Skepticism is only a bias against credulity. Humans are too prone to wishful thinking and self-deception not to discipline the mind against it. All assertions are provisional, subject to amendment or disconfirmation as the result of added information. Unfortunately we live in a culture, profoundly influenced by religious thinking, that regards the willingness to change your mind as a severe character flaw. Science deals not in final “truths” but speaks of “models”. This is where we are based on what we know subject to change as our knowledge base increases.
I don’t believe in god but I don’t reject the idea categorically. You’ll just have to give me some compelling reason to think it’s true. Two thousand year old stories in a book won’t do it. No second hand revelation!
Panpsychicism seems improbable. There are simpler explanations for the phenomena. But I’m always open to the possibility.
I don’t necessarily want to live forever, just until I get tired of it. Of course aging would have to be addressed so you could enjoy what time you have.
RickR said
I guess you must have compelling reasons to not believe in God. I’m amazed at your credulity. To be so certain about something so unprovable.
You did not read my comments with perception.
All assertions are provisional, subject to amendment or disconfirmation as the result of added information.
Certainty is unattainable. All I can do is tell you where I am at this moment based on my experience and my thinking. I don’t see any evidence that god exists. Do you? If so I would appreciate hearing out it.
Data always need to be interpreted. I’m pretty sure finite human beings are not capable of interpreting the data as evidence of God’s existence or nonexistence. The very best theologians over the centuries readily admit they cannot even give a proper definition of God. How could we ever hope to intelligently interpret the data? We do not have an hypothesis or theory big enough to be tested.
Sure, but what is the functional difference between the “unprovable” god and no god at all? I think if anything like a god actually existed it would be like gravity, which few pretend to understand but no one denies exists.
What does it matter, anyway? Would you live your life any differently if you knew for sure that God did or did not exist? If so, then your opinion is unworthy of any credible theism or atheism as far as I’m concerned.
Well it matters because millions of people are prepared to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else. I have zero interest in converting anyone. In the presence of a general tolerance you would hear nary a squawk out of me. (Although it remains an interesting discussion to have over a beer.)
Reply to Stephen. Of course there is evidence God exists, just as there is evidence that He does not exist. Entire books have been written on both subjects. Come on! It’s what you choose to believe. Sometimes when I read these posts I’m amazed at the pseudo intellectual preening that goes on. I’m outta here!
Stephen said
Science doesn’t prove anything. It falsifies. Science eliminates all the bad explanations and builds models based on what’s left Science doesn’t deal with “Truth” or claim to be final. It gives us an image of what we think is going on at the present moment, always subject to disconfirmation or revision as we increase our knowledge through observation and experiment.
This is almost certainly the most succinct description of the scientific method that I have ever read. Thank you very much Stephen! It is tragic that the world is increasingly behaving as if belief were superior to science because scientists don’t pretend to own the truth.
“Science doesn’t prove anything. It falsifies.”
So every day in the world scientists are not concerned about proving a specific model with precise predictive lab tests but they are trying to prove what is not.
Wow.
“Science eliminates all the bad explanations and builds models based on what’s left.”
So I want to prove how a cannonball or shell fly and study what kind of trajectory it makes, what I am going to do?
I’m going to sink a cannonball into the Nutella jar in order to prove that an enogastronomical model is not particularly fit with MY problem.
Is it just the way departments are trying public funding in order to have chocolate for breakfast?
So every day in the world scientists are not concerned about proving a specific model with precise predictive lab tests but they are trying to prove what is not.
Well not every day but yes, you make a prediction and then seek to falsify it. (You understand I’m speaking of scientific methodology here. Philosophy of science. Flipping on a light switch and saying “that proves the light works!” while colloquially true enough is not what I was talking about.)
If you really think about it how else could it work? Faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon how else could you prove one of them true but by eliminating the ones which aren’t? Maybe you find out all of them are false!
But when a scientist talks about “truth” they’re being romantic. With science “truth” and “certainty” go right out the window. Scientists describe models, tentative and emendable.
So I want to prove how a cannonball or shell fly and study what kind of trajectory it makes, what I am going to do?
I don’t know what you are going to do but I will call an engineer or an applied physicist.
I’m going to sink a cannonball into the Nutella jar in order to prove that an enogastronomical model is not particularly fit with MY problem.
Is it just the way departments are trying public funding in order to have chocolate for breakfast?
I’m sure this was terribly witty but I’m afraid it went over my head.
RickR
Of course there is evidence God exists, just as there is evidence that He does not exist.
Steefen
Let give that a try, shall we?
