All science is like that. No scientific claim can be made to having an 'absolute truth'. If you're going to define agnosticism like that, you're going to be including many self-described atheists in your definition. In fact, the only atheists left would be those who don't believe in god based entirely on faith that it doesn't exist.Azih said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Teaching evolution to young Christian skeptics
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
- Status
Well I think you should inform all of the Christains who do think they get their morals form the bible. As well as those who repeat the bible's teachings to damn other people (eg. homosexuals); those who say the bible is the word of God and must be abided by. This isn't a minority I'm talking about.onipex said:
It's all very well to claim what "Christianity is"...I don't pretend to know, since there are so many views on the matter from Christains themselves that I think you'd find it very hard to find every Christain agreeing - and really, how could they agree? All they have to inform them is a non-material figure who they can't communicate with, and a very old book that can have a number of interpretations.
If you are someone who doesn't think your morality comes from the bible, then how about - "there would be no morality without God"? I find that statement just as problematic.
If they are a Biologist and Scientist - all their conclusions should be based on Science. If they "believe" in Creationism, but have no evidence or reasoning to back it up - then their conclusion that evolution is false and creationism is true is not credible. Therefore, there are no credible Biologists who believe in Creationism.TheExodu5 said:
If they don't use the scientific method to reach their conclusion, they are not a credible scientist. Yes there are lots of religious scientists...but most don't mix the two, or they simply place God to somewhere science hasn't touched yet (eg. before the big bang.)
Does any scientist say evolution is 100% infallible? I don't think they do. The only "facts" in science are LAWS. Hell, there was, a what, 5million to 1 chance the collider in France would produce a black hole and kill us all? To scientists that means it's "impossible", but they just can't say it's 100% impossible, there is always a chance (unless it goes against a law)...hence why the public got hyperbollic.TheExodu5 said:
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Azih said:
Bad analogy.
Non-belief in gods is a position about reality. Believing in Allah is also a position about reality. Your analogy fails because acknowledging that guava is the most nutritious fruit is a position about reality, but deciding to eat a Snickers bar isn't a position about reality.
My analogy works because believing that apples are the most nutritious fruits is a position about reality, just like believing in Allah.
What the scenario you propose is analogous to is an atheist who chooses to go through the motions of praying to Allah (for a reason that obviously isn't that he believes in Allah).
No, that's completely wrong. Belief that is based only on knowledge (like mine) is easy to change, because it changes with the evidence. Right now I am certain that there is no dragon in my garage, however if I go look in there right now and see a dragon, my belief will change accordingly. It is because the standards of knowledge are rigorous that a true skeptic will be forced to change his beliefs if new evidence comes to light.
On the other hand, someone whose beliefs are disconnected from evidence is much less likely to change his mind, precisely because his standards of belief are so loose. Because you're not constrained by the evidence, you can believe whatever you like; if your beliefs change, it will only be because you feel like believing something else, not because you've learned something new about objective reality. At most, learning something new might 'inspire' you to change your beliefs, but it won't force you to; if you want to stick to your old dogma, you will.
In any event, while I've humored you thus far, I deny that there is a difference between believing something and being convinced that you know something. It's true that theists have different standards for their religious beliefs than they do for the rest of their beliefs, and in an effort to confuse matters they label their unsupported beliefs "beliefs", and their supported beliefs "knowledge". But that's just obscurantism. In reality, theists are convinced that they know that God exists; some of them acknowledge that there's no evidence for God, but they think they know anyway. If they didn't think they knew, they wouldn't act as if they did: They wouldn't pray, they wouldn't follow a moral code that might otherwise be repugnant to them, and so on.
If you think I'm wrong, remember the "invisible dragon in my garage" analogy. Explain to me what it means to say that you don't know if there's an invisible dragon in my garage, but you believe it anyway. If you categorically refuse to go in my garage for fear of being eaten alive, is it really true that you are not convinced that you know there's a dragon in there?
