John Page

But brent, your system that you "just happen to believe" that comprises "faith in god explains reality...." is internally inconsistent.

If you were of the "true" faith, you wouldn't just happen to believe things. Can you tell me why faith in god makes your epistemological crisis less serious than mine?

Cheers, John

Clutch

Brent1,

Contrary to what you say:

1) Very few of one's beliefs count as assumptions; and even these are typically only assumptions relative to some limited range of inferences. (Eg, "You don't say whether your car is an automatic or a standard, so I'll assume it's an automatic and suggest a fix based on that.")

2) You have nowhere argued, nor given even vague reasons to believe, that I am "of faith".

Tom Sawyer

brent1,

While this is a good point, it doesn't quite sum up how the scientific method works. That method is based on experimental data that remains consistent regardless of what paradigm it is viewed through.

A viewer who's paradigm includes the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old is as free as anyone else to view telescope imagery of things billions of light-years away, which are therefore billions of years old. He is as free as anyone else to do the math and check for observer bias to ensure that the results he is seeing are valid and the universe is actually billions of years old. Anyone else can do the same thing and arrive at the same result. The fact that the results can be replicated by anyone, regardless of what preconditions they bring into the equation, is one of the hallmarks of proper science. A muslim, a buddhist, a christian and an atheist can all look at the data and the math works out the same for them.

As regards God, one needs to be in a paradigm where God exists in order to see Him there. I've looked for Him and found that He's not there to be found. Everything that can be attributed to Him can also be attributed to naturalistic processes that don't need Him and applying Occam's Razor to the situation leads me to conclude that there isn't any kind of all-powerful guy pulling the strings behind the scenes. He isn't necessary and there's no evidence that He's there.

Yes, most people here do look at the universe through a naturalistic paradigm. The reason for that, however, is that it's the one that gives the best explanatory power to what can be observed. If you have any evidence that the God paradigm gives better explanatory power, tell me what that is. "Faith" is all well and good in philosophical discussions, but it adds nothing to a scientific explanation of how things work.

Interesting Ian

I cannot imagine that this is convincing to any intelligent theist. The word "explain" is being used in 2 distinctive senses for a start. A scientific explanation amounts to no more than a description of the world via certain theories. It doesn't explain why physical laws exist as they do, why the world is as it is, why we exist, why there is a Universe at all, or anything of that nature.

You shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.

We need some cogent and persausive reasons why a rational person should embrace the hypothesis there is no God. Quite frankly I just simply do not believe that any such reasons exist.

Interesting Ian

Thge big bang theory most certainly does not explain the Universe. Science in principle cannot explain the Universe. Saying God did it is not an explanation either.

Science only explains how humans arose given the existing physical laws of nature. It doesn't explain why physical laws are as they are. It doesn't explain why consciousness is associated with brain processes etc.

Interesting Ian

You haven't given any theory.

Interesting Ian

As indeed can be claimed for all minds, not just God's. All human behavior can be attributed to naturalistic processes. We have no reason to infer any minds or consciousness to be associated with brains anymore than we need to infer some sort of "metamind" or "God" with the physical processes in the Universe as a whole.

John Page

1. The divisons between science and philosophy are man-made and both concern human understanding.
2. Rational? God? Ha! God is a concept and our sense of god comes more likely from within our own minds than some "he's everywhere but you can't see him" or other explanation developed by our ancestors.

The concept of god has been and is important in providing a focus for moral behavior and a sense of the commonweal beyond the lifetime of mortal kings. We now have ethics lawyers and democracy.

Cheers, John

Sun Dog

(Note: This message is my first post, and therefore doubles as a test message. Please let me know immediately if you don't see this message. )

I'm a little confused by this statement. I don't see why one should abandon paradigm A and adopt paradigm B just because paradigm B can explain why paradigm A exists. In fact, it seems to me that this idea, which I'll call "Brent's Rule", has several problems.
[list=1][*] If followed consistently, Brent's Rule could lead one to adopt an inconsistent (ie. self-contradictory) paradigm. Suppose paradigm B can explain paradigm A, while paradigm A has no explanation for paradigm B. But suppose that paradigm B is self-contradictory, while A is not. If we follow Brent's Rule, we'll end up abandoning an internally consistent paradigm for one that contradicts itself-- not a good thing.
[*] Similarly, Brent's Rule could lead us to abandon paradigms that are grounded in reality in exchange for psychotic or solipsistic paradigms. Suppose again that B explains A, while A does not explain B. Now suppose that A posits that grass looks green, while B posits that grass looks purple with orange polka dots. (To keep things simple, we'll assume healthy grass in the summer, viewed under a clear sky at midday by people whose vision is not impaired in any way. ) Clearly, A is better than B-- yet Brent's Rule would have us choose B over A.
[*] Suppose paradigm C also explains the existence of paradigm A, but that C and B are mutually incompatible. Which one do I choose? Brent's Rule doesn't say. Should I choose B or C? Or maybe just stick with A? How do I choose, and by what criteria?
[*] Suppose B can explain A, but A can also explain B. Now what do we do?[/list=1]

In light of these problems, it's clear that adopting Brent's Rule would cause all kinds of problems. Still, it would be nice if we could somehow compare two paradigms to determine which (if either) of them is the better one. And I can think of at least one possible way to do this, which I'll illustrate below.

