h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes and no. Having determined that there's no proof of X being true *or* false, we must conclude that its value is presently unknown, lying somewhere on the spectrum between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, or whatever end-points best suit the topic under discussion.

Let's say that another opinion, Y, also lies somewhere along that same spectrum. And let's say that X and Y are not the same opinion; they're not identical. How can we compare X and Y? If you believe X to be true and I believe Y to be true, how can we compare our respective opinions?

BtM's argument is, I think, that the probabilities of X being true and of Y being true are quite different. This is why we should *not* think that "all opinions have equal validity". Fair enough.

And yet those probabilities are difficult if not impossible to quantify. I could say that I think Y is 60% likely to be true, and X 40%. But just as there is no proof or disproof for X and/or Y, there is also no justification for my estimates of probability. So they too are nothing more or less than opinions or guesswork.

The conclusion I'm heading toward is that we can weigh the 'evidence' for X and Y, such as it is, and from that we can make guesses as to which we think is most likely true. We each weigh that evidence differently: something that seems to clinch it for you looks insignificant to me.

Thus, although it is fair to say (in theory) that most opinions are not of equal value, in practice (because of the different value/weight placed by individuals on the evidence) they probably are.



No of course not. But the atheist/theist dispute is not clear-cut as this example is. It's more akin to the accused saying he didn't do it, and the accuser saying he did, with little or no further evidence offered.



Both sides agree on that! Your case is nowhere near as strong as you think. And in fairness, and by reflection, neither is mine, even though it seems solid to me!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think it would be fair to say that the odds of the Judeo-Christian model of god having any validity is approaching 0%. Can you think of a god with any better odds?

And if all the gods are approaching 0%, then the no-gods position is approaching 100%.

<>

You're right, this was a sloppy analogy, but it's not at all like your model. The more correct version would have the prosecution as the theist, and the defense as the atheist. The theist must prove their case beyond *reasonable* doubt. Every time the theist makes an argument, the defense destroys it in cross-examination. In a real courtroom setting, this case wouldn't even make it to trial.

Remember, the theist is making the outlandish claim, and therefore must provide extraordinary evidence to support it. The burden of proof is upon them. It's not up to the defense to prove the negative.

<>

Both sides think their arguments are rigorous, yet one side is making horribly sloppy arguments. I can't do anything about their delusions.

I don't dispute your statement - neither do I accept it! - but I would like to know how you came up with your figure of 0%? The theist position, like the atheist position cannot be disproved. This we all already know. In theory, at least, we can come up with some probabilities, ... but how? Is "0%" just an indication of your own certainty, or do you have any kind of statistical (or other) backing for your assertion?



Why? No-one *must* justify their opinions to someone else. If I was trying to convince you to 'convert' to my beliefs, that would be different. But I'm not. And the same is true in reverse, I assume?

I'm happy to explain and defend my beliefs, if someone wants to know, but that's as far as I go.

At the same time, I am quite prepared to challenge anyone, including myself , who starts asserting some kind of superiority for their own beliefs. ... In the area of religion (or lack of it), that is!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I didn't say the probability *is* 0%, I said it is *approaching* 0%. It's the old saw where you take a step towards the wall that spans half the distance to the wall. After a while you come infinitesimally closer to the wall with each step, but you never quite reach it. Each step in this case is another of the thousands of years gone by since the godhead was introduced in which we have discredited nearly every argument, and the arguments in favor have become gradually weaker.

<>

I disagree. If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, then why should you be permitted to believe them? Justifying them and arguing them is how we separate the potentially valid theories from the dangerous nonsense.

If, for instance, you cannot justify your belief in a particular god, then you have no right to use that god to justify spending my tax dollars and sending my family members to go kill the followers of another insupportable god.

Fair enough. I'll rephrase myself: have you any back-up for your opinion that the theist belief (let's keep it very general, OK?) has a probability of correctness that approaches 0%, or does this number just reflect the strength of your subjective opinion/belief?