To be extremely dismissive of a claim EQUALS believing that it's false.
I am extremely dismissive of the claim that Japanese people are aliens in disguise. I am extremely dismissive of the claim that Elvis Presley is still alive. I am extremely dismissive of the claim that what looks like and feels like a keyboard in front of me right now is actually a porcupine. I am extremely dismissive of the claim that Allah exists.
Now, when I'm talking about being "agnostic" I mean believing that there is an approximately 50/50 chance that something is true. However if by "agnostic" you mean that you acknowledge that there is an incredibly tiny possibility that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, that Japanese people are aliens, that Elvis is still alive, and that you are typing on a porcupine, then I'm agnostic about all those things as well. We all are. It's not logically possible to NOT be agnostic (in that sense) about anything except our own existences. It is therefore meaningless (or pedantic) to say that you are agnostic about something in that sense of the word. You believe and you know that there is no dragon in my garage, as do I, as did Carl Sagan.
Slavik81 said:
That's true, but it's not something that's true only of science. It's true of any kind of inquiry done by human beings (or even by self-aware aliens or AIs). Even the claim that you are reading PhlegmMaster's post on neoGAF right now is not an 'absolute truth'. There is a small possibility that it's false and if you're rational you should be 'agnostic' (in Azih's sense of the word, not in mine) about it. But if you're not a pedant, you'll just say (and believe, and know) that you really are reading my post on neoGAF.
PhlegmMaster said:
Yes, and doesn't Dawkins claim he is at around 90/10 in favour of there being no God? That doesn't make him agnostic, that makes him atheist. Dawkins say is "agnostic" in the sense that he doesn't rule out the existence of God, but since there's no evidence and it would be very disingeious for his position - it would be wrong to call himself agnostic.
I personally think there are a number of arguments that rule out the existence of God as not only self-defeating, but impossible. Then again, these arguments are all based in Metaphysics. And unlike Science, I can't say it's true, I can only say it's the best theory available as I have no emprical evidence. Thus, I'd put myself on the 90/10 scale as well.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
deepbrown said:
Dawkins is "almost certain" there is no God (by which he means the supernatural, interventionist designer of our universe). 99.999999/0.000001 is probably a more accurate number.
TheHeretic
Banned
deepbrown said:
Dawkins claims there isn't a God under a reasonable level of certainty. It isn't anywhere near 90/10, I have no idea where you got that from.
Dawkins on the probability of whether God exists:PhlegmMaster said:Dawkins is "almost certain" there is no God (by which he means the supernatural, interventionist designer of our universe). 99.999999/0.000001 is probably a more accurate number.
"Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist, 'I cannot know for certain but i think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
And again:
"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
PhlegmMaster
Banned
deepbrown said:
Yes...?
Sorry I'm going from his book The God Delusion. I interpreted his 1-7 scale as equal percentages. He says he's a 6, which upon memory I would place at 85/15 in favour of God not existing...but on second look it's just a numbering of different positions. His position is as above.TheHeretic said:
I'm just putting it for referencePhlegmMaster said:
RiZ III said:
How do you know what he was referring to, he didn't indicate either way. And since when do you need to be orthodox to be hive minded? You either follow the Korans teachings - don't eat pork, fast at Ramadan etc and be part of the hive-mind, or you don't follow Koran, but then I doubt he'd be labelling himself as a Muslim if that were the case.
And isn't Hadji just going to Mecca? See, I think "the hive-mind" for religious people is a lot bigger than they realise. You don't need to be speaking in tongues and flagellating yourself to be part of the hive-mind.
DubloSeven
Member
There's not one serious biologist alive that doesn't accept the theory of Evolution. Just as there's no serious cosmologist that doesn't believe in gravity or the big bang.TheExodu5 said:
It's my worldview , I've kinda got the edge as an authority on it. Analogies can only stretch so far, so the basic idea of being an agnostic theist isPhlegmMaster said:
1) holding the position it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not as it is not a falsifiable concept. (Agnostic)
2) Choosing to believe/have faith in god. (Theist)
The first does not at all support the second, but it does not contradict it either.