Sometimes, two paradigms will have beliefs in common. Both Christianity and Islam, for instance, believe in the existence of a god. Both science and astrology agree that planets move through space. Creationists and "evolutionists" both agree that random mutations occur. And so forth. With that in mind, let's consider paradigms A and B again. Suppose we let X represent the beliefs which A and B both have in common. For example, if A is Christianity and B is Islam, then X would contain statements like "There is a god", "miracles can occur", "Larry Flynt is going to hell", and so on.

The first thing we can do is examine both A and B, to see if either of these paradigms contradict with one or more statements in X. Suppose that scrutiny reveals that B contradicts one of the statements in X, while A does not. In this case, we now have a clear winner-- A is better than B. The reverse is also true-- if A contradicts X while B does not, then B is better than A. And if both A and B contradict X, we should probably chuck them both out of the window and start looking for a completely new paradigm.

Of course, it's possible that at first, neither A nor B will appear to be in conflict with X. What to do then? In this case, I propose we try to "grow" the paradigms, to see which one (if either) can expand without coming into contradiction with X, and therefore with itself. There are at least two ways one might do this.

The first is to take existing beliefs within each paradigm and "combine" them to find new beliefs that the paradigm implicitly holds. For example, if paradigm A has the beliefs "matches can light fires" and "wood is flammable", then you could combine these two to produce a new belief: "matches can be used to set wood on fire". And if it turns out that X contains the statement "matches cannot be used to set wood on fire", then we know that A contradicts itself and thus B is to be preferred. (Unless B itself turns out to have contradictions, of course.)

The second way to grow the paradigms is to go out looking for new facts about the world. Now this isn't as easy as it sounds, because the "fact-finding" method has to be agreed on by both A and B. For example, suppose two scientists disagree on the dating of an ancient shard of pottery. Since both scientists share the same beliefs about the reliability of carbon dating, they could settle the issue simply by using a standard carbon dating procedure. But if the disagreement was between a scientist and a young-earth creationist, it would become more involved, because young-earth creationists do not accept the validity of carbon dating. In this case, some other procedure would have to be used. (Either that, or the scientist would have to persuade the creationist to accept carbon dating-- in which case we now have a "nested" disagreement. ) So for this to work, there has to be some agreed-upon means to go about finding new facts. This can be difficult if the two paradigms are radically different, but in practice, I think most conflicting paradigms (and certainly the types of paradigms usually discussed here) could agree upon a fact-finding methodology.

Once this methodology is agreed upon, the two people holding the opposing paradigms go out and look for new facts about the world, adding these new facts to their paradigms as they go. If a fact is uncovered that contradicts one of the paradigms, but not the other, then we again have a clear winner. For example, suppose paradigm A states that "no mammal ever lays eggs", while paradigm B states that "some mammals can lay eggs". Now suppose our hypothetical researchers stumble over a platypus in the process of laying eggs. This act of discovery would add a new fact to both paradigms-- "There exists a mammal that lays eggs". And since this fact contradicts A and not B, B emerges as the superior paradigm.

We see from all of this that paradigms can be compared, but not by using Brent's Rule-- indeed, Brent's Rule will lead us astray more often than not. Instead, paradigms should be compared by finding a set of beliefs common to both paradigms, and then comparing the paradigms (and possibly "growing" them in the process) to see which one is more consistent with that common set.

So brent1, what does your paradigm make of the above ideas?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If one is rational (whether one is a scientist or philosopher) one will not accept arbitrary claims (claims unsupported by evidence).

There are numerous claims for 'God' (and for other supernatural/mystical claims) but I have yet to observe any independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence which leads only to the conclusion that 'God' exists.

Until I observe such evidence, as a rational person, I have--literally--no reason to believe any claims that 'God' exists, nor any other supernatural/mystical claims.

From a logical perspective, the atheist does not say 'there is no God', she only says 'there is no valid evidence for 'God', thus it is not rational for me to believe, so I don't'.

(Now, I believe there is empircal evidence that contradicts supernatural/mystical claims, but that is a different issue...)

Keith.