Because any human social grouping that tries to enforce belief, or the lack of it, or to control what may or may not be thought or believed, is bound for self-destruction. The diversity of human belief(s) is a fundamental characteristic of our species. From day one, as far as we know. If you can't tolerate the beliefs of others then you aren't fit (I use the word without prejudice) to live with other humans.

My motto (in this context) is that we should and must tolerate (but not necessarily accept!) everyone, and their beliefs, saving only one position: intolerance. This must, for the sake of successful communal (i.e. social) living, be opposed by any and all means necessary. I think this is a more forceful statement of the ethos of the FFFF too ... to which you no longer subscribe, BtM?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"The conclusion I'm heading toward is that we can weigh the 'evidence' for X and Y, such as it is, and from that we can make guesses as to which we think is most likely true. We each weigh that evidence differently: something that seems to clinch it for you looks insignificant to me."

Isn't this 'something' exactly the heart of the matter? The evidence is the same, but something other than the evidence is at work here; something that 'tips the scale'..

In most jurisdictions, and certainly in science, the burden of proof rests firmly on those who make the assertions.
If someone says, "There is an omnipotent/omniscient personal super-being who stands apart from causality." I say, "Prove it."
I am not required to attempt proof of non-existence, although in this particular example it is fairly simple to prove that such a being as described is not possible.
But I digress

If the evidence presented is unchanged, what is/are the deciding factor(s)?

Religion is, to some extent, the introduction of the extraneous, in an attempt to explain the 'real world'.

Science is, to a degree, the elimination of the irrelevant, in order to understand the 'real world'.

Example: There is an intricate pattern of flattened wheat in a field.
The pattern is unlikely to have naturally occurred.
Is this evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence?
Is this evidence that a host of fairies flap their wings in strange rituals to enchant and puzzle humans?
Are trans-dimensional beings sending us 'signs', trying to warn us about how gullible we are?
Did a couple of college geometry students make puckishly creative use of boards and rope?
Can you say, 'Ockham's razor'?

Extra-ordinary claims not only demand extra-ordinary proof, they also require the abeyance of pre-conceptions.
In other words, weighing the evidence must be done with as little regard for extraneous/irrelevant information as possible.

For the sake of the argument (?), and, assuming that the 'mind world' is, of course, different for each individual, can we say that the theist pretty much experiences the same 'real world' as the atheist?
A falling rock will injure theist and atheist alike..

Prior to the age of science, 'holy scripture' attempted to explain the 'real world', in terms that seemed to make sense at that time.
Science has eroded much of what was formerly 'gospel', and is now lapping against the dwindling dogmatic shores of the various religious assertions regarding who and what constitutes humanity itself.

'Real world' evidence is what science is all about.
Opinion and belief is undeniably a powerful factor influencing our perception, and thus affecting the 'real world', but intolerant opinion and dogmatic belief which attempts to distort what is real is foolish at best, and lethal at worst.

While we can, and do, tolerate the foolishness; the lethal aspects must, as you say, be opposed by any and all means.

The one difficulty remains: How can we distinguish the lethal from the merely amusingly silly?

P-c, I can tell you why the probability IS 0%.

I define God 1 to be the Judeo-Christian God. I define God 2 to be like God 1 except he insists on the commandment "Thou shalt revere the number 2!". God 3 insists that we revere the number 3, and so on. Since there is no evidence in favour of any of these Gods, the probability of them existing is equal, and since they all insist they are the only God they are mutually exclusive. Hence the equal probability of any of them existing is 1/Infinity=0.

The point? Probability cannot be applied here. I'm sure we've had this conversation before.

:

That was the point I was hoping to unmask by asking BtM the question "How do you justify the probability figure you quote?".

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

Maybe it's time to re-examine your preconceptions of the FFFF ethos:

"'The foolish believeth every word.' Proverbs 14:15"

"To provide a way to connect researchers to like-minded individuals who have had enough of dogmatic, prostelytizing, scripture-thumping, faith-mongering zealots, of any stripe."

