Burden of proof

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is through experience, training and 'evidence' that lions learn to hunt, otters smack nuts on rocks and is used continuously throughout everyones life be they scientific minded or not.

Much hunting behavior is instinctive. Watch kittens at play long before their momma has had a chance to demonstrate hunting techniques.

These are not 'beliefs', (unless you were to use the word so loosely as to render it pointless). Chemical responses and so on are no more a 'belief' than blinking or breathing is. They are instinctual mechanisms and most certainly not 'beliefs' in any real sense of the word.

Children who have never lived in an environment where fear of predators was taught "believe" that a large animal with both eyes pointed forward is going to eat them, whereas one with eyes on the side of its head is a prey animal that might accidentally step on them but is not going to hunt them. There is no conflict between the words "instinct" and "belief."

Nobody will contest that people now and especially in the ancient past had 'beliefs' in many bizarre and wonderful things from gods to leprechauns, from mermaids and banshees to hobgoblins and anal probing alien abduction but you would most certainly have a very hard task ahead of you trying to support your claim that any of these are 'instinctive'. It's easy for you to say such a thing while ignoring the thousands of years of indoctrination that have gone into providing you with such beliefs.

Jung and especially his star pupils, perhaps most notably Joseph Campbell, have studied the religious (and other) motifs of peoples who have no chain of communication for fifteen thousand years or more, and thus no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight, at a time when they would have to pass them down orally. Yet the same ones appear with great consistency from South America to Africa to Europe to Australia, such as the virgin birth, the flood that covers the earth, and the creature rising from the dead.

I don't understand in what context you're using the word 'stronger'. Kindly explain.

I'm using it in the sense "more difficult to unseat." It's harder to talk an individual or a community out of an archetypal instinctive belief for which they have no evidence, than one that they have been taught logically.

"As noted, these archetypal beliefs are codifications of ones we were born with." Your evidence for that claim is...?

That underneath the culture-specific codifications that dressed up ancient religions, they all had the same fundamental beliefs. All of the ancient polytheistic peoples had the same pantheon with different names. So do the dramatis personae of any of Shakespeare's plays and the list of the main characters in any soap opera. They point to humans unconsciously organizing themselves into 23 "spirits" or personalities, which take precedence as needed by circumstance (some days you have to be the Healer, some days the Lover) but which also have varying levels of influence in each of us (I have a strong urge to be the Teacher but very little to be the King).

My most strident condemnation of Abrahamism is its pathetic one-dimensional model of the human spirit. Rather than accept the evidence that we have all of these influences inside us competing for attention, and teaching us how to mediate among them and give each his or her appropriate time in the sun, Abraham insists that we and everything we do falls on a linear spectrum from "good" to "evil." Some of those influences end up being suppressed and after they fester in resentment long enough they burst out uncontrollably. This is a perfect metaphor for the way the kind, meek Abrahamists live in peace and harmony for several generations, and then, almost as regular as clockwork, they rise up in unity and commit acts of irredeemable evil, like obliterating entire civilizations.

Although Jung described (I think) "archetypes" essentially as beliefs /ideas/ concepts etc. I am not sure they are. Perhaps they are more "behaviors."

Actually I'm oversimplifying and limiting myself to the context of this thread. Archetypes are motifs. Some are expressed as ritual behaviors (e.g. rites of passage), some as visions (often in artworks), some as stories (legends) and some in more than one way.

Why should complex genetic encoded human behaviors be called "beliefs"?

I agree that it's a point of semantics. We don't credit birds with a lot of cognitive power (mistakenly, in my experience) so we call their way of building a nest a "behavior." Yet it's based on the "belief" that this particular shape will attract the most desirable female, or perhaps give that female's eggs the best protection. (I don't know which sex builds the nest among orioles, sorry.)

In the everyday use of the scientific method, it is not expected to compare itself to religious explanations. However, at the very top, to validate the method itself, surely it needs to be compared to competitive models.

And it is. For 500 years the scientific method has been tested and peer-reviewed. During that time it has uncovered an enormous number of truths about the way the universe works. These truths have enriched our lives with safer living conditions, lower infant mortality, closer communication with distant loved ones, and a host of improvements that are universally welcomed. During that same time religion has uncovered nothing, and in fact many of its most treasured hypotheses are steadily disproven.

The problem is, most models competing against the scientific process, use non-rational tools to find the truth. Science is based on the rational, so has no way to test the non-rational.

No, but humans as individuals and groups test the entire methodology of irrationality against science and science consistently proves itself more able to solve their problems.

All belief systems have a fallacious basis.

I disagree. The belief that underlies science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. This is not based on a fallacy. The scientific method is recursive, and it itself is continually subject to testing and peer review. It has never been falsified. Individual theories are occasionally disproven but individual theories are never claimed to be true, merely that they have a very low probability of being falsified. And the rarity of their falsification bears out that claim.

I would add to this that there is a common assumption that the most rational thing to do is not to believe in something unless it has been proven by scientific methodology.

First off, science does not prove its theories. Only mathematics does that because its theories are pure logic and abstraction and do not have to be validated by the natural universe. (E.g., we'll surely never find a place where the rules of Lobachevskian geometry obtain, but we still know they're correct.) Science accumulates evidence, and when enough evidence is accumulated ("enough" is not well defined and this is at least a big problem in the communication between scientists and laymen and at worst a stumbling block in the scientific method) a theory is accepted as having an acceptably low probability of ever being falsified, or to use the language of the courtroom "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with people believing in things that lack convincing evidence. We are all free to act on our hunches and that is often what drives science. What's wrong is to believe in something when there is not only no evidence for it but there is lots of evidence against it. What is also wrong is to try to convince someone to believe your hunch when you can't present them with any evidence. Hunches are personal.

