist so you don't need to repeat it. Second of all, my statement is a conditional.I'm sure many of course, would be interested to hear the 'good evidence' that God doesn't exist. So I suppose I shouldn't let that slip just in case you have some staggering insight into this subject.To repeat what I said in a different wayIf evidence of the set of example entities does turn up, this would serve as adequate falsification of bluegenes theory. IT does not matter what you choose to call them, your metaphysical nomenclature is not relevant. And as I mentioned to you, Jon. That ends the conversation. Your version of bluegenes theory becomes a tautology: Things which are products of the human mind are products of the human mind. Obviously, being tautologous it is unfalsifiable but it is also boring and trivial.I was going for a more interesting angle of an empirically detectable supernatural world. You know, the kind of supernatural world that supernaturalists actually believe exists?If you want to stick with your personal, unconventional, definition - what else is there to discuss? Again I'm baffled. How are they just playing word games? You are the one sticking with a strange definition so as to make a theory a tautology. How is acquiring evidence to support your position a word game, anyway? How is a making your theory falsifiable and testable, the kind of thing that makes a theory 'not look good'? Great. In that case, since you want to stick to that let's translate bluegenes theory into Jonglish.

quote:

---

The non-earth bound places, the non-human non-animal intelligent agents that seem to predominate through religious thought are products of the human imagination. Any resemblance of characters to actual persons, living or undead, is purely coincidental.

---

So - we have a parallel world which matches the properties of a world described by, for the sake of argument, many Christians. It can be investigated empirically and it transpires this parallel world is no different than the one Christian's call...heaven.Despite the fact that we can understand and investigate it. Despite the fact that Jon insists that we should definitely put heaven under the rubrick of 'nature', and despite all the reasonable and good arguments that can be made for doing so. Bluegenes' theory would be considered falsified.Why? Because when Bluegenes was talking about supernatural beings, he meant beings that come from some other 'realm' that match the properties that humans have held in their minds at one time or another. And that's what we've got, in contradiction with bluegenes theory. Now we we have identified another source of supernatural being concepts:- Their actual existence in what scientists have labeled a 'parallel world', but others call 'the spiritual realm'. But you assumed that the body cannot receive input from materially undetectable sources. And they didn't. So no - they don't operate under the same assumptions as you do. Furthermore, it's "mumbo jumbo'. Their theory does require materially undetectable entities, however. Except it isn't scientific and it isn't an explanation. It's just a description of an event. I already stipulated we don't have to throw out natural laws either. When Einstein came around, we didn't throw out Newton's laws, we just realized they are an exceptionally accurate approximation of low energy interactions.That's all that need happen here: Thermodynamics might be an accurate description of the universe in low magic conditions. When magic is involved we have to turn to Modulous' 2nd Law of Thaumadynamics.

Great, so we can agree that it's falsifiable for the domain it was intended to be about.You earlier question that this applied to 'supernatural concepts' but since God is a 'supernatural concept' there seems some tension. We are not talking about concepts that are themselves made of magic or spirit. But concepts about things that are described as of spiritual matters.This is, I believe where we disagree. You seem to think that bluegenes theory with regards to the supernatural is intrinsically unfalsifiable since the observable is natural and therefore the supernatural can never be observed therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. Did I misunderstand your position? I should stop you there. I stipulated the soul was not materially detectable. We can experience cherubs despite light passing through them, despite animals being blind to them, despite no material equipment can detect them. There is no cherub like image in the brain's optic pathways. I was positing a hypothetical world where this was not the case, remember? Where evidence did come in (during some Armageddon like scenario, the original hypothetical). And where, as a consequence, bluegenes general theory is saved only by excuses, dismissals, semantic debate and ad hoc mechanisms.

They are experienced by a soul rather than the brain. Of course, and yes, there would be a point in the brain that seemed to generate information from no materially detectable source. So you were, after all, the one playing the word game. Bluegenes specifically referred to beings that could be experienced so he was clearly using a different definition of supernatural than you were. Since it was his wording of his theory, bluegenes' understanding would seem to have primacy in this regard surely?abe: Indeed, seems to me your position finally comes down to:Either bluegenes' theory is tautologous or it is not yet falsified, depending how we interpret the wording.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Imagination has a materially detectable source, and is not shared by 1,000 people simultaneously.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As with any experiment, if chance could reasonably still explain the results, you do more trials. Other people run trials. And so on.After that has been ruled out, then I guess we start at the beginning to learn what we can of the new metaphysical realm given our limitations as partly material beings.

Any scientific data can just as easily be explained as the result of unheard of chance rather than as confirmation for the researchers theory. The chance of that being the case can be calculated to some degree. When one is much less extraordinary. If we both know somebody has the passkey and is instructed to feed it to the people, it seems strange to regard 'they all got it by sheer luck' as a hypothesis on equal footing.