"The Freedom From Faith Foundation is proud to be the single largest collection of rejected articles anywhere in H2G2. The official Guide is after balance, but in this area of scholarship, "balance" is just as silly as giving equal time to Creation dogma in science classes... Creationism is no more a product of science than religion is a form of scholarship."

The pattern here appears to be an intolerance of dangerously foolish ideas. The only bit I can find which comes close to addressing tolerance is the motto, "Be excellent to each other," which doesn't so much speak to tolerance as it does to politeness. Tolerance is a condition in which all opinions and beliefs are granted equal validity, which contradicts this forum's reason for being.

<>

Actually, that's pretty much the same thing I said. Our only disagreement would be that I don't think we've examined the question in an infinite number of ways about an infinite number of gods over an infinite number of years... therefore, we have not reached 1/infinity. We are approaching zero, but will never reach it.

Not to me it ain't. To respect all opinions and beliefs, yes. [That's respect for the individual that holds those beliefs, not necessarily for the beliefs themselves.] This is little more than politeness, and one can reasonably expect respect for one's own opinions in return.

But to grant all opinions and beliefs equal validity? No, I'm , that's unjustified. The farthest one might expect tolerance to stretch is that the holder of those opinions is given a hearing, a platform from which to explain their beliefs.

BtM:

Have I missed something? Is this a troll, or a wind-up that I've fallen for?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Comparing my statement:

"If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, then why should you be permitted to believe them?"

With yours:

"The farthest one might expect tolerance to stretch is that the holder of those opinions is given a hearing, a platform from which to explain their beliefs."

I'm left wondering where the disagreement is.

Butting in here... PC is defending the possibility of God by arguing that we really don't know very much about anything. Skepticism verging on solipsism.

Now skepticism is fine. Unassailable even. But you should be consistent. Skepticism is not a tool for rejecting evidence in order to hold beliefs that are not supported by evidence. That is cheating. Unsupported beliefs must be rejected first, or at least at the same time.

OK, but if we are allowed inconsistency, a double standard, hypocrisy if you like, can we say that we know very little about anything, therefore there might be a God. Well no, not with any meaning. Are there things that exist, that I know nothing about? Certainly. But I cannot even refer to them, without knowing something about them. So to say that, on the basis of ignorance, there may be a God that I know nothing about, has no more meaning than to say there may be a floptwiddle that I know nothing about, and use of the word God is there just to confuse and push people's buttons.

I'm talking about tolerance, while you appear to be wallowing in thoughtcrime, intellectual eugenics and maybe 'spiritual cleansing', and you can't see a difference between us?

Being "permitted" to believe something leaves me cold. This is *the* fundamental human right. Society constrains our actions, with good reason, but our thoughts are inviolate.

Since "permission" is required, who do you think might give it? I assume it will have to be an atheist, even though they comprise such a tiny minority, and are so out of step with the beliefs of the vast majority of human beings?

If you can be this strident now, I thank God that it is we and not you who form the majority.

I'm surprised to find such a huge gulf between us, and frightened that you can't see it. Please tell me I have misunderstood what you meant....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC is actually attacking atheism, not for itself, but because it is being portrayed as something which is justified and well-founded, when I believe it is (roughly speaking) as weakly founded as any religion. Pragmatism verging on realism.



That would only make sense if there is such a thing as a supported belief, wouldn't it? And who would be the judge of whether something is 'supported' or not? Let me guess....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

Great use of 'roughly speaking'.

Isn't it a little odd to attack something because of the way it is portrayed?

I would agree that foundationalism is philosophically problematic. As far as I can see this causes rather more difficulty for theism than for atheism, as God is generally taken to be a kind of foundation.


<>

This is changing the subject and is typical of your style. We are discussing whether something is supported or not. And you immediately intepret this as an appeal to authority and reject that appeal. It gets you out of addressing the issue.

I mean only to avoid stating that theism and atheism are identically 'supported'.



I'm trying not to say "my belief is somehow 'better' than yours", which is not what I mean at all. What I'm saying is that atheism is no better founded (roughly speaking! ) than theism.