Or is it that you have no interest in considering opposing viewpoints?

One of the principles that underlies the scientific method is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to treat them with respect." The stereotypical theist claim that we're all thinking of is something like, "Science is wrong and we will do better to follow the advice of a book that is a compendium of Stone Age folklore." This is an extraordinary claim because it contradicts the entire canon of science, which has been painstakingly built up for centuries, has been tested continuously, and is robust enough to withstand the occasional falsification of a theory. This claim must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence or we indeed have no obligation to treat it with respect.

We don't always take the option because it's good to periodically show students and the general public why religion is a woeful substitute for reason, and to demonstrate the scientific method in action in order to demystify it. But we only do this at rare intervals. The rest of the time it's perfectly acceptable scientific practice to laugh religionists out of the academy.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

[Secondly, there is nothing wrong with people believing in things that lack convincing evidence.

I think a significant portion of the communication here, including condescension, psychoanalysis - without evidence - of those with certain beliefs and aggressive critique of other ways of gaining knowledge are evidence that not all hold your beliefs here. (I realize the last pattern is open to criticism of what is aggressive).
But I am glad you have this belief.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe that knowledge was acquired before the scientific method, before science. I can see no argument against this.
I believe this is convincing evidence science is not needed to discover truth. Again, to me this is an undeniable truth. Science’s primary role is validation of truth, and discovery is secondary.

Logically flawed argument... just because "knowledge was acquired before the scientific method" does not mean that the scientific method was not used - even if it was not understood to be as such.

Take the discovery of fire... the first man to come across it probably put his hand near it - and found it to be hot. This was observation. He then tried again. Again it was found to be hot, and he kept testing, probably beyond the point of burning himself. And in doing so he established knowledge that fire was hot - and hotter than he liked if he got too close. He probably went and told other people (or grunted to them).

This, in essence, IS the scientific method, despite there being no ability to formulate his process, or for him to write it down etc. The observation, theorising and testing/re-testing and re-theorising.

As more evidence becomes available, theories arrived at become adjusted, overturned, amended etc. This is true not only of formal science but of every person's assessment of their experiences, whether they understand what they're doing or not.
Even Pavlov's dog was able to demonstrate this to an extent - ring the bell and the dog knows there's food. And then new evidence arrives (no food) and the dog has to reassess its position - probably slower than most humans would, but it demonstrates the point. You could argue that the dog would "believe" there to be food - but this is only an assessment of probability rather than belief without evidence.

But admittedly it is up to the individual whether they apply rationality to the evidence / observation.

I believe the human mind is capable of things no scientist even imagines.
I believe some shamans have had mystical experiences which revealed truth, that science is not currently capable of validating, not because it if false, but because science lacks the maturity. (Not a supernatural mystical, as I do not believe in the supernatural.)

You confuse the scientific method with the scientist.
If a shaman had a "mystical experience" then surely it is testable.
The fact that it hasn't been is NOT a fault of the method - but of the people choosing not to wield the method in that direction.

 

[BeHereNow]

Sarkus Logically flawed argument... just because "knowledge was acquired
before the scientific method" does not mean that the scientific method was
not used - even if it was not understood to be as such.

So your rebuttal is, that the scientific method has existed as long as mankind, hey, maybe even before. The scientific method is a developement of nature, not a development of man.
An unusual perspective.

 

[Sarkus]

So your rebuttal is, that the scientific method has existed as long as mankind, hey, maybe even before. The scientific method is a developement of nature, not a development of man.
An unusual perspective.

My rebuttal is that the scientific method, as currently understood, is a formalisation of the most rational and efficient method of gathering understanding - a method that has existed informally (and only performed subconsciously) since man started gathering an understanding of the world around him.

 

[BeHereNow]

My rebuttal is that the scientific method, as currently understood, is
a formalisation of the most rational and efficient method of gathering
understanding - a method that has existed informally (and only
performed subconsciously) since man started gathering an understanding of the
world around him.

I don't suppose you have any reliable scientific evidence to support that.
I suppose we could take it on faith.

 

[Billy T]

I think that the scientific method is not simply learning from experience as Sarkus suggest in post 103 with the example of some, probably pre-human creature, learning that fire is hot, get too close and it will burn, cause long lasting pain etc.

The scientific method involves construction of a theory / model / set of relationships (Fitting facts into a web of beliefs), and then making predictions based on this model and testing them, whenever possible quantatively and with an associated math model.

For example, the chemical law of definite proportions for compounds is a model or theory developed by the "scientific method." As I recall mercury oxide was formed and decomposed to test this sort of fixed relationship between Hg and O2 etc. A relative weight scale of the atoms developed, etc.

Calorimetric measurements and the scientific method lead to the false Phlogiston model, which quantatively worked very well for many years. Fire made material more finely divided and thus could not hold as much phlogiston as a solid log could, so some heat / phlogiston escaped to take up residence in other material etc. The concentration of phlogiston would always decrease, if change was possible. (Heat flows for hotter to colder object, in more modern terms.) This all worked well, and quantatively until Lord Kelvin was in charge of a factory making cannons. - The workers (not by scientific method) knew that the boring of the barrel was facilitated by some "cutting oil" and water poured in occasionally to keep the drill bit cool. Kelvin new about phlogiston and used the scientific method's prediction and testing aspects as well was a good observer. "Where the hell is the phlogiston coming from to keep evaporating that water?" he must have asked himself. Perhaps work can make phlogiston he then thought. If true, then a certain amount of work should make a certain amount of phlogiston. Lets test that model /idea/ hypothesis by quantative measurement. He did and found it took about 4 joules of work to make a calorie of phlogiston (4.186, if memory serves me well) Thus the amount of phlogiston in the universe was not, as previous thought, a fixed quantity. Slowly it was recognized that there was really no evidence for the existence of phlogiston - heat was just another form of energy. That is the scientific method in action. The workers’ knowledge about cutting oil and cooling water is not. That is only accumulated experience, like fire is hot and burns.

