10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Figleaf]

I gave three elements (predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance) that distinguish a scientific theory such as like gravity from a theistic notion

The theory of a deity that I described has all three of those elements.

No, it does not. I lacks the first and last, and these lacks make the second difficult. Also, the insistence by the proponents of theism that it is exempt from rational examination thwarts the second as well.

The only reason you reject the deity theory as rational is because you refuse to acknowledge that a deity could exist.

Nonsense.

First, I say theism is not rational because it does not conform to the elements of rationality, and when critically examined, it resorts to special pleading.

Second, I have never asserted that a deity 'could' not exist.

Your statement was a total absurdity. Anyone who has seen an object fall to the ground has evidence that gravity exists.

Not according your the definition of evidence.

Hooey.

If someone who observes the positive effect of prayer on their mental state cannot rationally assume it is the result of a deity...

They can assume it's a rational result of praying, but nothing in your example extends it to forming evidence that a deity is responsible for that effect.

... then a someone who observes an object falling cannot rationally assume that it is the result of an incomprehensible attraction between matter.

They have evidence that things fall. This is evidence for the existence something that makes them fall. The word used for the something that makes them fall is 'gravity'. Ergo, things falling is evidence for the existence of gravity, although it may not be evidence for grandiloquent explanations or some claims about the causes of gravity.

No matter how much you twist you cannot escape the fundamental contradiction in your arguments.

No matter how much you twist my arguments, you cannot escape the essential folly and absurdity of your position.

There are some modern theories for the physical mechanisms that produce gravity, however, none of them are accepted as fact. This means gravity is an incomprehensible phenomena ...

It really would help these discussions if you would use words with at least some minimal level of precision. That proposition does not show gravity is 'incomprehensible'. It simply points out that gravity is not fully explained. Two much different things.

Magic is an appropriate word to describe something we do not comprehend.

There's more of Riverwind's Private Language, I guess.

There is nothing in theist thinking that prevents someone from accepting change as knowledge evolves.

Yes there is -- dogma, doctrine, authority, and the principle of revelation.

[Mad_Michael]

You are making an assertion that theist views do not change as knowledge changes. The over whelming majority of theists accept the conclusions developed by scientific enquiry and only apply their beliefs to areas where no such scientific explanation exists.

Like calling gravity "magic" for example...

Gravity is an uncomprehensible phenomena of unknown origin yet you presume it is 'real' because you can observe its effects. It is irrational to claim that gravity must be 'real' because the effects attributed to it can be observed but then reject the idea of a deity even though the effects attributed to it can also be observed.

The reason that the theory of gravity is widely held is not because "I can observe it" (I've never seen gravity - only an effect that is understood to be caused by gravity). Indeed, I cannot see atoms, yet that I don't doubt atomic theory.

The reason is that these theories are scientifically supported because these theories are falsifiable and have never yet been falsified. That's how science works. In other words, yet again, you are using a strawman to construct your argument. The non-visibility of God has no relevance to the argument.

The theory of God's Existence is 100% non-falsifiable. It cannot be judged or observed, proof or failure - nothing, nada. It is an article of faith alone. Just like all the 'evidence' you may offer - it will all stand alone upon your own faith for its only validity.

But just for fun, feel free to supply us here with some examples of these "observable effects" of God's existence.

[Figleaf]

The reason is that these theories are scientifically supported because these theories are falsifiable and have never yet been falsified.

Yes! That's the terminology we've been needing. Thank you.

[Riverwind]

They have evidence that things fall. This is evidence for the existence something that makes them fall. The word used for the something that makes them fall is 'gravity'. Ergo, things falling is evidence for the existence of gravity, although it may not be evidence for grandiloquent explanations or some claims about the causes of gravity.

You are missing the point. I said (according to your logic) that it must be irrational to claim that the effect observed (which you call gravity) is caused by mutual attraction between matter (a.k.a gravitation). Explaining the 'prayer effect' as the intervention of a deity is no less rational that explaining the 'gravity effect' as a mysterious attraction between matter.

One could also create a hypothesis that the 'prayer effect' is a biological effect trigged by a belief in a deity. In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist.

[Mad_Michael]

They have evidence that things fall. This is evidence for the existence something that makes them fall. The word used for the something that makes them fall is 'gravity'. Ergo, things falling is evidence for the existence of gravity, although it may not be evidence for grandiloquent explanations or some claims about the causes of gravity.