P-C: <>



It is? My point is that the *weighing* of evidence, as opposed to the evidence itself, is subjective, in practice if not in theory. I was anticipating a possible objection to what I'm saying, perhaps prematurely?



And what, pray, is the issue I'm avoiding?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC, do you want to explain what you mean by well-founded? Perhaps I misunderstood you, or I took for granted, that we understand that foundationalism as an epistemological principle does not work. That is, well-foundedness is not a useful justification for belief.

If this point is unclear, by all means say. It is worth going into in a little more detail, or you can look up foundationalism.

So, trivially, nothing is well-founded because foundationalism doesn't work. If that is all you mean when you say that atheism is not well-founded, then I can't see that you mean anything at all. If you mean something a little less philosophically robust by 'well-founded', can you be a bit clearer about it?

You also talk of justification. Do you mean that atheism should be justified foundationally, but isn't, and other beliefs can be justified in other ways? Or what?



<>

You are using 'subjective' as a defence. It is subjective therefore I don't have to justify, it is just how I feel about it. It is a joker you can play to avoid an argument. Why not argue your point anyway, subjective or not?

Not especially, but I will. By well-founded, I mean that there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion reached, even if that evidence is not *conclusive* (which evidence very rarely is ). I'm if you read more into it than that.



By which I mean roughly the same as 'well-founded', OK?



I'm not being evasive, I'm being pragmatic. For example, we each weigh 'evidence' according to our beliefs, etc. And we all do it somewhat differently. It would silly to try to pretend that this isn't so, yes? If I find a given piece of evidence convincing, but you don't, then our discussion founders, doesn't it? [Although it might take us days and a lot of shouting to discover what's happened. ]

I would be glad to argue my point(s), but my justification is entirely subjective, and would not prove convincing to anyone who didn't already agree with me, I fear. This is the nature of the discussion, when we're considering something (God) whose very existence can be neither proved nor disproved.

If you have a better way of doing this, I'm all ears...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi BtM et al

Sorry for not posting for a while but life has been throwing me a series of highly unpleasant curved balls. Anyway onto the matter at hand...

"I disagree. If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, then why should you be permitted to believe them? Justifying them and arguing them is how we separate the potentially valid theories from the dangerous nonsense."

I just love it when you are full blather me old mate . How in Hades are you going to stop me believing them? All attempts at re-educating societies into a state of atheism have failed miserably. In order to achieve it requires the state to take such extreme measures that it drives people into the arms of the theists in droves.

Simply ignoring and belittling the beliefs hasn't worked either. So it looks like you are stumped.

Anyway how can you justify ALL irrational belief systems as "dangerous nonsense". Don't waste the audience's time trotting out example after example, both you and I have done that before - result? Stalemate.

"If, for instance, you cannot justify your belief in a particular god, then you have no right to use that god to justify spending my tax dollars and sending my family members to go kill the followers of another insupportable god."

I agree. No-one should be allowed to use their beleief in a God as justification for War. Nor should they be allowed to use their personal greed and ambition to take us to war either.

Iraq, Afghanistan, the 'War on Terror', have nothing to do with religion and you know it. These are wars about dominating diminishing resources. They are about holding onto to power by continuing to feed your electorate with bread and circuses. But bread and circuses cost money so that Caeser must conquer more and more territory to feed the Mob. The circuses must get more extreme to hold its attention (the rise of reality TV?).

Strangely, when the powerful back the poor into a corner they come out fighting and they will use any excuse to motivate their troops. I hear the death knell of the New Roman Empire, I fear that there will be insufficient blood though to drown it.

Meanwhile I will hold onto my dangerous nonsense and teach it to my children. I will teach them about Honour (honesty, humility and hospitality), and Duty (awareness, responsibility and courage), and Love (acceptance, compassion and trust). Most of all I shall teach them hope, something I see precious little of in your philosophy, for to hope is to be human.

Bright blessings Tribune,
Matholwch /|\

Welcome back, Math!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"