SUMMARY: The "scientific method" is a relatively recent advance of mankind, which has greatly accelerated his power over things that happen in the world. It remains to be seen, whether or not this is a curse on almost all living things, including man. If one takes an evolutionary time scale, my money / bet is on it being a "curse," but I tend to see black clouds, and prepare for their storm, if possible, and then be happy when the sun shines instead.

 

[SnakeLord]

Much hunting behavior is instinctive. Watch kittens at play long before their momma has had a chance to demonstrate hunting techniques.

Most certainly, the issue here comes in the form of trying to equate instinct to 'belief'.

Children who have never lived in an environment where fear of predators was taught "believe" that a large animal with both eyes pointed forward is going to eat them, whereas one with eyes on the side of its head is a prey animal that might accidentally step on them but is not going to hunt them.

Is there source data for this? My child has never thought her large pet dog is going to eat her, absolutely regardless to the positioning of its eyes. Nor has she ever thought anything is going to step on her. So where does this data come from?

There is no conflict between the words "instinct" and "belief."

There most certainly is and that is clearly where the issue lies. The first relates to something done 'automatically' because repeated testing constantly yields the same result vs the notion that something is true without that testing.

Jung and especially his star pupils, perhaps most notably Joseph Campbell, have studied the religious (and other) motifs of peoples who have no chain of communication for fifteen thousand years or more, and thus no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight, at a time when they would have to pass them down orally. Yet the same ones appear with great consistency from South America to Africa to Europe to Australia

Let me pull out a couple of phrases:

1) no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight

2) Yet the same ones appear

Your usage and context of "straight" seems to imply that the stories remain exact but that's clearly and undeniably not the case. People have changed, places have changed, gods have changed, circumstances have changed, etc etc which, I must be frank, does not mean a story has been kept "straight" or is the "same" - but indeed has suffered from Chinese whispers as any oral story tends to do over time, (written too for that matter). It is pertinent to state that stories will be handed on from person to person and thus account for similar tales across the globe. From trade routes, nomads, etc etc.

It's harder to talk an individual or a community out of an archetypal instinctive belief for which they have no evidence, than one that they have been taught logically.

Any specific examples or sources for this? No disrespect but you haven't even established that these beliefs are instinctive as opposed to taught yet. But let's look at what we do have:

1) We do not see untaught children espousing belief in gods of any kind.

2) We do not see untaught children instinctively praying to some such entity.

3) We do not see untaught children instinctively doing any other religious belief based things.

We see none of that at all. There is nothing to suggest that humans have an instinctive belief in gods but plenty to suggest that humans do have the ability to be imaginative and to share/borrow stories. I've been on this planet for a few decades now and still and never have had any belief in gods of any kind, (even though people have tried their best to indoctrinate me). Of course that might not be true if I had have been born 5,000 years ago but is that because I lack this claimed instinct or because 5,000 years ago they had no answers to any of the questions humans might ultimately come to ask?

That underneath the culture-specific codifications that dressed up ancient religions, they all had the same fundamental beliefs.

Not really, no, and it's somewhat corrupt to try and dismiss the extreme multitude of differences in such fashion when trying to argue that these things are "the same". However, perhaps it is wiser considering what kind of questions people, (ancient and modern), would ask and look for some similarity there instead.

All of the ancient polytheistic peoples had the same pantheon with different names.

That cultures borrow from others is not argued.

 

[Billy T]

... let's look at what we do have:

1) We do not see untaught children espousing belief in gods of any kind.
2) We do not see untaught children instinctively praying to some such entity.
3) We do not see untaught children instinctively doing any other religious belief based things.

We see none of that at all. There is nothing to suggest that humans have an instinctive belief in gods but plenty to suggest that humans do have the ability to be imaginative and to share/borrow stories. I've been on this planet for a few decades now and still and never have had any belief in gods of any kind, (even though people have tried their best to indoctrinate me). Of course that might not be true if I had have been born 5,000 years ago but is that because I lack this claimed instinct or because 5,000 years ago they had no answers to any of the questions humans might ultimately come to ask? ...

You make some good points, but 3 above may not be true:

Wife called me at work one day about noon to tell daughter's guinea pig had died, asking me what wife should do. I said: "Do nothing, let her do what she wants till I get home." Five or 6 year old daughter (I forget exact age.) put it in shoe box with soft rag blanket and some of its food. Then spent couple of hours decorating INSIDE of box lid with crayons. Next she decided to supplement the dry pellets with some lettuce leaves and picked some clover from yard spot it had played in for it by time I got home.