You are missing the point. I said (according to your logic) that it must be irrational to claim that the effect observed (which you call gravity) is caused by mutual attraction between matter (a.k.a gravitation). Explaining the 'prayer effect' as the intervention of a deity is no less rational that explaining the 'gravity effect' as a mysterious attraction between matter.

One could also create a hypothesis that the 'prayer effect' is a biological effect trigged by a belief in a deity. In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist.

The measurable effects of gravity can be proven to occur, according to scientific reasonings that can (theoretically) be falsified. Thus, it is rational to believe that gravity exists.

The effects of prayer cannot be proven to have occured - the theory can never be falsified. Thus it is irrational to believe that prayer is effective. Prayer may be effective, and one may believe in it as an article of faith - but it has no basis for the claim of 'rational' since it absolutely fails the test of rationality.

Please note that nothing in my argument in anyway denies the existence of God or the effacy of prayer. The point I make here is that these exist (if they exist) entirely in the realm of faith and cannot be considered rational per se.

[Mad_Michael]

The reason is that these theories are scientifically supported because these theories are falsifiable and have never yet been falsified.

Yes! That's the terminology we've been needing. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I believe I picked up the term (in this context, in this line of argument) from Sir Karl Popper, arguably, the leading epistemologist of the 20th century (Conjectures and Refutations - a brilliant and seminal work in the field).

[Mad_Michael]

One could also create a hypothesis that the 'prayer effect' is a biological effect trigged by a belief in a deity. In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist.

That 'hypothesis' most certainly cannot be defined as a scientific hypothesis since the hypothesis is non-falsifiable. It can never be proven wrong by definition of the terms. Ergo, it is not a scientific hypothesis since all scientific hypothesii (sp?) must be falsifiable by definition.

Oh, and the mere supposition of any given hypothesis alone does not constitute a viable theory. It would not be rational to believe in some supposed hypothesis on the basis of its mere supposition - if a viable or more reasonable alternative theory is available (i.e., Ockham's Razor).

[Riverwind]

Please note that nothing in my argument in anyway denies the existence of God or the effacy of prayer. The point I make here is that these exist (if they exist) entirely in the realm of faith and cannot be considered rational per se.

Ok - then the disagreement may be over the intent of the words 'rational' vs. 'irrational'. Many people use the word 'irrational' to mean stupid or crazy. Stating that the existence of deity is simply outside the realm of 'rational' (i.e. falsifiable) science does not come with the pejorative connotations. If that is your intent then I can agree with your statement.

In my example above I could have used the word logical instead of rational and that would have avoided the overlapping meanings of the word rational. I still do argue that there is a positive mental effect that is caused by a belief in a deity/higher power and that effect exists even if a deity does not exist. For that reason, belief in a deity is logical for any person who experiences this effect.

[Mad_Michael]

Please note that nothing in my argument in anyway denies the existence of God or the effacy of prayer. The point I make here is that these exist (if they exist) entirely in the realm of faith and cannot be considered rational per se.

Ok - then the disagreement may be over the intent of the words 'rational' vs. 'irrational'. Many people use the word 'irrational' to mean stupid or crazy. Stating that the existence of deity is simply outside the realm of 'rational' (i.e. falsifiable) science does not come with the pejorative connotations. If that is your intent then I can agree with your statement.

Good. Irrational means strictly not-rational. Art is essentially irrational. Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow is technically irrational (a famous argument of David Hume).

Human beings have a long history of irrational behaviour. Indeed, according to evolutionary theory, I doubt if it would be possible for humans to have evolved to our present form without the successful application of many forms of irrational behaviour.

And you can be sure that it is my only intent in all discussions under the label of 'philosophy' to always use technical and neutral language (where possible). Precision of terms and definitions is critical to the art and discussion of philosophy.

In my example above I could have used the word logical instead of rational and that would have avoided the overlapping meanings of the word rational. I still do argue that there is a positive mental effect that is caused by a belief in a deity/higher power and that effect exists even if a deity does not exist. For that reason, belief in a deity is logical for any person who experiences this effect.

Technically that is true - the use of the term 'logical' instead would have avoided this particular critique of falsifiable science.

However, use of the term 'logical', substituted in your argument posted above (to which I have already critiqued) would just open you up to the alternative critique of a circular reference since the logical conclusion of your argument would necessarily be predicated upon belief in God in the first place. That is a logical flaw (when a premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion of the argument).

[Mad_Michael]

According to the application of Ockham's Razor, supernaturalism can be logically deduced as being irrational.