The somebody is Roger, the cherub.

Well we experienced giving Roger the passkey, and we experienced telling him to relay it to our test subjects.So what do you think is more likely1. We're deluded beyond hope
2. Roger is real.
3. A 1 in 10^300 outcome occurred coincidentally after we called it as a result of hallucinating.

The literal meaning of your comment is true, but only since no cherubs have ever been discovered and investigated.Since I described the cherub has having none of the properties of material things - I am unsure what else something that is immaterial should be. Perhaps you could expand a little - tell me why we should consider an entity that is not composed of material should be considered material?

---

Further: why are you protesting again? Before you were all about conceding that certain god concepts could be empirically detectable, even if you don't call them supernatural gods. How is this any different? If you must - think of it as a being from a parallel universe with differing laws of physics where 'matter' does not exist. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can show that you are making a semantic argument in a fairly straight forward fashion.Bluegenes theory is built on there being no alternative source for the existence of the beings he calls 'supernatural'. Clearly our cherub is another known source for the existence of what bluegenes calls 'supernatural'. Even if you decide to argue that this source is technically not supernatural itself, it is still a source that humans can get ideas about what they call the 'supernatural'. Therefore the inductive reasoning fails, killing bluegenes' theory.Thus, even conceding your points, it doesn't really make a difference.I'm happy to answer questions about the cherub, but the experiment I proposed was just to confirm there was something there. This is interesting because no other thing that is real is detectable to humans but not to anything else. This characteristic, along with the capacity to interact with the material in a certain way at will, and its general appearance and mannerisms all coincide with a being previously labelled 'supernatural', serves to falsify the theory that all such beings were products only of the human imagination.Yet again I say: it seems all you are saying is that bluegenes theory is either trivially true or it is not yet falsified. Along the way you seem to be intent on arguing minutiae of how and if epistemology crosses over with metaphysics when this is not ultimately important. The important thing is that in the interpretation of bluegenes theory that is not yet falsified it is falsifiable. What is your specific problem with the theory if I've missed it? It just seems unworthy to waste both our times on arguing about the higher order truths of some hypothetical cherub. All that really matters is that it exists, and that's all my experiment was designed to ascertain.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well, yes. Once again, the fact that we know we gave what we thought was a cherub the passkey and told it to give it to the observers who subsequently scored close to 100% makes it more likely there is a real cherub over chance.You are looking for higher order truths. You want to know the facts about the cherub, but this is not important. It's like witnessing a horse. I can tell you 1,000 people witnessed a horse based off the fact that someone printed a distinctive brand on the horse which the observers were asked to memorize. The fact they were able to describe the brand with a high rate of success is indicative they saw the horse.But if this is insufficient scientific evidence of a horse (and if you look at scientific papers, this level of evidence is way over the top - I exaggerate only because of the extraordinary nature of the entity in question), then what do you think I would need to do, as a scientist to conclude someone saw my horse and the cherub or anything. Now imagine that experiment was done. Now imagine it came up as a positive on the existence of the horse/cherub as an objective fact.Theories that horses/cherubs/equine beings/supernatural beings are products of the imagination are now falsified.The details, the higher order truths as I characterised them, are really unimportant but feel free to get tangled up in such things.When you're done we can get back to your actual point. Is it that bluegenes theory is either tautologous or falsifiable and not falsified depending on how one interprets the meaning of supernatural from some sterile unused philosophers definition to the definition used by most people?