She had never seen or heard of any funeral procedures (I think) AND HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THERE WAS AN "AFTER LIFE" IN HEAVEN, ETC. as neither wife nor I believed that. I explained we would need to go to woods and bury it. She immediately accepted that plan, but wanted to have her best friend participate. (She clearly understood it was dead, not just sleeping, would never to run around in it cage wheel again, etc.) So we three buried it, and fearing that she might find hole later or worse, see dogs digging it up, I made my only suggestion: "Go get some get some rocks from the (near by) creek to cover him up with so no dogs dig him up." We were filling in the hole and I was spreading leaves over to hide the exposed dirt when some also young boy entered the woods. I suggested we leave the area before they come near. She agreed and, skipping hand-in-hand with friend, we left the woods. Reason I remember this well is as when we stopped at the creek to cross, Daughter said:
"That was fun. Can we dig him up and do it again tomorrow?"

 

[BeHereNow]

BHN The belief system decides what is evidence.
Snakelord Evidence at it's basic is the repeated testing and the 'confidence', (not belief), that the same result will continue to occur.

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true. All things predicted come to pass. All warnings are realized. It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.

This is the way of all belief systems.
The evidence is accepted, and supports the belief system, which validates evidence.

This demonstrates my point that the belief system determines what is acceptable evidence.

I will not deny that the two go hand in hand. If certain evidence builds extreme confidence in a young mind, a particular belief system might follow. As the belief system develops, it further supports the acceptable evidence.

snakelord My apologies, I don't quite get what you mean by 'find'. One can find models *trying* to compete with scientific 'understanding' all over the place. For instance, there is one such model that claims that everything was created by the noodly appendage of a rather large flying spaghetti monster. At what stage would you suggest this 'model' be given real consideration? At the claim stage or at the evidence stage?

Satire can hardly be considered competetion. This model has an insignificant number of actual supporters, and we both know it.

If we say we will accept models which have supporting evidence, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence. If one wants to eliminate all possible competition, with the slightest effort, then we will use the evidence provided by the one looking for completion. If all completion must pass my test, we have no competition to worry about.
If it passes all of my tests, it is my system.

It is the nature of completion that other things are offered, considered and of importance.
The completion should be able to provide its own evidence, conducted by using its own tests. I cannot see that it can be any other way.

But, given my point that we are a species that gathers information by using evidence as opposed to "belief", it cannot be considered valid, or if you prefer, 'real' until it satisfies that criteria, because that is how humans work and have done since they were born.

Your ideas seem to assume that evidence is universal, and it certainly is not.

We had a brief decision about the moral conduct in handling and respecting the remains of indigenous peoples.
Is there any evidence science can provide that says special treatment is called for?
The spiritual truths (you may call them beliefs, since you do not agree with them) of the descendents can provide overwhelming evidence that great respect is necessary, movement is not allowed, if their belief system is to be respected, and their evidence is to have merit.

You assume evidence is what you want it to be.
Do I have it wrong?

I find the issue here most likely to be one of the difference between 'belief' and 'level of confidence based upon the evidence'.

With due respect, this statement carries little meaning, because for you, evidence is only what your belief system accepts.

What is fairy tales to some, is a truth worth death, for others.
Someone says “I have evidence here that is irrefutable, and cannot be denied.”, and the reply comes back, “Some 4000 year old book, you must be kidding.”
Someome’s belief system will tell them how much truth is in each statement, based on the evidence they accept.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fraggle Rocker And it is. For 500 years the scientific method has been tested and peer-reviewed. During that time it has uncovered an enormous number of truths about the way the universe works. These truths have enriched our lives with safer living conditions, lower infant mortality, closer communication with distant loved ones, and a host of improvements that are universally welcomed. During that same time religion has uncovered nothing, and in fact many of its most treasured hypotheses are steadily disproven.

I am no supporter of organized religion, so I have a hard time disagreeing with what you write.
Still, there is a “spiritual” (not the supernatural kind) side of man that gives truth science has no interest in.
The trained mind is capable of feats science does not understand except in a very broad way. It is capable of feats science cannot duplicate.

I have no interest in a ‘choose this or that’ discussion.
My point is, there are ways of knowing that science is not interested in, and not capable of. Non-rational processes that directly reveal truths, particularly about mankind. Like science, some of it is junk, and some of it has value.
Science gives much truth, but not all of it.

The belief that underlies science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

This is based on premises that have no evidence, except that derived from the system itself. We both know the bible can prove the bible inside out. We know that systems that are based solely on assumptions and evidence of the system itself, are fallacious.

What is the convincing evidence it is a closed system? I say this is a convenient assumption, with little supporting evidence (conjecture is not evidence, is it?).

What is the evidence that all true theories will be derived from logically based empirical observation?
I say your answers to these questions will be logically fallacious.

One of the principles that underlies the scientific method is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to treat them with respect." The stereotypical theist claim that we're all thinking of is something like, "Science is wrong and we will do better to follow the advice of a book that is a compendium of Stone Age folklore." This is an extraordinary claim because it contradicts the entire canon of science, which has been painstakingly built up for centuries, has been tested continuously, and is robust enough to withstand the occasional falsification of a theory. This claim must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence or we indeed have no obligation to treat it with respect.

Again you and I share many views, but let me find the differences.

The responding stereotypical atheist claim is “If Science cannot support it, it has no value as truth.”
On the surface is the obvious objection that there is a whole universe of truth out there and science has not a shred of evidence to reveal it.
Also, it is no secret that sometimes science gets it wrong.

Science itself has very limited interests, and sees no benefit is exploring what might be called the spiritual side of mankind.


Among indigenous peoples there is a nearly universal respect for the earth that is nearly absent in atheistic science (as opposed to other types of science). Is this perceived connection real, or imaginary. As far as I know, there is no scientific study to even try to answer questions such as these. These types of questions have the potential for being much more important than ‘Is hair spray killing the planet?’.