Only if you presume that the existance of an entity outside of physical perception is a 'complex' explaination when compared to the alternatives. I would argue that the existing theories of the cosmos are incredibly complex and growing more complex over time as scientists try to fix the various inconsistencies in them. If you want to apply Ockham's Razor you should conclude that there is probably a deity of some sort because that is the simplest explaination.

No.

The logic of Ockham is not just complexity vs simplicity - that is the 'spirit' of the law, not the letter (as it were). Granted a supernatural deity is a 'simpler' explanation.

However, the supernatural explanation doesn't fit with anything of our understanding and experience. It is entirely a unique supposition unlike any other known thing.

The alternative explanation, while not entirely able to be confirmed by common awareness (seeing with my own eyes), does substantially fit with almost everything else that has been confirmed by my common awareness (and best current state of scientific theory).

Thus, the supernatural explanation, although technically 'simpler' is entirely an unknown phenonmena. The alternative explanation, although technically 'more complex', is based upon known processes and proven things - and is ultimately falsifiable. On this basis, the supernatural theory is unnecessary or superfluous, and on this basis of Ockham's Razor, I reject the supernatural theory as irrational and unnecessary supposition.

[Riverwind]

However, use of the term 'logical', substituted in your argument posted above (to which I have already critiqued) would just open you up to the alternative critique of a circular reference since the logical conclusion of your argument would necessarily be predicated upon belief in God in the first place. That is a logical flaw (when a premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion of the argument).

I did state that the effect of the belief is real even if the deity does not exist. One could come up with a number of falsifiable hypotheses that would explain how a belief in a falsehood could produce a positive effect. However, the individual involved does not really care why the effect occurs - the individual only cares that it does occur and that a belief in a deity will produce the effect. In that situation is logical for the individual to choose to believe in a deity even if there is no other supporting evidence.

On the other hand, it would be illogical for a third party to claim that the observed effect is proof of a diety. It is only evidence that belief in a deity is a useful thing for some people.

This creates a curious condition where different people can draw equally valid but conflicting logical conclusions.

[cybercoma]

By your fantastic definition of logical, belief in the flying spaghetti monster is a logical conclusion too. Not to mention, belief in sasquatch, ghosts, demonic possession, unicorns and fairies.

There's nothing quite like bastardizing the word logical.

[Riverwind]

By your fantastic definition of logical, belief in the flying spaghetti monster is a logical conclusion too. Not to mention, belief in sasquatch, ghosts, demonic possession, unicorns and fairies.

What positive effect do you attribute to those beliefs? In my example, I clearly indicated that a private appeal to a deity can have a calming effect on a person's mental state. I guess someone could picture the flying spaghetti monster as their deity and achieve the effect but that would be rather bizarre considering the fact that the FSM is a parody of a deity.

[Figleaf]

I said (according to your logic) that it must be irrational to claim that the effect observed (which you call gravity) is caused by mutual attraction between matter (a.k.a gravitation).

Observing objects fall for pretty much humanity's entire existence, no-one ever made the assumption that it was caused by mutual attraction between matter. Newton carried out experiments and ratiocination that led him to conclude that the observed effect can be explained as a mutual attraction between matter. And his conclusion has not been falsified.

Explaining the 'prayer effect' as the intervention of a deity is no less rational that explaining the 'gravity effect' as a mysterious attraction between matter.

Mere repetition of your claims in no way proves they are correct.

Your claim of a prayer effect being caused by a deity lacks any evidence whatsoever. Newton's theory of gravity has all the evidence of many decades of observation, measurement, and testing.

One could ... create a hypothesis that the 'prayer effect' is a biological effect trigged by a belief in a deity.

Yes, one could. Then one could test and measure it and find it to be true. And we would all agree that it is perfectly reasonable to claim that belief in a deity has a biological effect. And that would still prove nothing whatsoever about whether there is a deity or not, and it would not make believing in such a deity reasonable.

In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist.

You've been around this pole with me twice, and others too, already. Repeating it doesn't make it any more correct than it was last time. You cannot 'rationally' believe something that you are not convinced of through reason.

[Riverwind]

In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist.

You've been around this pole with me twice, and others too, already. Repeating it doesn't make it any more correct than it was last time. You cannot 'rationally' believe something that you are not convinced of through reason.

[Figleaf]

Please note that nothing in my argument in anyway denies the existence of God or the effacy of prayer. The point I make here is that these exist (if they exist) entirely in the realm of faith and cannot be considered rational per se.