I just noted that 'If something that I know contradicts something I believe then I change what I believe', my beliefs *are* constrained by evidence.
If the something new I learn *contradicts* what I believe then it does force me to change my beliefs.
And that I will dispute with you, I am not using belief as a synonym for knowledge. If there is a confusion in terminology than let us replace wherever I used the word 'believe' with the phrase 'have faith in' to make it less ambiguous. (faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence)
I do not have faith that sticking my hand in a fire will hurt me because I know that it will hurt me. I do not have faith that if I go to sleep early I will be better rested tomorrow I know that is true.
On the other hand I do not know that if I gave my credit card number to online merchants I won't have my credit abused but I have faith that it won't.
Now if I start finding unauthorized transactions on a credit card that I only use for online purchases and has not been stolen then that faith will be very much changed based on new knowledge. Having faith in something and knowing something are two different things.
I do not know that God exists. I do not know if there is an afterlife. My position is that I will find out when I'm dead. I have faith that there is an afterlife but that is not the same thing.
I do not know if there is an invisible dragon in my garage but I do not believe there is one, and that is enough for me to go in there without fear. Lack of belief in something is not the same thing as believing it isn't true.
To be extremely dismissive of a claim EQUALS not believing it is true. Not believing it's true IS NOT THE SAME AS believing that it's false. Negation of belief is not belief of negation.
Proposition A 'I do not believe that there is a dragon in the garage'
is not the same as
Proposition B 'I believe there is no dragon in the garage'
Carl Sagan obviously *did not believe* in a theist god, and yet he required compelling evidence to *believe there is no* theist god.
Carl Sagan said:
Possibility does not figure into my definition of agnosticism at all. I deny that we are able to make any claim of knowledge as to whether undetectable dragons exist. Seeing as they are undetectable and all. That obviously does not preclude us from not believing they exist.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
And what about action? Christians often use the chair argument. I have faith that my chair will not break when I sit in it. But that faith is produced by a lifetime of knowledge and facts about chairs and the material used in them and my success rate with a particular chair. If I know absolutely nothing about chairs and sit in one for the first time in my life, how can I have faith in it? I really have no idea what it going to happen. If I'm really that ignorant about the subject, I might think that it would take me to another dimension. I try not to use analogies myself, but I think that our understanding of the universe is a lot like that.
The problem with religion is that it demands that we either sit or stand, no equivocating. If you admit that you know very little about the entire concept of a chair, then why sit in it, especially when that chair demands your mind and soul? The analogy ends there, but you get the point. I don't know what kind of beliefs you subscribe to. With Christianity they definitely pound the belief in that you have to devote your life to God. And so with that religion this is how it goes: either you claim to know that a God exists despite evidence, equivocate a little and give yourself over to a hunch, or you just don't bother with any of the more hardcore doctrines and compromise the belief. None of those sound particularly great.
My beliefs aren't binary either. Believing that there is a possibility doesn't throw the door wide open. I put my faith into different things based on evidence. Even arguments are sometimes based on faith. If my connection between all of these facts are kind of tenuous but ultimately sound, then it's not something that I need to champion because there's still a good chance that it's false. If my argument is solid, then I'll fight even harder for it because it's a solid thing to believe in. Faith doesn't give people license to believe in anything. What it does is allow us to make sound judgments when all of the facts aren't there or there isn't necessarily any truth to the matter. I don't care if people have faith in God. I do care, however, when it begins to seriously shape their lives. If the facts are...well...tenuous at best, then why let it rule you?