I have no objection to a scientific model being the predominant belief system of society.
I believe we do ourselves a grave injustice if the science model stifles all competing models.
There is bad science, and there is bad religion (I prefere spiritual beliefs rather than the loaded term religion).
Give me the best of both.

 

[Billy T]

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. ... It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.

Problem with this assertion is that for it to be true, some very solid "facts" and "Physical laws" discovered by science must be violated. For example, the writers of the bible could and did claim the sun stood still for some hours until a battle could be concluded, without any conflicts within their belief system. Most now know, with about as much certainty as is ever possible, that the sun appearing to rise and set is the consequence of the huge amount of angular momentum stored in the Earth. More generally, the bible is full of accounts where science is contradicted, called "miracles"

The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles.

Thus, you can only supplement your scientific beliefs with others which are not testable with the scientific method. The number of such beliefs is probably infinite, but many, such as the sun standing still, are becoming impossible to reconcile with the discoveries of science. Of necessity, "religious beliefs" must deal only with unobservable, if the fundamental basis of the scientific method is believed. You may not logically have your cake and eat it too.

...there is a “spiritual” (not the supernatural kind) side of man that gives truth science has no interest in. ... Non-rational processes that directly reveal truths, particularly about mankind. Like science, some of it is junk, and some of it has value. Science gives much truth, but not all of it. ...

I think truth is not subject to my beliefs about it. Science can never be certain it has discovered "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" we agree, but the same "truth" is normally believed by all who find truth by the scientific method. Admittedly at times later it was learned that all were wrong, so number of believers is not important for knowing truth.

This contrast sharply with the "truths" non-rational processes directly reveal. In fact, there is a strong tendency, at least historically, for all of these “truths” to fractionate into mutually contradicting versions. For example, is "true Christian baptism" achieved by a few drops of water, or only via total emersion? This is why I cannot call any one of the thousands of mutually contradictory versions a "truth" yet do recognize that man does have an innate drive to be "religious" or "in awe" of the things he sees especially when he does not understand them scientifically. In many ways, science has shown just how much more than the writers of the bible, etc. does exist to feel this Awe about. In that sense, science is supporting that version of religion, while exposing the nonsense of "truths" that comes from sources like the bible.

 

[SnakeLord]

Wife called me at work one day about noon to tell daughter's guinea pig had died, asking me what wife should do...

This is an interesting point and one I decided to talk to my wife about. Our house is, and always has been, like a zoo and my children have on occasion faced the death of some of those animals. The question is, and something my wife seemingly agrees with me upon, is whether they understand 'death' or get upset over and understand that they are not going to see the animal again? I have seen many children cry as passionately over a lost toy as they do a lost dog. My daughter cried as much as when our cat died as she did when the neighbours moved. So I ask whether that is understanding of 'death', (something my wife claims is not the case from her experiences with our own children), or whether it's merely a learnt understanding of what happens when one takes away or loses a liked possession. I think, although I could be wrong, that the latter would be more supportable.

Reason I remember this well is as when we stopped at the creek to cross, Daughter said "That was fun. Can we dig him up and do it again tomorrow?"

Doesn't this ultimately hint at a lack of understanding of death?

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true.

Test what? Do note I am not specifically disagreeing with you, I am simply asking. What is tested exactly and how?

Do note that those christians that claim jesus or god speaks to them are doing no testing. Have they tested to see if that voice is but a delusion? If so, how?

All things predicted come to pass.

Really? Like what? Any honest theist would admit that what.. 90% of their prayers never come true.. but they simply dismiss that evidence and claim that their god knows whats best and works in funny ways.

This demonstrates my point that the belief system determines what is acceptable evidence.

In the theist belief system, yes.

Satire can hardly be considered competetion. This model has an insignificant number of actual supporters, and we both know it.

1) You have absolutely no position to be claiming it as not true because the same can be said of anything you would regard as competition, (i.e anything that has a competing view).

2) Once again it needs to be stated quite clearly that something does not become true or 'more true' the more people that believe it is. It could have one follower and be true or a billion followers and false.

If we say we will accept models which have supporting evidence, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence.

That's where science comes into play. Without going too much into it, testability is a big part of it.

It is the nature of completion that other things are offered, considered and of
importance.

But to be frank, "god did it" offers nothing. And, if that is what is offered, other than 5 seconds consideration, what is it worth? Can it be tested? Can you ask this being to give you a tour of the creation factory?

The completion should be able to provide its own evidence, conducted by using its own tests

"Evolution isn't true, so sayeth the evidence gathered from my ouija board"? Do me a lemon.

Your ideas seem to assume that evidence is universal, and it certainly is not.

Really? Care to cite some examples of peoples that do not use evidence as a means with which to learn things?

We had a brief decision about the moral conduct in handling and respecting the remains of indigenous peoples.Is there any evidence science can provide that says special treatment is called for?

Many studies and tests could be done to determine the emotional impact of handling bones disrespectfully, the damage done to bones handled incorrectly, the existence of morals and reasons for them, how to move the remains, why they need moving etc etc and so on and so forth all without stating "[a] god did it". So yes, basically.

You assume evidence is what you want it to be.
Do I have it wrong?

Absolutely not. I am more than happy for the evidence to show that I am wrong or that ideas need to be ammended etc, but I do absolutely demand that there be some evidence. Feel free to offer some criteria of what evidence should entail, but do not be fooled into thinking that "have faith buddy" is an acceptable example.

With due respect, this statement carries little meaning, because for you, evidence is only what your belief system accepts.