Indeed, the inductive atheist argument. I tried getting back to it earlier. So let me try again. The inductive atheist argument is that since the only known source of supernatural entities is the humans imagination then we inductively conclude it is the only source of supernatural entities: This includes supernatural entities titled 'god'.Supernatural as meant in this version includes all the things I've been discussing and more. Therefore, if any information can be given by a creature with the characteristics of the supernatural the induction is shown to be faulty. Further, if god was so kind as to help us out - we might likewise identify something that looks like a deity to really drive the nail into the induction - even if it is not a deity it is definitely a source of deity concepts that is now known.Since you agree that I'm still wondering what your point of objection is: Is it that Straggler's reasoning is tautologous or falsifiable and not falsified depending on how we choose to interpret Straggler?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think the spirit of Straggler's words is clear enough. If the supernatural were real, and evidenced itself in a manner that was clear - it would be churlish to deny it just because it doesn't fit our preconceptions. I see no reason it should be non-empirical. It can be experienced, and information can be acquired that can in principle be tested. Seems like it can be empirical. Indeed, the insistence on the users of the word supernatural as something in which they say they believe, it is almost always detectable in some fashion.Is your main beef that Straggler's definition is a little makeshift? That if you interpret it in a certain way it becomes tautologous? Would you accept that if you interpret it another way it is more reasonable? Only if Straggler is claiming that all supernatural concepts are unexperiencable which he is definitely not doing since he is citing examples of when they might be. So it is only tautologous when you use your erroneous interpretation of Straggler's definition which relies on the notion that all that is experienced is natural which assumes metaphysical naturalism!If something labelled Jesus had powers that we would classify 'magical/spiritual/supernatural' was experienced by us, this would falsify the notion that the only known source of these things is the human imagination. There is now another known source: direct experience and thus the induction fails just as if a black swan turns up.Since Straggler cites this example as a possible falsification, you must have misinterpreted his position based upon your own preconceptions about reality and nature, spiritual planes, material explicability etc. They lost that label because those domains were shown to be explainable with naturally occurring forces. They were falsified - no intervention external to nature needed. Not even once or twice did they show up to counter the natural order of things.There are other gaps that people seem intent on cramming gods into though, so they remained unfalsified or unfalsifiable. The point is, that technically 'we' don't call Thor supernatural. Supernaturalists do. There maybe people that believe Thor is a natural being with advanced technology.Why call them supernatural? Because the supernaturalists say they are not constrained by the same laws that constrain us when it comes to interacting with the natural world. They may have their own laws above and beyond ours 'super' natural laws and different entities may have differing levels of mastery or freedom of constraints. They say they are from a place 'above' or beyond the realm we are familliar with that we call 'nature'. That's what they say. The counter theory is that all such concepts are figments of the imagination, citing the fact that the only place we know for sure these concepts can arise is in the human imagination. Nobody has empirically demonstrated the place beyond exists, or that anyone has had a real experience with any of its denizens.If we all started having experiences with the denizens from one sect of supernaturalist - this reasoning would collapse. True, but cultural ideas and beliefs are very much natural phenomenon that can be investigated. Their origins discussed. One set of theories of the origins of these phenomena is that the human mind confabulates these ideas and confuses imagination with 'another realm of possibilities' and along with a teleological mindset leads us to invent intelligent beings etc etc.Remembering that falsification is actually a stepwise process of numerous counterexample that strain a theory beyond the intellectual tolerance of its adherants. If a series of godlike beings were show to actually exist, regardless of whether you choose to call them natural or supernatural, this would show the inductive argument to be fallacious. A second source exists, whether it is a real supernatural god or a real natural god.So your argument is still semantics. If you actually look at the pragmatics - the actual meaning behind Stragglers posts as if they were coherent: rather than looking at them as being wrong and therefore seing incoherance you might realize this.The theory relies on there being no other source of godsIf some beings existed that had the characteristics described as gods by people, the theory can no longer rely on there being a single source. Direct experience is another source.Right?

Welcome to bluegenes' theory/Inductive atheism.The imagination doesn't create things de novo. It modifies other ideas such as alpha male hunters with better than human hunting powers aka Gods.The scientific literature tends to say that supernatural/religious/supersticious beliefs are 'minimally counter-intuitive': Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion, Atran and Norenzayan, 2004 Negation and Doubt in Religious Representations: Context-Dependence, Emotion and Action., Franks, 2003 Contextualizing Counterintuitiveness: How context affects comprehension and memorability of counterintuitive concepts, Upal, Sloane, 2005 Tell me about it. It seems that if someone suggests that ghosts are just the products of the human mind's proclivity to think of minds and bodies as seperate, visual hallucinations, agency detection etc. Or that god might just be a mental process, people seem to lose their shit.They try and say the theory is useless since you can't test it, it can't be falsified, or it has no evidence. Then after several threads, they voice the same theory in different words and still believe they object to the original theory.It's bewildering. If it helps you: Imagine we weren't talking about your preconceived notion of supernatural, but some other notion of the supernatural that you may think is not really supernatural but it doesn't really matter what you call it, as I've been saying all along. If you want to use a different word to describe the things Straggler calls supernatural, rather than be legalistic and try and show how Straggler's definition of supernatural differs from his description of it we might have the opportunity to talk about the interesting stuff rather than getting stuck on the first sentence 'I believe supernatural ideas originate in the human mind, sourced from events and cultural notions.'

---

I should point out that way back in '09 the case of the unknowable and non-perceived entity as necessarily being the product of the human mind was dealt with (see Message 201, in Pseudoskepticism and logic). We have long since been talking about the much more interesting case of entities that can in principle provide information about themselves to people. You are the one dragging us back 18 months in argument, to make a point already agreed on by this side of the argument.Now all that is required is for your imagination to imagine a being not made of material and not constrained by the same regulations of interactions that we as humans are and how such a being being perceived would affect a theory that proposes they are also mere products of the imagination.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What? And yet he is the one that would be happy to admit he was wrong about philosophy and science and has described what circumstances would do that. Bloody stubborn bastard. I have seen you and Jon's preconceptions cause you to get into all kinds of strange knots. Good luck with that. Did your post serve any purpose other than to insult Straggler in some tangential fashion?