The problem with religion is that it demands that we either sit or stand, no equivocating. If you admit that you know very little about the entire concept of a chair, then why sit in it, especially when that chair demands your mind and soul? The analogy ends there, but you get the point. I don't know what kind of beliefs you subscribe to. With Christianity they definitely pound the belief in that you have to devote your life to God. And so with that religion this is how it goes: either you claim to know that a God exists despite evidence, equivocate a little and give yourself over to a hunch, or you just don't bother with any of the more hardcore doctrines and compromise the belief. None of those sound particularly great.
My beliefs aren't binary either. Believing that there is a possibility doesn't throw the door wide open. I put my faith into different things based on evidence. Even arguments are sometimes based on faith. If my connection between all of these facts are kind of tenuous but ultimately sound, then it's not something that I need to champion because there's still a good chance that it's false. If my argument is solid, then I'll fight even harder for it because it's a solid thing to believe in. Faith doesn't give people license to believe in anything. What it does is allow us to make sound judgments when all of the facts aren't there or there isn't necessarily any truth to the matter. I don't care if people have faith in God. I do care, however, when it begins to seriously shape their lives. If the facts are...well...tenuous at best, then why let it rule you?
TheHeretic
Banned
I still don't understand how people think the probability argument actually means anything. You can use the "well you can't prove [blank] doesn't exist" to justify ANY belief. Its completely worthless, and if you want to devolve into absolutes, you can't claim anything is certain either. WWII might not have happened, hell, we might not even be on Earth! We could all be jacked into the Matrix!
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Azih said:
But you have no authority over what constitutes a good analogy. Believing that Allah exists (on good evidence or on faith, it doesn't matter) is analogous to believing that apples are the most nutritious fruits, but it is not analogous to choosing to eat a Snickers bar.
That's what you tell yourself to pretend that you're a rational person, but in practice your current beliefs are not constrained at all, because you're a religious moderate, and religious moderates always prefer to hold beliefs that can't be contradicted by evidence.
What would you think of someone who believes that there is an invisible and undetectable dragon in his garage, but claims that he'll change his mind if contradictory evidence comes to light? Since no such evidence can ever be discovered, this person's claim to rationality is just so much wind. His beliefs are a bit constrained by the evidence, since he can't believe in a visible, detectable dragon in his garage, but for the most part he can believe whatever suits him. He can believe in an undetectable angel, in an undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, in a undetectable God, almost anything he likes.
Then I was right, you use(d) the word "belief" for unsupported beliefs, and the word "knowledge" for supported beliefs.
My point is that there is no difference between the mental state of someone who believes (has faith in) something, and the mental state of someone who knows (has good evidence for) something. A person who truly believes (on faith) that there is a dragon in my garage and a person who knows (because of evidence) that there is a dragon in my garage will think and act in exactly the same way: If they're not suicidal, they'll refuse to go in my garage.
The only difference between having faith in something and knowing something is, obviously, the origin of these beliefs, the way that the person came to hold these beliefs: The former because of wishful thinking, childhood indoctrination, etc, and the latter because of good evidence and/or good logic. However, once the person has begun believing something, for all practical intents and purposes it doesn't matter how he came to believe it. All that matters is that he believes it; from that point on, he will act as if he knows his belief is true, regardless of whether he really knows it or not.
What if you stick your hand in a fire and it doesn't hurt you? You admit that possibility, don't you? After all, we don't know everything about how the universe works (and even if we did we wouldn't know that we know). Hell, it's even possible that there is a God and that he'll one day intervene to protect your hand from the fire.
In everyday life, what "knowing something" means is "being very, very certain about something". It doesn't mean being 100% certain, because as I've just shown it's not possible to be 100% certain about anything (except your own existence and logical and mathematical truths).
Knowledge/belief isn't binary, it's a continuum. While in everyday life we might say things that imply that "Either you believe something or you don't!", in reality we assign probabilities to every one of our beliefs, to every parcel of what (we think) we know. To say that you know your hand will get burned if you put it in a fire means that you believe there's a very high likelihood that it won't get burned (something like 99.99999999999%).