Not really, no. It is the method that I, every person I know and every child I have observed uses to come to conclusions. Testability is of massive importance. However, feel free to express the value that whatever it is you espouse actually has to anything. Can you explain how "I have a feeling", or "I heard a voice in my head tell me so" can be
considered as viable evidence of anything?

What is fairy tales to some, is a truth worth death, for others.

That is quite undeniable, but a feeling someone has is not evidence of anything other than their emotional state and personal feelings. Nothing more.

 

[BeHereNow]

Billy T The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles.

Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events. I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.
By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.

Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs.
My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.

Two different arguments. You have switched horses.
Now if you care to argue that Christians do not have the beliefs I describe, we will be back on track.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Snakelord

Your coments take the same direction as Billy T.

I am more than happy for the evidence to show that I am wrong or that ideas need to be ammended etc, but I do absolutely demand that there be some evidence. Feel free to offer some criteria of what evidence should entail, but do not be fooled into thinking that "have faith buddy" is an acceptable example.
Not really, no. It is the method that I, every person I know and every child I have observed uses to come to conclusions. Testability is of massive importance. However, feel free to express the value that whatever it is you espouse actually has to anything. Can you explain how "I have a feeling", or "I heard a voice in my head tell me so" can be considered as viable evidence of anything?

For some people “have faith biddy”, is evidence. You do not accept it. That is my point.

How naive are you?
Do you not believe me if I tell you some people hold the bible in their hand and say “Here is all of the evidence I need”.
Do you believe I am trying to trick you?
Must I pull posts from other threads or boards to convince you. Surely you know what I say is true.

You want me to justify their basis for accepting the bible, and the supernatural. The justification is not the issue. I say many such people have such beliefs. If you want to argue that they do not have such beliefs, present your case.

If you want to argue that you do not accept such evidence, you will be making my point for me.

These issues of testability, your comments baffle me.
It seems no one has ever said to you “Prayer works, I know because. . . . “
I have had these words spoken to me, lets just say tens of thousands of times, and be conservative.

Surely you believe as I do, that these people have these beliefs. You only wish to show they are incorrect.

You wish to defend your belief system, because it has real evidence. Evidence you will accept. You will accept any real evidence, and of course that is evidence that conforms to your belief system.
If my aunt says “God spoke to me.”, you say fine, I will accept that evidence, all we have to do is subject the event to some scientific tests and I will accept it.
Your conditions, get it.
She says “Evolution, fine I will accept it. Just show me in the bible where it says so, and I will accept it.”
Her evidence, get it?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Everyone believes their belief system is correct, and is based on convincing evidence.

Everyone believes their belief sysetem is based on real evidence.

It naturally follows that everyone believes opposing belief systems are mistaken.

These are truisms. There is no argument against these statements.
Or so I would argue.

~ ~ ~ ~

Here is an interesting question that never occured to me before.

Would it be highly desirable for everyone to have the same belief system?
Not miniscule the same, slight differences of course.
Maybe better worded as "Would it be desirable for everyone to accept the same evidence for truth?"
Would this be a good and desirable thing?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Not only that their belief system is correct
but that the relevence
or liklihood of what others believe is true
can be resolved using their own methods.

One thing this does is rule out a variety of correct interpretations of a phenomenon.
Another is it rules out that several different things are possible in what seems like or are single conditions.
Another is that an explanation that works is an explanation that proves a specific metaphysics is universal and correct, ruling out others.

Few consider that beliefs may have a creative role in what happens. Or to put this another way, that one's beliefs localize one in a specific metaphysics. (note: beliefs are not all conscious and are deeply ingrained in the unconscious. It is not a matter of changing the words in one's head.)

Last point: both sides posit certain phenomena as miracles. The religious assume they are real. The scientists assume they are unreal. That they are natural but as yet not able to be tracked by current technology, interest or ingenuity is generally set aside.

Every era confuses its knowledge with final knowledge, even when it knows better.

 

[BeHereNow]

sowhatifit'sdark

I wish I could have said it so well myself.

 

[SnakeLord]

For some people “have faith biddy”, is evidence. You do not accept it. That is my point.

The point is, whether they accept it as 'evidence' or a large green onion doesn't detract from the fact that it isn't evidence. The difference is that evidence points at what is, faith and belief point at what might be, or want we want to be.

Next time you're near a road close your eyes, say "have faith buddy" and see how far that gets you. By it's very nature, 'faith' entails no evidence gathering. That's not to say it is ultimately wrong, maybe the road happens to be devoid of cars at that moment, but that it is not evidence is the fact of the matter.

How naive are you?
Do you not believe me if I tell you some people hold the bible in their hand and say “Here is all of the evidence I need”.

Of course they do, but that is not the issue. To go back to one of my earlier statements that I have said a couple of times now:

"The difference is that evidence shows us what is, (to the best of it's ability, it is never an absolute), while 'belief' merely shows us what might be. One draws conclusions based upon what it wants to be true or what might be true whereas the other draws conclusions, (and levels of confidence), based upon what is shown to be true."

Someone can believe in something, for instance a god, because they want comfort or because they are convinced by the words in a book, but that can never be qualified as "evidence". It is belief and faith and that is the difference between sipping your tea and just pouring it down your throat. One is a belief or faith, the other is an example of evidence gathering.

These issues of testability, your comments baffle me.
It seems no one has ever said to you “Prayer works, I know because. . . . “
I have had these words spoken to me, lets just say tens of thousands of times, and be conservative.