My god is the Sun.
“Of course there is evidence the Sun exists, just as there is evidence that the Sun does not exist.”
I judge your claim to be erroneous.
Stephen said
[…]
I want to use something close to my realm of expertise and I will not go into biology, history, or other fields I’m not positive with.
I will talk about a classic study on distributed systems by Leslie Lamport. It starts introducing the phenomenon it wants to address.
- The paper deals with reliable computer systems that must handle malfunctioning components that give conflicting information to different parts of the system.
- The problem is to find an algorithm to ensure that the system will reach an agreement on which parts are bogus.
- It states that a failed component may send conflicting information to different parts of the system.
- It comes up with a model where the system is seen as a camp where several divisions of the Byzantine army are camped outside an enemy city, each division commanded by its general. The generals can communicate with one another only by messenger.
- It defines a set of constrains for the model (i.e.)
- Every loyal general must obtain the same information v (1) …. , v (n).
- etc…
- It will consider first some banal systems (a distributed system with n=3) and so on. “We now show that with oral messages no solution for three generals can handle a single traitor.”
- Given the constrains Lampard concludes that for a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem using oral messages to cope with m traitors, there must be at least 3m + 1 generals.
- Then a solution with signed messages is considered.
- Then a solution with missing comunication paths. “Thus far, we have assumed that a general can send messages directly to every other general. We now remove this assumption.”
- In the light of what seen before, Lamport comes to define the constrains in the model necessary to achieve a reliable system.
- Then the conclusion: We have presented several solutions to the Byzantine Generals Problem, under various hypotheses, and shown how they can be used in implementing reliable computer systems.
Reference: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
In the light of what said before:
@Stephen says: “you make a prediction and then seek to falsify it.”
No, you are not. You stick to the model. You’re not payed to fuck around.
@Stephen says: “Science doesn’t prove anything. It falsifies.”
No, it does prove the model, or we could not call it a theory (we would call it an educated guess.)
@Stephen says: “Science eliminates all the bad explanations and builds models based on what’s left.”
No, you prove your model and define better its constrains. And restart from your model. Ther’s no time, and no need to come after “all” bad explanations or other models aside from the one you’re proving.
The principal reason science can’t “prove” anything is because science doesn’t deal in “proofs”, it deals in probabilities. Science tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence. When I write that science can’t prove anything, what I mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. If you want proofs you want mathematics. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. But when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe then uncertainty creeps in.
Science is dependent on observations, but since we can never be absolutely sure that our observations accurately represent reality, we can never be absolutely sure of the results based on our observations. But this uncertainty is conceptual not practical. Science proceeds under the assumption of methodological naturalism. Science involves deductive logic, used for experiments and testing hypotheses, and inductive logic, used to form general conclusions. Deductive arguments end in conclusions that must be true as long as the premises are true and no logical fallacies have been committed. Inductive arguments end in a general conclusion that is probably true.
Ok, falsifiability. Take atomic theory. If through experimentation we confirm that a particular substance is made of atoms, would this confirm the general theory that all matter is made of atoms? No! It would suggest that the theory is likely correct – the theory makes accurate predictions – but it would not demonstrate that all matter everywhere is made of atoms.
On the other hand the experiment could falsify atomic theory. If it turned out the substance was not made of atoms, that would discredit the theory that all matter is made of atoms. In other words, it is possible to falsify any scientific concept if that concept is really wrong but it is not possible to confirm a scientific concept even if it is really right.
Another example is cellular theory. Showing that an organism is made of cells doesn’t “prove” the theory is correct, but showing that a living organism is not made of cells does mean that the theory is incorrect. Falsifiability.
There is no field of human endeavor where the difference between public perception and actual process is greater than in science. Many imagine scientists to be a modern secular priesthood mediating the secrets of the universe to the rest of us. But science does away with “certainty” and “Truth”. Unfortunately what many people crave most is “certainty” and “Truth”. We are trained this way by our religions, based as they are authority and finality. Oh we love the fruits of science (mostly), the fun toys it produces, but how long can we really live with the idea that at any moment a discovery could be made that would revolutionize our entire way of thinking and living? Look at all the people now who simply can’t wrap their heads around concepts like Deep Time and Infinite Space? (Can I?) How long until we tire of the horizonless scientific revolution and retreat to a new dark age where at last we find peace in certainty and truth?
ps Look, nuance is not possible in a post like this. I am forced to generalities. But everyone should read a little philosophy of science, at least up to the point where you are disturbed by the implications.