Ok - then the disagreement may be over the intent of the words 'rational' vs. 'irrational'. Many people use the word 'irrational' to mean stupid or crazy. Stating that the existence of deity is simply outside the realm of 'rational' (i.e. falsifiable) science does not come with the pejorative connotations. If that is your intent then I can agree with your statement.

In my example above I could have used the word logical instead of rational and that would have avoided the overlapping meanings of the word rational. I still do argue that there is a positive mental effect that is caused by a belief in a deity/higher power and that effect exists even if a deity does not exist. For that reason, belief in a deity is logical for any person who experiences this effect.

You were all right until the last sentence. This 'belief' that someone adopts to secure the presumed biological benefits ... do they need to really believe it? If they do, and so they really force themselves to believe (in the absense of evidence) in the action of a deity, can't you see that that's not a rational belief?

[Riverwind]

This 'belief' that someone adopts to secure the presumed biological benefits ... do they need to really believe it? If they do, and so they really force themselves to believe (in the absense of evidence) in the action of a deity, can't you see that that's not a rational belief?

It might be possible to get the same benefits in some other fashion or it might not - the person would not know. However, if someone knows that there is a benefit from believing in a diety and they want those benefits then it would be illogical to refuse to believe.

You could look at it as a long term form of suspended disbelief. People want to be entertained by a movie so they choose to believe that the story line is real even though they know it is a complete fiction. Movies can evoke intense emotions in people - an inspiring story could have a positive effect on a person similar to the belief in deity effect that I have described.

[Figleaf]

This 'belief' that someone adopts to secure the presumed biological benefits ... do they need to really believe it? If they do, and so they really force themselves to believe (in the absense of evidence) in the action of a deity, can't you see that that's not a rational belief?

It might be possible to get the same benefits in some other fashion or it might not - the person would not know. However, if someone knows that there is a benefit from believing in a diety and they want those benefits then it would be illogical to refuse to believe.

I think we are dealing with a fundamentally different approach to what makes a belief 'rational'. To my way of thinking, a 'rational belief' is one that tests true by the measures of reason. You appear to mean that a belief is 'rational' if it is net positive in a cost benefit analysis.

I don't see how the latter provides any support for the specific claims of theism or its various manifestations.

[Riverwind]

I think we are dealing with a fundamentally different approach to what makes a belief 'rational'. To my way of thinking, a 'rational belief' is one that tests true by the measures of reason. You appear to mean that a belief is 'rational' if it is net positive in a cost benefit analysis.

I don't see how the latter provides any support for the specific claims of theism or its various manifestations.

ra·tion·al adj.

1) Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2) Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.

3) Of sound mind; sane.

4) Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

I was using definition 2) & 3). You were using 4). I starting using logical instead of rational to make the distinction clear.

That said, a lot of scientific decisions are based on a cost benefit analyses.

I have being trying to make the point that theism is not simply a case of collective insanity and that theist beliefs do a have logical component to them. I could argue that a deity exists if people believe it in it - but that is an entirely different arguement that I would rather leave for another time.

[Figleaf]

I think we are dealing with a fundamentally different approach to what makes a belief 'rational'. To my way of thinking, a 'rational belief' is one that tests true by the measures of reason. You appear to mean that a belief is 'rational' if it is net positive in a cost benefit analysis.

I don't see how the latter provides any support for the specific claims of theism or its various manifestations.

ra·tion·al adj.

1) Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2) Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.

3) Of sound mind; sane.

4) Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

I was using definition 2) & 3). You were using 4).

No, I meant:

"Consistent with or based on reason; logical" or

"proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning".

I have being trying to make the point that theism is not simply a case of collective insanity and that theist beliefs do a have logical component to them.

What component?

[Mad_Michael]

I did state that the effect of the belief is real even if the deity does not exist. One could come up with a number of falsifiable hypotheses that would explain how a belief in a falsehood could produce a positive effect. However, the individual involved does not really care why the effect occurs - the individual only cares that it does occur and that a belief in a deity will produce the effect. In that situation is logical for the individual to choose to believe in a deity even if there is no other supporting evidence.

This proves only that some people might believe in God or prayer and that to them, from their own reference point, such a view may be logical. As noted above, this logic is circular if one tries to use it for any other purpose than to say "some people believe in this".

Indeed, in your example, the 'proof' is entirely one of faith.

On the other hand, it would be illogical for a third party to claim that the observed effect is proof of a diety. It is only evidence that belief in a deity is a useful thing for some people.

It is evidence of faith and that doesn't mean anything to anyone except the person themself who has the faith (or others who share it).