Certainly. I have actually won £20 on a scratchcard when I specifically used a coin picked up off the floor. Now, one could say that's adequate testing to say that coins found on the floor are lucky coins but they would be a fool. Now let's be honest here, has anyone ever claiming that a prayer has been answered also claimed that it works all the time? How many times a day or week does this person pray and what is the success rate? I'd be literally amazed if it was anything greater than 1% of all prayers, (and I'm being generous). If they were to examine the evidence it would be hard not to recognise the probability that they just got lucky once or twice, but no - they make continual excuses to try and keep that which has no evidence alive in their mind. "Sometimes god says yes, sometimes later, and sometimes no, he knows what's best", but don't realise that the very same thing can be said of my tea cup, (I mention tea a lot, I'm English), and will undoubtedly have the same percent success rate.

That they accept their own claims and beliefs as real is fine, but it cannot be confused as 'evidence'. Belief, as you keep mentioning, yes.. evidence based.. no.

If my aunt says “God spoke to me.”, you say fine, I will accept that evidence, all we have to do is subject the event to some scientific tests and I will accept it.
Your conditions, get it.

Not my conditions, that's what 'evidence' entails.. testing. If I accept it without that testing then that's also fine, but we'd have to find a word other than 'evidence' to use. "I have faith that what you say is true", for example.

She says “Evolution, fine I will accept it. Just show me in the bible where it says so, and I will accept it.”
Her evidence, get it?

No, her "faith" or willingness to believe without evidence.

Look, you can see a guy playing tennis and say he's playing football but that does not detract from the fact that he isn't playing football regardless to what you want to call it.

 

[Billy T]

Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events. I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.
By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.

Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs.
My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.

Two different arguments. You have switched horses.
Now if you care to argue that Christians do not have the beliefs I describe, we will be back on track.

You must have a reading (or thinking) difficulty.
Here is what you posted:

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true. All things predicted come to pass. All warnings are realized. It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.

I certainly agree that the followers of most religious belief system, consider them "true" with conveniencing (if somewhat circular) evidence of that truth. It was your claim, made bold above, the Christian belief:

"...is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future."

That I objected to by noting that not even within the Christians is there agreement as to any unique truth. - Illustrating with fact some Christians think a few drops of water can be a "true baptism" and others believe that false as total emersion is required.

Again, truth is truth - it cannot be a thousand different mutually contradictive beliefs, regardless of how convinced some of the followers of one of the contradictory variations are.

With your recent post, it is you who have "switched horses" I continue to note that the truth is unique, perhaps unknown, but certain not thousands of mutually contradictions.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events.

Science only studies natural events because only natural events can be studied. The basic premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

A supernatural universe, external to the natural universe, is by definition unavailable for observation. In addition, although this is perhaps not mandatory in theory, in practice the supernatural universes postulated by the most commonly encountered religions are not bound by the rules of logic. Everything from cause and effect to probability theory to conservation of energy and mass to infinity as an absolute limit--even the sheer abstractions of syllogism, fallacy, induction, deduction, arithmetic and geometry, which are not derived from observation but pure reason--are suspended in the supernatural universe of gods and miracles.

We cannot study a supernatural universe, but we can take the first step toward that study by studying the probability of the existence of a supernatural universe. If that probability is non-zero, then we must devise a way to study the supernatural universe itself. However, that probability is indeed zero. Not because it defies empirical observed evidence, which always leaves at least a tiny chance of being contradicted, but because it defies reason, the only universal truth.

I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.

As noted, we have more to base our rejection on than lack of evidence: lack of reason, which is far more damning because unlike evidence it is absolute. Nonetheless we have even more. We have five hundred years of evidence of the validity of the scientific method. It has been tested and peer-reviewed intensively since the end of the Dark Ages, and it has never been falsified. For five hundred years the scientific method has steadily unlocked the secrets of the natural universe. Occasionally one of its theories is falsified, but the scientific method allows for self-correction of its canon so long as the falsifications occur rarely enough that the canon itself does not collapse.

On the other hand, during those five hundred years the "religious method" of scholarship has unlocked no secrets of the natural universe. In fact many of its basic premises--its own canon--have been falsified to the point that it is a shadow of its former self. An increasing portion of religious people have simply adapted to this and restrict their religious discourse to things philosophical that don't attempt to explain the natural world, or at least don't try to gainsay science. The supernatural in their paradigm is a universe of metaphor and they find that their fables work just as well or better as metaphors than they did as increasingly laughable accounts of history.

By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.

Not exactly. If there is no evidence of a supernatural event it is beyond the domain of examination. But if in addition the account of the event violates the abstract rules of reason which are not artifacts of the natural universe but simply universal truths, then the probability of the event having occurred becomes zero. At this point it is no longer an "event" at all, but something else, such as a metaphor, a fairytale or just a really good story that gets us thinking. These things are the province of literature and psychology, not physical science.

Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs. My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.

I can't really pick up somebody else's argument and I never exactly said that. However I have said that people are free to believe whatever they want, even if there's no evidence to support it and now, in light of my previous argument, even if it is illogical and therefore, to use blunt terminology, "downright stupid." And I was criticized as being condescending. Duh! If I said they don't have the right to believe something that's just plain stupid, what would you have called me then, some sort of Nazi? As an American I understand the reason that freedom of religion must be upheld regardless of the problems it causes, because suppression will invariably cause worse problems. I'm a pacifist so I'm not going to go so far as to say that I will defend to the death somebody's right to believe in an unobservable, illogical irrational universe, but I will proudly defend that right in verbal arguments and have done so many times. That's not the same as defending the belief itself, and if that's condescension then I'm guilty but it's far better than being guilty of the only alternative available to me as a rational person, which is to deny that right.