@Stephen: “The principal reason science can’t “prove” anything […]“
Nobody is after any Truth or Reality.
@Stephen: “what I mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true…“
I’m sure this is a problem underlying human knowledge and has to deal with the limitation of our intelligence (brain?!) or it could be a structural problem hidden in Reality itself.
Also, your observations and your analysis of Science are tainted by the same original sin. Are we going really down the road of skepticism? In that case, we could just say: it has been a pleasure, good night!
There would be no need to spend more words on it.
@Stephen: “If you want proofs you want mathematics. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true.“
No, it’s all about the model. You prove the model, not the Reality behind it if there is any. Math is not different from Physics by any regard. I suggest you read Gödel’s papers about the incompleteness theorems to understand the limitation of Math and the overcome of any Platonic idea in it.
@Stephen: ” But when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe then uncertainty creeps in. “
No, the problem of uncertainty, is not an issue.
A typical example would be “proving” if the Earth is flat or “round.”
The Earth is flat in a problem that deals with meters, in a particular context, for instance, a football match.
The Earth is round if we calculate the trajectory of an intercontinental missile.
@Stephen: “Science is dependent on observations“
Of course it is, but what happens when an empirical set of measures points to a particular result “proven” in a particular model? Are we going to wait the n+1 observation in order to use the model, or we say that we are confident with model? And this confidence allows saying in a confident way that the model is “true“.
@Stephen: “Would this confirm the general theory that all matter is made of atoms?“
And what does this conviction shows? It shows that the model is proven. Not that any reality is true or any interpretation of the reality is true. The model is proven and is the “Truth” of the observed phenomen.
@Stephen: “There is no field of human endeavor where the difference between public perception and actual process is greater than in science. Many imagine scientists to be a modern secular priesthood mediating the secrets of the universe to the rest of us.“
There is no difference between Science and Religion, as far as abstract models are concerned. They both deal with their truth.
I could agree on the fact that Science and Religion implied -in the past- different means or tools of inquiring. But there’s no scandal in it.
Many would like Religion to be something unworthy. See a classic on the matter, like David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
@Stephen: “How long until we tire of the horizonless scientific revolution and retreat to a new dark age where at last we find peace in certainty and truth?“
Well, I have nothing to object to it. The Dark Age is fine as long as I am sitting with those in power and hold the red-hot pincers.
(joking -maybe- 🙂
janmaru, I’ve had my say. At this point I would just be repeating myself. But…David Berlinski? A goofball like that is your go-to guy? That is revealing and disturbing.
Assuming I haven’t bored everyone out of their minds and someone remains who is truly interested here is the way in-
A couple of classics, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Some recent works, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Of course there is the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is composed and maintained by professional philosophers so it does presuppose a little background but it is a wonderful resource. A good place to start is ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Stephen said
janmaru, I’ve had my say. At this point I would just be repeating myself. (A) But…David Berlinski? A goofball like that is your go-to guy? That is revealing and disturbing.(B) Of course there is the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is composed and maintained by professional philosophers so it does presuppose a little background but it is a wonderful resource.
(A)
A goofball?
Liberalism doesn’t mean you have the right to twist everything only because you’re free to do it.
You cannot challenge people who dedicate their lives to a particular field of knowledge just because their vote counts exactly like yours, and doing this based on no-authority ground and pretend not even to argue about it.
That is revealing and disturbing.
(B)
Fifteen pages to reach this conclusion:”[…] it is emphasized that there is much more agreement on particular cases of demarcation than on the general criteria that such judgments should be based upon. This is an indication that there is still much important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.“
Wow, I’m sure you will find anything I said a contribution to pseudoscience. You can knock a few decades later at my door when our Cardinal’s friends would put out general criteria on the matter.
In the meanwhile let me dwell in my ignorance.
This thread is about faith and reason. Shall we try and get back to that? These are questions addressed to Robert and Stephen.
Is William Lane Craig’s argument for the existence of God tautologous? Does the scientific rejection of unfalsifiable propositions deny ‘higher’ experience?
WLC’s argument boils down to something like this: If you allow the possibility of God’s existence, then God is the best explanation for the universe. If you require evidence for God additional to what is in the observable universe, you will never find it. Therefore the existence of God is the best explanation and he builds his case for Christianity on that premise. If God is possible, then God must exist.
A sceptic (i.e someone taking a purely scientific position) might say: How can you know if God exists if God is by definition beyond observable evidence?
WLC: I experience Him in my heart.
Sceptic: Is this experience of yours falsifiable? If so, how? If not, how can it be objectively valid?
Etc. etc. Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)