This creates a curious condition where different people can draw equally valid but conflicting logical conclusions.

Good gosh, this is trite.

The process of logic is by definition, a relative process. It is always predicated upon reference points. Change the reference points and the adjudication of logic changes. Go figure. Nothing curious or unusual about this for anyone who is familiar with the principles of logic. Indeed, it is very, very common.

[Mad_Michael]

That said, a lot of scientific decisions are based on a cost benefit analyses.

Please cite just one example of such.

(I ask because I know you can't. Cost-benefit analysis is a tool of economics, not the physical sciences. Any self-respecting scientist would look at you like you are from Mars if you suggested that they were engaged in some kind of cost-benefit analysis).

I have being trying to make the point that theism is not simply a case of collective insanity and that theist beliefs do a have logical component to them. I could argue that a deity exists if people believe it in it - but that is an entirely different arguement that I would rather leave for another time.

With all due respect, you've been doing a poor job of it.

I agree that theism is not (ipso facto proof of) collective insanity, but to assert that theism does have a logical component is going to give you serious trouble and an argument that you will never win.

As long as theism or religion stands on faith alone, it is unassailable. As soon as logic or reason is claimed in service of theism or religion, that opens the door to critical analysis that such claims are unable to withstand.

The lesson of Descartes ought to be noted here - Descartes sought to use logic and reason to prove that God exists. He thought he did so, working entirely with logical principles. Suffice it to say that Pope John Paul II (the most learned and intellectual Pope in centuries) named Descartes the spiritual father of Atheism. Descartes opened a can of worms. The arguments he constructed to 'prove' that God exists actually backfired on him and now provide the core principles for logical doubt of God's existence.

Descartes was one of the most brilliant minds of the 17th century (one of the inventors of calculus). Do you presume to think that you can do better than Descartes in the service of rationalising theism?

[Riverwind]

Please cite just one example of such.

Drugs are evaluated on that basis. A drug is only considered effective if negative side effects are less severe than the positive effect. For example, a drug that reduces a tumor size by 50% but causes liver failure is not considered effective.

I agree that theism is not (ipso facto proof of) collective insanity, but to assert that theism does have a logical component is going to give you serious trouble and an argument that you will never win.

You already agreed that it would be logical (from their reference point) for someone to believe in a deity if they believed they would benefit from that belief. That is all I am claiming.

I never was trying to make the point that it is logically possible to prove the existance of a diety (a la Descartes).

[Mad_Michael]

Please cite just one example of such.

Drugs are evaluated on that basis. A drug is only considered effective if negative side effects are less severe than the positive effect.

As I said above, no scientist ever makes that determination. They only measure the effects and side effects, according to the rules of science.

The determination you point here is made by business executives of a corporation deciding whether to proceed to production/sales of the product (balanced against the risk/cost of lawsuits). Corporate confidentiality agreements are then used to make sure the scientists are not allowed to discuss the product (particularly any reservations they may have about the 'claims' being made about the effectiveness of the product).

I agree that theism is not (ipso facto proof of) collective insanity, but to assert that theism does have a logical component is going to give you serious trouble and an argument that you will never win.

You already agreed that it would be logical (from their reference point) for someone to believe in a deity if they believed they would benefit from that belief. That is all I am claiming.

And as I've already pointed out, that logic is circular. It may be logical for someone to believe that prayers to God are effective when they already believe that God exists. Such self-referenced logic is circular. It is logical only in respect of that one person's own self-justifications. That is to say, if they believe that God exists, then it is logical that they believe in actions attributed to God. This logic says nothing substantive about anything and cannot be used to justify or support any argument - other than that people tend to create self-serving arguments as a method of self-justification (and this is logical too!).

But there is no basic logic to the process at all. It is a matter of faith alone. On the basis of faith, one may presume various things follow logically. But that doesn't make the original leap of faith logical or rational and cannot be used to logically or rationally justify the leap of faith.

Please see my note regarding Descartes in post # 372 of this thread. You are trying to walk down that road.

[Figleaf]

Please cite just one example of such.

Drugs are evaluated on that [cost-benefit] basis.

Please don't be so silly. Whether to pursue drug research is evaluated on that basis, the clinical properties of the drugs are clearly not evaluated on that basis. The former is a business choice, the latter is a scientific matter.

A drug is only considered effective if negative side effects are less severe than the positive effect. For example, a drug that reduces a tumor size by 50% but causes liver failure is not considered effective.

I believe you are mistaken. Please provide a reference that supports you use of the term 'effective' in that context.