Would it be highly desirable for everyone to have the same belief system? Not miniscule the same, slight differences of course. Maybe better worded as "Would it be desirable for everyone to accept the same evidence for truth?" Would this be a good and desirable thing?

Interesting question. I doubt that there's any way to learn the answer except through experience. As I've said before, it may be twelve thousand more years before the human race finally frees itself from religion. So this could be a really long wait.

 

[Billy T]

It is a pleasure to read your well written posts. Thank you for them, especially the longer ones.

...The basic premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

Much more complete, and a positive definition compared to my simple, but negative summary:
"The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles."

Always better to state what something is, rather than what it is not, when defining something; however, in this thread especially, I do like "belief" better than "premise" as it more honestly admits that to some extent even science is "faith based," at least initially - before zillions of confirmations without even one exception. Are you by any chance a lawyer?

BTW, I think it wise that you allowed for the theories to be explicit functions of time. I.e. the "physical laws" that the observables follow need not have always been the same, but the evidence available in the spectra of distant stars and supernova, seems to indicate that the observables are still following the same "rules" as they did 10 or more billion years ago. This suggesting that any intervening "God" died or went away a long time ago.

A supernatural universe, external to the natural universe, is by definition unavailable for observation. In addition, although this is perhaps not mandatory in theory, in practice the supernatural universes postulated by the most commonly encountered religions are not bound by the rules of logic. ....
We cannot study a supernatural universe, but we can take the first step toward that study by studying the probability of the existence of a supernatural universe. If that probability is non-zero, then we must devise a way to study the supernatural universe itself. However, that probability is indeed zero. Not because it defies empirical observed evidence, which always leaves at least a tiny chance of being contradicted, but because it defies reason, the only universal truth. As noted, we have more to base our rejection on than lack of evidence: lack of reason, which is far more damning because unlike evidence it is absolute.

The first part above wisely allows for a "rule governed" or rational supernatural universe, but one not accessible to us. The second, and remainder of your post, I believe, is correct only for the logically inconsistent supernatural universe. Its "lack of reason" is thus by assumption. For example, perhaps "external" to our universe there is some "super space" in which our "bubble of space time" is growing along with other universes, perhaps even some ones will different or even highly dynamic "governing laws" so that we would consider it to be filled with "miracles," if we could somehow be magically transported into it. I am not suggesting this is the case, only noting that this "supper space" with other universes seems to not be impossible or illogical.

Everything from cause and effect to probability theory to conservation of energy and mass to infinity as an absolute limit--even the sheer abstractions of syllogism, fallacy, induction, deduction, arithmetic and geometry, which are not derived from observation but pure reason--are suspended in the supernatural universe of gods and miracles.

This text, now slightly displaced, reminded me of dreams. The "logic" of dreams is very relaxed, especially WRT time. You can, for example be teaching your young father how to ride a bike, but there are rules that are followed even in dreams. (They have been studied. - Only one I remember just now is there can only be one of you in the dream. E.g. you cannot be teaching yourself to ride a bike.)

No one knows why most animals sleep. The "too consolidate / clean up memory" POV advanced especially by Sr. F. Crick is gaining ground, but was suggested earlier by people working with what I prefer to call "connection computers," but I lost that battle long ago so you know them as "neural networks," which they definitely are not. I have forgotten many other ideas I have had as to why we sleep. One that makes a lot of evolutionary sense to me is: “To think outside the box.” Many times, I have gone to sleep pondering some "insoluble problem" and awaken the next day with a new way to avoid some "road block" in my prior day’s thoughts. Ironically, "Why we sleep?" is one of the more common "insoluble problems" I ponder while falling asleep.

I quit here as clearly drifting way off thread. Thanks again for another well developed text.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BeHereNow,

We have a common goal: To know, realize or understand, objective reality.

I agree to a point, but I doubt that objective reality can be realised or understood, in its entirety, at least within our individual lifetimes, and such a pursuit could possibly be a waste of time.

Your approach is what I would call the scientific approach. Information or data passes through a series of ‘truth filters’, progressing up a defined path towards pure objectivity, what we can call a correct knowledge and understanding.

It is partly scientific, which is why I am interested in science. I believe we gain knowledge though other avenues, such as philosophy, art, and religion.

The problem is, this goal is never reached, it is at best, extremely close, but never actually there.

It depends what your goal is.

Science is a wonderful thing, and in many endeavors, it is without equal.

It is without equal in its own field, and very important in gaining information out the material world.

But it never gives us proof, never gives us truth. It brings us to the edge, and we have to jump over, or stagnate. If we jump over, we may land at various points.

I believe that is because it is a part of something, not the thing itself.
I don't think truth is something you can know, and still remain the same person, as such. I think truth is your position, how you percieve things.
How many times have you thought something was really difficult, only to find out was easy all the time. It was how you looked at it. As a musician, I come face to face with that understanding on a regular basis. But nevertheless it becomes an important thing to understand, in your everyday life, because it teaches you how to look at certain situations. This type of knowledge will not be found in any science book, but is most profound.

I am not sure what you mean by “correct”. It may be objectivity, or it may be an ideal subjectivity, relating to mankind’s relationship with it. I do not think it matters much.

By "correct" I mean, it has happened, therefore it must have come about, and there had to be some kind of order to get to this stage. However it came about, is the "correct" explanation of it.

Yes, your usage of belief fits well in a scientific model.
For myself, it doesn’t fit well with my beliefs.

I like the way you see things, you seem honest and intelligent.

Jan.