Likewise, I would say that I have a strong suspicion that my card won't be abused by an online merchant, which would translate to a probability like 65%. There's no faith involved here, unless I delude myself into believing that the likelihood is actually 99.99999999%.
That's true. However...
Not believing that a claim is true and not believing that it's false means exactly that. It means that we aren't dismissive of it and we aren't dismissive of its negation.
a) If I throw a six-sided die in the air, I don't know if it will give an even number or an odd number. I do not believe that it will be even, and I do not believe that it will be odd. I am not dismissive of either claim.
b) If I throw a huge die with ten thousand sides (and I have good reason to think the die isn't tricked), I do know/believe that it won't give the number 7586. I am dismissive of the claim that it will give the number 7586.
The only remaining question is this: Is the claim that there is an undetectable dragon in my garage like (a) the claim that the six-sided die will give an odd number, or is it like (b) the claim that a 10 000-sided die will give 7586?
I'm not going to explain Bayesian inference to you; I'm simply going to ask you to look within your own mind and tell me what your belief/knowledge about the undetectable dragon in my garage really is. If your mental state with regard to a dragon in my garage was like (a), if you believed there's an approximately 50% chance that you'll be eaten alive (let's say the dragon can temporarily materialize itself at will), would you be willing to go into my garage? No, you wouldn't.
That you would be willing to go into my garage shows that you treat this claim like claim (b), not like claim (a). It shows that you are extremely dismissive of the claim that there is a dragon in my garage. To put it in other words, it shows that you believe that there is no dragon in my garage. And since you are logically justified in this belief, it is also knowledge.
Then Carl was either mistaken, or he was lying. A rational person doesn't require evidence to know that there is no theistic god for the same reason that he requires no evidence to know that his hand won't magically turn into a shovel if he puts it in a bucket of salty water at midnight on December 26 2008. At present, neither claims have evidence for or against them, but they are both a priori extremely implausible.
It does contradict it.
In this post I've established the following:
(1) There is no distinction between the mental state of believing something on faith and the mental state of believing something because of evidence. That is, there is a difference with regard to how a person came to hold these beliefs, but once the belief is actually believed, a faith-based belief and an evidence-based belief will influence the person's thinking processes and actions in precisely the same way.
(2) All beliefs, even those that you call knowledge (such as "If I put my hand in a fire it will hurt") are probabilistic in nature.
(3) Being dismissive of a claim is logically equivalent to believing that it is false (with a high certainty percentage).
(4) Acknowledging that there is no evidence for or against a claim doesn't necessarily mean that we should not be dismissive of it. Without anyone having evidence for or against the following claims, we should not be dismissive of the claim that there is a living being in my garage (~50% likelihood), but we should be somewhat skeptical of the claim that there is a black cat in my garage (~2% likelihood), and we should be very dismissive of the claim that there is a dragon in my garage (~0.0000001% likelihood). That the suggested percentages are somewhat subjective evaluations doesn't matter; the important point is that they are true relative to one another (i.e. whatever the likelihood is that there's a dragon in my garage, it is certainly much lower than the likelihood that there is a black cat in there).
To acknowledge, as you do, that there is no evidence for or against a theistic god means that you also acknowledge that the approximate likelihood that the theistic god exists is somewhere between 50% and 0.000...01%.
However, that you believe that a version of the theistic god exists means that the probability that you assign to this god is a lot higher than 50%. If you believe in it strongly enough to waste hours of your life praying to God and wondering if you're doing God's will, it has to be close to 99%.
99% does not equal 50%. That's where the contradiction lies. You strongly believe in something that is very likely to be false.
Azih said:
But from the view-point of other groups in many ways you are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just like other religious groups don't you have a very large and precise list of do's and dont's that you have to adhere to in order to be considered a good Muslim? Even if you're arbitrarily picking and choosing which rules and customs to follow and which to ignore like a lot of religious people seem to do I'm sure there's still bulk shared thought and behaviour which, if you don't mirror, would probably make the others consider you "not proper."
- Status